• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Obama Didn't Want Kamala Harris as the Nominee and Argued for an Open Convention

ahhell said:
Yes, that. Biden screwed the party, the US, and the world. Granted, the GOP nominated trump so, yes they are worse but that doesn't exonerate Biden.
Click to expand...
Look they should have been able to make the skeleton of FDR the candidate, take a three month vacation up to election day and still have won. You can't shift the blame from the willful ignorance and stupidity of the US electorate who decided either that Donald Trump was fit to hold office or that Harris just wasn't exciting enough and stayed home.
 
theprestige said:
Getting Trump elected seems more than slightly ineffectual.
Click to expand...

This "Blame Democrats for Trump" schtick is as lame as it is counterfactual, especially coming from a Trump voter. Republicans had far more opportunities and power over the last decade to stop Trump and failed or chose not to over and over again. Like the people who recognized how terrible he was and voted for him anyway. Sound familiar?
 
johnny karate said:
This "Blame Democrats for Trump" schtick is as lame as it is counterfactual, especially coming from a Trump voter. Republicans had far more opportunities and power over the last decade to stop Trump and failed or chose not to over and over again. Like the people who recognized how terrible he was and voted for him anyway. Sound familiar?
Click to expand...

It's the standard, "Why do you make me hit you?" rebuttal.
 
johnny karate said:
This "Blame Democrats for Trump" schtick is as lame as it is counterfactual, especially coming from a Trump voter. Republicans had far more opportunities and power over the last decade to stop Trump and failed or chose not to over and over again. Like the people who recognized how terrible he was and voted for him anyway. Sound familiar?
Click to expand...
I'm not blaming Democrats for Trump. That would be calling them effectual. I think we can agree the Democrats were more than slightly ineffectual on this.
 
Darat said:
And?
Click to expand...

Of course. Nothing to see here, right? The most successful Democratic presidential candidate in this century (and arguably since LBJ) didn't think Harris was a good candidate and wanted an open convention, and your response is "And?"? Funny, because during the campaign you guys swore up and down that Kamala was a "great candidate," a "superb candidate," etc., and that Walz was a "solid choice" for VP! And you guys scoffed at anyone who said otherwise and summarily dismissed the idea that the Dems should have at least had an open convention. Remember?

But, now, we find out that Obama could see that Kamala was a weak candidate and that the Dems needed to have an open convention. And we know that Obama was not the only leading Democrat saying these things. But cooler, more rational heads did not carry the day and Kamala got the nomination.

That's the "And" for you.
 
Last edited:
mikegriffith1 said:
Of course. Nothing to see here, right? The most successful Democratic presidential candidate in this century (and arguably since LBJ) didn't think Harris was a good candidate and wanted an open convention, and your response is "And?"? Funny, because during the campaign you guys swore up and down that Kamala was a "great candidate," a "superb candidate," etc., and that Walz was a "solid choice" for VP! And you guys scoffed at anyone who said otherwise and summarily dismissed the idea that the Dems should have at least had an open convention. Remember?

But, now, we find out that Obama could see that Kamala was a weak candidate and that the Dems needed to have an open convention. And we know that Obama was not the only leading Democrat saying these things. But cooler, more rational heads did not carry the day and Kamala got the nomination.

That's the "And" for you.
Click to expand...

And that's why millions of people voted to tank the economy and bring back infectious diseases that we'd already eradicated. Makes perfect sense. No notes.
 
ahhell said:
The obvious answer to that, which I'm sure you've heard, is that if they'd had a competitive primary we would have found out.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I couldn't think of anybody else, either. There were a couple that I would have liked to get the job years ago but I feel are too old now. Pity that wasn't a barrier of consideration for more voters!
 
The idea that there was some magically perfect Democratic candidate out there and if only that person had run everything would be fine now is laughably stupid. Trump stood on stage at a presidential debate and said to the whole world "They're eating the pets" and millions of people still voted for him. This was never about candidate quality.
 
johnny karate said:
You literally said they got Trump elected.
Click to expand...
Show me the post where I literally said that.

You can't, because I didn't say that. And I certainly didn't mean it. What I meant was, the Democrats were too ineffectual to prevent it. Which, given the enormity of what they failed to prevent, adds up to a lot more than "slightly" ineffectual in my book. "Colossally irrelevant" would be another way of putting it.

This claim has been belabored in the "what Democrats did wrong" thread. The consensus there seems to be that the Democrats were utterly powerless to change the outcome of the election. Now you're balking at me making the same characterization here?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Show me the post where I literally said that.

You can't, because I didn't say that. And I certainly didn't mean it. What I meant was, the Democrats were too ineffectual to prevent it. Which, given the enormity of what they failed to prevent, adds up to a lot more than "slightly" ineffectual in my book. "Colossally irrelevant" would be another way of putting it.
Click to expand...

Here you go:
theprestige said:
Getting Trump elected seems more than slightly ineffectual.
Click to expand...

Backpedal away from it now, but you very clearly said it.

And as far as being too ineffectual to stop Trump, Republicans absolutely win first prize. Just because they now hide their ineffectiveness with capitulation and obsequiousness doesn't change that.
 
Last edited:
mikegriffith1 said:
Of course. Nothing to see here, right? The most successful Democratic presidential candidate in this century (and arguably since LBJ) didn't think Harris was a good candidate and wanted an open convention, and your response is "And?"? Funny, because during the campaign you guys swore up and down that Kamala was a "great candidate," a "superb candidate," etc., and that Walz was a "solid choice" for VP! And you guys scoffed at anyone who said otherwise and summarily dismissed the idea that the Dems should have at least had an open convention. Remember?

But, now, we find out that Obama could see that Kamala was a weak candidate and that the Dems needed to have an open convention. And we know that Obama was not the only leading Democrat saying these things. But cooler, more rational heads did not carry the day and Kamala got the nomination.

That's the "And" for you.
Click to expand...
So what. None of them got elected as president. So this is all useless speculation, especially considering your guy is now in the process of actually crashing the US economy. That would seem to be a far worse outcome and a MUCH bigger problem than whatever Obama and Biden and Harris did or did not do prior to November last year. And you do know that none of them would not be tanking the USA right now, so any of them would have been a better choice than Trump.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
Of course. Nothing to see here, right? The most successful Democratic presidential candidate in this century (and arguably since LBJ) didn't think Harris was a good candidate and wanted an open convention, and your response is "And?"? Funny, because during the campaign you guys swore up and down that Kamala was a "great candidate," a "superb candidate," etc., and that Walz was a "solid choice" for VP! And you guys scoffed at anyone who said otherwise and summarily dismissed the idea that the Dems should have at least had an open convention. Remember?

But, now, we find out that Obama could see that Kamala was a weak candidate and that the Dems needed to have an open convention. And we know that Obama was not the only leading Democrat saying these things. But cooler, more rational heads did not carry the day and Kamala got the nomination.

That's the "And" for you.
Click to expand...
You seem to be replying to "some guys" rather than to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom