Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 14, 2020

Why Has Joe Biden Chosen Kamala Harris?

Can anyone explain to me why Joe Biden selected Kamala Harris as running mate?

I find nothing that makes her an attractive candidate:

  • We just had a summer during which Democrats applauded to Black Live Matters and cheered anti-police riots. Harris has the well deserved (vid) reputation of being a hard line prosecutor and is unlikely to be sympathetic to the issue. Stocks of private prison companies went up when Harris was confirmed as vice president candidate.
  • Harris comes from California. She will not attract critical swing state voters.
  • Her campaign during the primaries was chaotic. She polled at some 2%, about the worst number of all candidates.
  • She has little governing and zero foreign policy experience. As Joe Biden has obviously (vid) mental problems a more experienced potential replacement would have been more assuring.
  • Kamala means "horrible, terrible" in Finnish.

In my view the choice of Harris as VP candidate increases the already high chance that Biden will lose the presidential election.

So what was the real reason for this choice?


bigger

The Wall Street Journal headline hints to a potential answer but my hunch is that there is more to it.

Posted by b on August 14, 2020 at 17:10 UTC | Permalink

Comments
« previous page

@GreatSocialist #183
I can't say I am convinced by your analysis.
AG or not - how can Kamala both be a savior to the black and asians and also be so well known for having jailed (and kept in jail) the supposed downtrodden that she ethnically represents?
You can't be opposite ends at the same time, particularly with Trump and his attack dogs pouncing on every opportunity.
Nor is her "attack dog" capability at all impressive. I've previously noted in this thread that she conspicuously failed to make points in both the Barr and Kavanaugh hearing as a sitting CA senator; she was equally unconvincing and weak when faced with Democrat debaters like Tulsi Gabbard.
In the former, it was all one way: she could do whatever she wanted again individuals openly hated by the Democrats - but failed.
In the latter, the Democrat debates are heated but are nothing compared to what Trump and co will bring to the table.
The only parts which I agree with - and which I also noted earlier - are the personal relationship with the Biden family part, and that she is basically a political loser - she can win CA senator just by virtue of being a Democrat in that state, but that is not the same thing as being a skilled politician.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 15 2020 18:34 utc | 201

@ c1ue | Aug 15 2020 18:26 utc | 199... i agree with all that you articulate... perhaps i didn't communicate myself well enough their!

Posted by: james | Aug 15 2020 18:42 utc | 202

@200 Caesar

Lol. I doubt Washington will flip, but I see Oregon as a real possibility.

People around here, in Portland, did not and do not like the youth rage-riots/looting.

Outside of Portland, the vote will go almost exclusively to DJT. I have spoken to some aquaintances who confide (yes, we still have to whisper our support for DJT) that this will be the first election they have ever voted Republican. So, whisper it with me then: (DJT for prez).

I am thinking of taking your bet, but the wild-card is my state's mail-in vote option which is ripe for tampering.

I will get back to you on it.

Posted by: Nemesiscalling | Aug 15 2020 18:43 utc | 203

vk@171 keeps asserting facts unsupported by evidence. For instance, there is no evidence the mafia controlled Kennedy in a way that gave Johnson any extra motive for assassinating Kennedy. Johnson's only motive was sitting in the chair himself, not keeping mafia cooties out of the oval office. Secretly leaking evidence of mafia control of Kennedy would have served Johnson (and Hoover too) better than a risky plot. You can write about Oswald's mafia connections, but the number one connection was Jack Ruby, which is not an argument the mafia was running Oswald. Why the mafia would want to murder Oswald is amazing unclear in this scenario, by the way.

There is a ploy by the tabloids, in which they confide to millions the secret news that a celebrity couple is on the verge of divorce...then when they don't, they announce the secret reconciliation. The second invasion of Cuba is in the same category. But if by some miracle it were a fact known to Castro, it reduces the Kennedy's assassination to justifiable homicide, doesn't it? The thing there is, why would Johnson put himself at risk to save Castro?

And the logic is dubious too. If a second invasion were coming, why would the CIA want to stop it, given it would be payback for its miserable failure at the Bay of Pigs? Even more dubiously, no theory of CIA complicity in Kennedy's assassination requires CIA omnipotence. (Really, the Garrison imbroglio showed no CIA competence at all.) And there's no need for anybody's complicity in Oswald's assassination beyond a promise from someone to Rudy (presumably a top mafia figure) and a loose lip and a blind eye at Dallas PD. Criminal gangs and police have long-standing relationships in general. No FBI or CIA agents need to be involved at all.

