Will Joe Biden be the next president?

[moke123]

Kamala Harris Called Jussie Smollett’s Hate Crime Hoax A ‘Modern Day Lynching’

Kamala Harris, recently named as Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s pick for vice president, supported “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett when he staged a hoax assault against himself. ... The so-called racist and homophobic attack on Smollett, which received massive attention from the corporate media, turned out to be staged, organized by Smollet himself, who paid Nigerian brothers Abimbola and Olabinjo Osundairo to help him. ... Harris did not retract her statement nor comment further on the issue after new evidence surfaced."

The federalist article you linked to states

Harris did not retract her statement nor comment further on the issue after new evidence surfaced.

except:

Like most of you, I've seen the reports about Jussie Smollett, and I'm sad, frustrated, and disappointed. pic.twitter.com/91OHOymShi

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) February 21, 2019

Facts matter.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Colin, I truly wish I didn't have to agree with you about the quality of the candidates for president. But I do.

This decision will amount to "splitting hairs" as to which is the lesser evil. But often, politics leads to this situation. It makes me wonder if part of the problem is that the smart, really competent people take jobs in private industry, leaving only ambitious dumb incompetents to run for office because they can't get hired to a high-paying job yet just KNOW they are "born to lead."

As to splitting hairs, I still think Biden is the bigger crook, bribing the Ukraine to remove the prosecutor who was investigating his son. I think Trump has NO sense of politics. He's a business executive who is used