And frankly, the whole rigmarole blindly assumes that Oswald wouldn't be pressured in a show trial to give the testimony desired. And none of these theories ever explains why J.D. Tippett was killed, so far as I know.

All this conspiracy mongering is about an imaginary loss of innocence in the American republic. Given the shade cast on the death of Zachary Taylor---a bowl of cherries?---any delusions about that should have been cured long ago. A sitting vice president openly murdered perhaps the most eminent opposition leader and got away with it back at the very beginning. Kennedy conspiracy is a kind of political denialism.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Aug 15 2020 19:12 utc | 204

vk | Aug 15 2020 18:00 utc | 192 There's nothing mysterious about the Kennedy hit. Keep it simple. As Bush 41 said at Ford's wake, it was "a correction". He said that with a grin and a nod. That used to be on FB, alas...evaporated.

Posted by: Walter | Aug 15 2020 19:14 utc | 205

1. It proves that Democrats don’t care about the legitimate grievances of black voters. Kamala Harris has a particularly sordid history of indifference to causes important to blacks. The institutional Democratic Party is using BLM as a means to unseat President Trump and the Republicans in the fall. If they succeed, no one will hear a peep about BLM or it’s grievances in a future Biden administration.
2&3. Kamala Harris has no natural political constituency. As the presidential primary proves, she is unable to attract voters in numbers that matter. Tulsi Gabbard easily destroyed her candidacy by merely pointing out her flawed record as a California prosecutor.

This leads to some pretty nefarious conclusions.
1. Kamala Harris is the choice of the party leadership and its cadre of donors, the only constituency that counts.
2. The party leadership and its donor support expects Joe Biden to be president in name only. With his diminished capacity, he will not be able to minister to his duties competently. This will give VP Harris outsized influence in a Biden administration, and rest assured, she will do what her sponsors want, not what is best for the US population.

Posted by: Greg T | Aug 15 2020 19:23 utc | 206

@vk. If only you knew more about it.

Posted by: Walter | Aug 15 2020 19:29 utc | 207

@206 GregT

That type of woman is the best vessel for TPTB to enact their will.

Why?

Because, like Hillary, their entire identity is wrapped up in their imitating a man, or what they consider a man to be, which is itself a poor reproduction. Only in the safety and security of a loving marriage does man ever drop their guard and reveal their authentic mettle.

But for this to happen, the man must be greeted similarily by an authentic woman figure in his marriage. Thus, the true power of woman is only gathered through the recognition of well-worn channels and traditional roles that harbor a deep and wise truth.

It is absolutely ripe for catastrophe that a woman of power would have to imitate a man knowing only the sociopathic side of which the woman is privy to in the outside world. Misunderstandings abound and other world leaders, like Putin, would likely misinterpret diplomatic messaging and bring about a cataclysmic reckoning.

God help us.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Aug 15 2020 19:34 utc | 208

You know it occurs to me that Joe Biden has a wife, and she is no shrinking violet herself. I would not assume that Kamala is going to be running anything while Joe is still officially President. It would not be the first time.

Posted by: Bemildred | Aug 15 2020 19:37 utc | 209

Maybe Trump has finally agreed to go after Iran (we’ll see if the interception of the Iranian ships bound for Venezuela develops into something). Or the economy is so screwed that the Democrats don’t want to win.

Israel’s interests are safeguarded regardless who wins.

Posted by: Kevin | Aug 15 2020 19:39 utc | 210

Huh Harris is supposed to be Tamil? She doesn't look the least bit Tamil and I've seen plenty both in Asia and Europe (which is where many Tamil Tigers ended up and thrived). With the obvious exception for some Indians Tamils are generally very easy to get along with and like for just about anyone.

She doesn't look black or "black" either and certainly not at all African. Just the other day as I was walking out of the grocery store a stunningly beautiful and happy young black woman ran past me smiling brilliantly like they often do and made me smile too because that level of happiness is infectious in the best possible meaning of the word :) Skin as black as the blackest ink (blacker than Grace Jones!) but she was most likely not at all from Africa but born here.

In both cases it's not even about the skin color being far too pasty grey but about facial features. Unlike Tamils in the case of Africa there are a lot of different ones to choose from (Africa is big!) but she manages to avoid them all (as well as the typically Tamil ones).

No, what Harris looks like is Biden, and "looks" is the least of it. Harris comes from the same factory as Biden and god only knows what nastiness they do to their brains there but it's nothing good for sure.

If anything I would think someone like Harris would repulse both Africans and Indians and Americans in general. The only ones I would think wouldn't be instinctively repulsed are people like Biden, Clinton, Obama and their opposing "peers" (if they were told she was "Republican").

I still hope there won't be any election and no "US as we know it" either as people there realize they locally have to work out their problems in sensible ways, and then we can all enjoy winter with optimism for the future.

50-50 chance of that happening? Maybe I should try writing to Santa XD

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Aug 15 2020 20:04 utc | 211

vk @ 171:

"Kennedy's death ended any prospects for a second invasion of Cuba."

Please. You need to do some research on the Bay of Pigs fiasco and how that came about.

President Kennedy publicly acknowledged that had been a huge mistake. He bitterly regretted being talked into that operation. He would never have launched a second attempt.

I don't see Johnson at all in the light you have presented him. He and Kennedy were not close, but Johnson even went through with the 'war on Poverty' which was what Kennedy had hoped to accomplish in his second term. Then Johnson made the mistake of listening to the warmongers, and that program fell by the wayside. Guns and butter do not mix. And Vietnam was truly horrendous, not only for what it did to that country and its people, but what it did to the US. Kennedy would never have caused such suffering, never. And Bay of Pigs proves that.

Posted by: juliania | Aug 15 2020 20:13 utc | 212

186#

I think that the host of even your most serious blog does not need authorisation if he wants to bring a humourous note on his own pages.

Kamala are three syllables that in many languages have a meaning,in arabic it could mean something like "fullness" "perfection" "totalness",and in many other languages you'll find other meanings.What's in a name?Apart from the sound?

Posted by: willie | Aug 15 2020 20:28 utc | 213

@ Posted by: juliania | Aug 15 2020 20:13 utc | 212

Please. You need to do some research on the Bay of Pigs fiasco and how that came about.

President Kennedy publicly acknowledged that had been a huge mistake. He bitterly regretted being talked into that operation. He would never have launched a second attempt.

Voilà:

JFK Assassination Records - 2018 Additional Documents Release

U.S. planned a 261,000-troop invasion force of Cuba, newly released documents show

Those are from 1962. They even had the numbers already. Have fun delving into the documents.

It was certain another invasion (this time, a true one, with American forces) would happen under Kennedy. It was only a matter of logistics. And, since those documents are from 1962, it becomes almost certain the mafia knew it would happen before Kennedy was assassinated, so it is very unlikely it was the mafia that was behind Oswald.

Johnson's hatred towards the Kennedys is one of the speculated reasons he called off the second invasion. One historian I've read mentioned it (the 1964 one) was the brainchild of Robert Kennedy, whom Johnson hated, hence he cancelled it.

Johnson certainly wasn't a peaceful POTUS. He ramped up the Vietnam War purely for electoral reasons (reelection in 1964). It is not correct he was a naive POTUS - he had clear idea of the geopolitical chessboard of his time, as were the POTUSes of the time. During the post-FDR era, the POTUSes governed the USA with absolute power, enjoying consensus both at home and abroad, and unshakeable loyalty of the State machine.

Posted by: vk | Aug 15 2020 20:35 utc | 214

My God, the comment section is fast becoming a Qanon nest of crap. Some days are just unreadable, and those days are getting closer together. Good luck, everyone.

Posted by: TominAZ | Aug 15 2020 20:57 utc | 215

@214 vk

It was no certainty, vk.

All administrations draw up plans. In business and in government, in public sector and in private. The soviets were still very much aligned with Cuba and so it makes sense that contingency plans should be drawn up. In fact, judging by the huge numbers needed to gain control, it was probably to JFK's benefit that such a plan be drew up to support his position that messing with Cuba was a bad idea. Doesn't take a genius to figure this, vk.

You offer no proof that JFK was interested in another incursion, let alone a massive one such as this which was probably being pushed by those around him.

Every POTUS has their Pompeo.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Aug 15 2020 20:59 utc | 216

Sorry, vk @ 214, I did try - there's some kind of 'conspiracy' going on as to certain sites not wanting innocents like me to access their info, and your links are of such nature.

What I could squeeze a look at said that 'a memo had been sent to the Kennedy administration by military components of same. That would not be a surprise, given the make up of that faction as revealed in tapes from the October standoff over Cuba with Kruschev. You can see there that the generals and suchlike were all for attacking in that situation. Which would have led to dire consequences indeed. Kennedy backed down by assuming Kruschev didn't want a war any more than he did. And that was a good move, a Presidential one.

I'll freely admit that I don't know the inner workings of any administration; I doubt many do. Nor can I pass judgement on any conspiracy issues. The one thing that does bother me very much is a short clip of video I saw when the book about Kennedy and 'The Unspeakable' was being discussed way back when. The video showed the Secret Service men who were standing on the back of the Kennedy vehicle being ordered to step off as it turned the corner passing the Oswald site, and one of the Secret Service members clearly is objecting to doing so, hands in the air and puzzled expression on his face.

I don't have any answers on this or other suggestions of involvement. It's like with the Skripals; we don't have all the facts.

Thanks for responding. A book about the CIA at the time of the Bay of Pigs is "Legacy of Ashes". A book containing tapes from the Kennedy Administration discussions during the Cuban missile crisis is "The Kennedy Tapes." Hopefully both are still available.

Posted by: juliania | Aug 15 2020 21:19 utc | 217

Johnson did not ramp up the Vietnam war for electoral reasons. He did the opposite, campaigning against Goldwater as a warmonger. Johnson massively increased troop deployment after the election in order to win a military victory, which the US army failed to deliver. If supporting the thesis Johnson murdered Kennedy requires reversing facts like this, give up the thesis, not the facts!

Posted by: steven t johnson | Aug 15 2020 21:44 utc | 218

Walter @173--

Thanks for saying all that to vk for now I know you better. Got many thoughts but most need to be said in person.

As for the world, if it ever hopes to become free, it must spank the Outlaw US Empire very hard and often over the next 4 years as it sinks thanks to the Neoliberalcons and an inane citizenry.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 15 2020 22:24 utc | 219

@ Posted by: steven t johnson | Aug 15 2020 21:44 utc | 218

Johnson was a big fan of the Vietnam War, actively participating in Kennedy's concilium (he was, for example, of the pro-Diem faction) on said war.

He deepened the USA's participation in the Vietnam War still in 1964. The spending, however (which were circa USD 1.5 million per day, in an era the USD was still pegged to the gold), was secret, as it violated the Genebra accords and because the American people already was growing weary of the war. The ramping up begun at least since February 1st, 1964 (therefore, before he called off the second invasion of Cuba, while Kennedy's corpse was still warm), when the OPLAN 34-Alpha terrorist attacks begun (although clandestine bombardments were probably already happening since January). The OPLAN 34-Alpha were personally directed by Johnson and his Secretary for Defense, McNamara, through the Office of the Special Assistant for Counterinsurgency and Special Activities.

Johnson also created, at December 1963 (therefore, one of his first acts as POTUS), the Vietnam Working Group (under William H. Sullivan), which essentially intensified the "counterinsurgency" operations created by his predecessor, in 1961.

These clandestine and terrorist operations were briefly interrupted during the election months of 1964 because Green Berets regularly participated in them, and the prospect of some being captured could be very damaging to Johnson's campaign. He ramped them up again after his electoral victory.

And, of course, we had the Tonkin Incident, which happened in August, 1964. Johnson's aim was to find legitimacy among public opinion in order to ramp up the War. The elections happened in November of the same year, so your affirmation Johnson campaigned as a peace lover doesn't fit with the documented facts.

Posted by: vk | Aug 15 2020 22:29 utc | 220

Researchers have established there were at least two planned contingencies for blame-laying in the JFK assassination.

The first was to blame the Soviets and Cubans. The groundwork for this contingency was created by the CIA’s Mexico City office, including information reporting at the time of Oswald’s alleged visit to that city in late September ’63. Assets controlled by that office publicized false information in the days following Kennedy’s death. The full extent of this effort was discovered by researchers for the 1970s HSCA probe, a report which was withheld from the public for decades.

The second contingency was to blame Oswald as a lone-nut assassin. This became operational after Oswald survived the day. The flawed Kennedy autopsy established the necessary lone-nut medical evidence, and was a procedure entirely controlled by the US miiitary.

The Secret Service/CIA analyzed the Zapruder film over the weekend after the shooting and determined there were multiple shooters from several locations. Many researchers currently believe the operational assassin squad was put together by the CIA’s JM-WAVE office in Florida.

LBJ was convinced to form a presidential commission to determine the facts of the assassination, heading off proposed investigations by Congress and locally in Dallas, by representatives of the Eastern establishment and Wall Street.

This suggests the assassination was an effort of the US establishment, was well planned with multiple contingencies, and compartmentalized across elements of the CIA and military. LBJ may have known ahead of time, but was not controlling the event.

Posted by: jayc | Aug 16 2020 2:19 utc | 221

@Posted by: Nemesiscalling | Aug 15 2020 18:43 utc | 203,
"Outside of Portland, the vote will go almost exclusively to DJT"
Right- like Clackamas County, Washington County, Lane County. You need to familiarize yourself with a population map of Oregon.

I am thinking of taking your bet, but the wild-card is my state's mail-in vote option which is ripe for tampering."
No you aren't- you're more cowardly than foolish. Oregon has had problem free mail-in voting for twenty years- the only person trying to tamper with the mail is Trump,

Posted by: Sidney Caesar | Aug 16 2020 2:30 utc | 222

@Posted by: TominAZ | Aug 15 2020 20:57 utc | 215,
"...the comment section is fast becoming a Qanon nest of crap"

It's been that way for awhile now- the original posts are frequently insightful, but the comment section is another story entirely.
The same thing happened at Robert Parry's site.

Posted by: Sidney Caesar | Aug 16 2020 2:35 utc | 223

Why did Biden choose Kamala Harris? Two reasons come to mind, one, she's a she, and two, she's a Black. Biden was beginning to alienate the Black vote - as if voting makes a difference anyway - with his gaffes about 'poor kids being just as smart as white kids', and the 'if you don't vote democrat, you ain't Black.' I am sure there are people more qualified to be the Veep than Harris, however, most of them aren't Black and female.

Posted by: rgl | Aug 16 2020 2:40 utc | 224

@222 Caesar

Should of clarified that I meant Portland metro area.

But I will take the bet of any usually blue state flipping to Trump this time.

And you don't need to tamper when there is no threat of turning red. I'm saying this time there is a threat.

Your $500 to my $100? What states are eligible for the bet?

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Aug 16 2020 2:55 utc | 225

@222 caesar

Let's just make it simple.

Oregon flips to red.

Your $500 to my $100. Deal?

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Aug 16 2020 3:01 utc | 226

Deal.
"Should of clarified that I meant Portland metro area."
Where 60% of the state's population lives. And nearly 10% more in Lane County, which is not metropolitan Portland.

Posted by: Sidney Caesar | Aug 16 2020 4:16 utc | 227

She was chosen because The Establishment can trust her as a faithful servant/puppet. It was obvious they wanted her, but Tulsi Gabbard managed one great victory in the primaries - exposing Kamala for all to see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4fjA0K2EeE

Posted by: PJB | Aug 16 2020 5:40 utc | 228

@Greg T | Aug 15 2020 19:23 utc | 206

This leads to some pretty nefarious conclusions.
1. Kamala Harris is the choice of the party leadership and its cadre of donors, the only constituency that counts.
2. The party leadership and its donor support expects Joe Biden to be president in name only. With his diminished capacity, he will not be able to minister to his duties competently. This will give VP Harris outsized influence in a Biden administration, and rest assured, she will do what her sponsors want, not what is best for the US population.

It is now popular to say it "wraps it up". This is the simplest and most straight forward explanation which at the same time does away with any pretense of democracy. Occam's razor.

Posted by: Norwegian | Aug 16 2020 6:36 utc | 229

"Why Has Joe Biden Chosen Kamala Harris"

One word: blowjobs

Posted by: The Scalpel | Aug 16 2020 6:57 utc | 230

She’s there to shore up the minority vote, because they’re in danger of getting poor enough minority voting results that it would be bad publicity. They already knew only extreme fraud could win this election. Their main plans proceed unfettered This includes advancing their position through census fraud and illegal immigration.

Posted by: Fly | Aug 16 2020 7:55 utc | 231

Norweigan #140

Thank you for those references to early destructive meteor events. I was lookig at stone surfaces today I Peru that had been roasted by some extreme (oerhaps Carrington) event. These were precision cut large blocks, pre Inca, that were flaking away in one eastern exposed corner of a building. Much more severe event than the 1800's sizzler.

Indeed there remains debate regarding the sudden ice cap melt 13000 years ago with some suggesting solar flare and others meteoric. Regardless, the melt was so rapid that there is certainly no known terrestrial energy pulse that could have had that effect.

There are substantial records of raining fire in the north American continent from the early 1800's that seem to be frozen acetylene asteroids entering our atmosphere at high velocity - mighty destructive mayhem.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Aug 16 2020 10:57 utc | 232

vk@220 lists things Johnson did, which had nothing to do with his campaigning against Goldwater as a warmonger. The claim was Johnson was promoting the war to win the election, which is still not true. Johnson was very discreet in his steps toward actual war, and most certainly did not say he was going to send thousands and thousands more troops to win as a vote getting measure. Persisting in saying this is nuts. Proving Johnson was hypocritical is evidence against the claim he was committed to the Vietnam war because, votes.

And it's still true that it would have been easier to kill a couple of head mafiosi than to kill Kennedy if the motive is to keep the mafia out of the White House, especially since they were supposedly there since day one of the Kennedy administration.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Aug 16 2020 18:25 utc | 233

@ Posted by: steven t johnson | Aug 16 2020 18:25 utc | 233

What was the Tonkin Incident, then, if not a pro-war propaganda at the eve of the elections?

Just because a propaganda is sophisticated, doesn't mean it is not propaganda. It is customary in the West, since the times of the Roman Republic, for a head-of-State to play the peaceful lord while pretending to go to war "unwillingly"/"because that's the right thing to do". The concept of casus belli is as old in the West as bread and wine (the Second Punic Wars were triggered over an alleged city in Hispania being attacked by the Carthaginians).

The reason Johnson wasn't explicitly going to war against Vietnam was 1) because it is considered elegant of a Western head-of-State to only go to war for self-defense reasons, so it was not a so simple operation for him to do it in able time (for the elections) and 2) the war on Vietnam was, up to Johnson, purely clandestine, and he hadn't finished to take it from the hands of the CIA yet. Besides, while it was under the CIA, it ran directly against the Geneva Accords, which, at the height of the Cold War, would mean a significant blow to the USA at the propaganda front.

Posted by: vk | Aug 16 2020 18:45 utc | 234

Sydney Ceaser #156

"the comments section frequently reads like graduates from an insane asylum."

Thank you - Its a big asylum and you ARE in it:} welcome

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Aug 16 2020 19:46 utc | 235

@ NemesisCalling | Aug 15 2020 19:34 utc | 208

You may be right -- I recall that Russell "Tex" Bentley once opined that "Donald Trump is the female version of Hillary Clinton."

Posted by: AntiSpin | Aug 16 2020 20:16 utc | 236

juliania | Aug 15 2020 20:13 utc | 212

". . .Vietnam was truly horrendous, not only for what it did to that country and its people, but what it did to the US. Kennedy would never have caused such suffering, never."

I think that you're right about that.

I had an opportunity to speak with George Ball, Kennedy's Under-Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, when he was visiting the college I was attending in 1971. Ball told me in no uncertain terms this; that Kennedy had wanted to end the war against Vietnam right away, but was convinced that if he did so then he might well lose the upcoming election and then the Republicans would just start the war going again. So Kennedy, according to what Ball told me, was intent on first getting reelected and then stopping that war, with four years ahead of him in which to wear down any Republican efforts to get it going again.

If Ball was correct, then the loss of JFK was not only a tragedy for our nation, but it meant more than 12 more years of unimaginable, blood-soaked tragedy and agony for the people of Southeast Asia.

Posted by: AntiSpin | Aug 16 2020 20:38 utc | 237

@ steven t johnson | Aug 15 2020 21:44 utc | 218

"Johnson massively increased troop deployment after the election in order to win a military victory, which the US army failed to deliver."

If so, then it was a goal that was doomed from the very beginning of that war. The US Army could not possibly have delivered it. Should you doubt that, I urge you to read Frances Fitzgerald's encyclopedic "Fire in the Lake," and follow that up with William Lederer's "Our Own Worst Enemy."

Once you've read Fitzgerald's book, and gained some knowledge about Vietnamese history, about its unique culture and philosophy, and her astonishingly detailed history of that war from the points of view of all participants, then you will also realize that "victory" could not possibly have been achieved without slaughtering something like 90 percent of the population.

And Lederer's book shows -- again, in magnificent detail -- how everything the US did in Vietnam just made it more impossible to "win a military victory."

But it did make a lot of politically-connected US fat cats an enormous amount of money . . .

Posted by: AntiSpin | Aug 16 2020 21:00 utc | 238

Thanks for the responses.

I believe that Biden made a good choice in terms of maintaining or increasing his financial(it's happening already) and voter support in choosing Kamala.

I'm not saying that I like Biden or Kamala, I'm just saying that choosing Kamala doesn't hurt him and even increases his chances of winning. I believe Biden/Kamala will win with a better-than-expected margin, unless something unexpected happens before November. IMO, Trump is losing supporters like a dead dog loses fleas, no offence.

In 2016, I thought Trump would win, based on how I saw the Florida vote(and also the incompetent campaigning of Hillary), but this time, I see Trump losing by a definite to substantial margin. IMO, his support has just eroded away completely, and it is getting less and less by the week. Like this, in the last two weeks, it might erode even more sharply, and Trump might lose by a big margin.

Noticed Kamala is even trying to get along with AOC on those Green Deal and Climate Change plans. Can't fault Kamala for making the effort, can we?

Whether we/I like it or not, Biden/Kamala looks like a winning combination this November.

Posted by: GreatSocialist | Aug 17 2020 6:42 utc | 239

@GreatSocialist #239
You are clearly TDS, nor do I believe your ex post facto commentary re: 2016.
For that matter: Florida is going Trump for sure. Florida Republicans registered more new voters than Democrat even though there wasn't a competitive Republican primary.
The other swing states are still up in the air.
Other notes: HRC was further ahead of Trump in 2016 in the same period - and she actually was on the road, working.
Basement Biden probably won't even campaign at all - he's still hiding.
As for Kamala: she's terrible. No good as a questioner as I've noted, no good as a debater as I've noted, and both a hypocrite and wishy washy. What else do you call someone who prosecuted over 1900 marijuana convictions but admitted to smoking herself?
Who purports to represent African- and Asian-Americans, but was caught numerous times screwing over African-Americans in jail by withholding evidence, refusing tests or just plain dragging her feet?
There's a reason why the bettors increased Trump's odds of winning from 42% to 48% after her selection; that's indication of another Trump win since analysis of 2016 betting results showed that HRC bettors put up 3x more than the more numerous Trump bettors - which skewed the odds into inaccuracy.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 17 2020 17:20 utc | 240

@GregT #206
The really sad part is that identitarianism isn't even new.
It was used specifically as a tool by the elite to prevent labor unionism. A factory owner in 1920 wrote that he prefers to have evenly distributed ethnic groups in his factories as it greatly impedes the proles from banding together.
The same thing occurs today, only the divisions now are racial/sexual vs. cultural/ethnic.
More inconvenient facts:
Eleanor Roosevelt and then Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins (a woman) were against equal pay for women. Not because either was anti-feminist, but the opposite: forcing equal pay for women meant reducing men's wages so that they couldn't support a family - which in turn forces women to work. Forcing entire sectors of the population to work is the opposite of freedom. As further evidence: it was the Republican party that endorsed the ERA in 1940.
A. Philip Randolph - the African-American who got FDR to integrate the war factories - was against immigration, even by West Indies blacks.

Instead of reducing immigration to 2% of the 1890 quota, we favor reducing it to nothing ... We favor shutting out the Germans from Germany, the Italians from Italy ... The Hindus from India, the Chinese from China, and even the Negroes from the West Indies.

because immigration:
over-floods the labor market, resulting in lowering the standard of living, race riots, and general social degradation. The excessive immigration is against the interests of the masses of all races and nationalities in the country—both foreign and native.

Nor were Randolph's view unique: the AFl-CIO and other unions, in the 1970s during the peak of union power, were of the same opinion.
How ironic that the major party positions are now reversed - although in reality Trumpism is not Republican or Democrat.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 17 2020 17:36 utc | 241

As vast majority of Democrats and Republicans both believe the election will be rigged by the other side, post election will likely end up in violent showdown.
At that fateful moment links with police/security forces will be critical. Hence KH...

Posted by: Saracen's head | Aug 17 2020 21:10 utc | 242

This question and debate are obscuring the real issue:

It doesn't make a difference whom the Democrats choose as their vice-presidential nominee.

The Republicans and Trump have stolen the 2020 election just like they stole the 2016 election through Voter Disfranchisement (particularly against African American and other minority voters)--unless they are exposed and this theft is un-stolen.

America certainly has the best "democracy" in the world ... that money can steal.

How Trump Stole 2020
https://www.gregpalast.com/how-trump-stole-2020-2/

How Donald Trump Has Already Stolen & Won The 2020 Presidential Election (Greg Palast)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXHzTZRYazM

The SECRET Purpose of Trump’s Threat to Delay the Vote
by Greg Palast and Zach D RobertsJuly 30, 2020
The real purpose of the threat by our Twittiot-in-Chief to delay the election is to lay the groundwork for massive challenges of mail-in ballots.
https://www.gregpalast.com/the-secret-purpose-of-trumps-threat-to-delay-the-vote/


Posted by: ak74 | Aug 18 2020 5:43 utc | 243

Thanks again for the responses.

It's almost impossible to convince anyone of the opposite viewpoint on the internet, and nobody should waste time doing it. When one is emotionally biased(ie: deranged), it's impossible to see outside the fake reality bubble and mental cherry-picking of facts that becomes a mental construct for many.

For myself, I try to ignore my own biases, and try to guess how others may think. When looking at all the polling as a whole, I take it that Trump is going to lose very big in November. As I said, Trump is losing supporters like a dead dog loses fleas.

No point arguing against it or for it, we'll know in November.

Other than that, I think why Trump has lost so much support is simply that the Covid-19 crisis has just disillusioned Americans with Trump. So many people I know who were Trump supporters, now are thinking about voting for Biden, or won't be voting again for Trump in November.

They were willing to overlook all Trump's corruption and foolishness as long as the economy was strong and they were doing ok, but now, people are getting sick and dying all around them, and jobs and the economy are bad.

I think most Americans are sick and tired of Trump, who seems paralyzed by this crisis(which is mostly of his own making) and still dares to pretend he has handled everything great, fantastic performance, greatest management ever, he says.

Most people only voted for Trump because they they could not stand Hillary, and also Trump made a boatload of incredible promises that he has failed to deliver on.

It's time to give someone else a chance to take over management.

Posted by: GreatSocialist | Aug 18 2020 9:15 utc | 244

· Yeah but Biden and Harris are not "someone else" and never will be, they might as well have put Clinton and Clinton on their ticket.
· Polls were worthless in 2016 and are worthless now.
· Clinton is still much worse than Trump even though Trump now is a lot closer to a Clinton himself.
· Trump will still cash in on the large "Michael Moore"-ish "FU" vote from a lot of angry, frustrated, and disappointed voters.

With Biden/Harris it's straight back to unimpeded global disaster without hardly any opposition (real or not) within the US. It has happened before, it won't be a surprise.

However here is the most important part which maybe b and others here should look closer at:
Those hiding behind Biden and Harris only wants the US to re-join the JCPOA Iran deal because they know it's their most viable narrative for feigned "legality" from which to launch their war against Iran. Their actions betray that they are preparing it right now. A vote for these two is a direct vote for war against Iran (much like the last time around), I can't ignore that, it's blatant.

With Trump there's at least the possibility or expectation that the whole corrupt circus will continue to trip over itself while trying to do the same.

I'll prefer incompetent evil to competent evil :/

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Aug 18 2020 22:26 utc | 245

Maybe they picked a senile old man (not the one voters wanted) and an unpopular woman, because they can be trusted to execute whatever plan their donors have... and if it’s not to win, what is it?

Trump wins election night
Biden wins after mail in count weeks later
Evidence of widespread fraud emerges
Mainstream media refuses to cover and social media sensors
Magnify current red team/blue team culture war to boiling point

Globalist paymasters win ultimate prize: color revolution red, white,&blue

Posted by: tlc | Aug 20 2020 2:12 utc | 246

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.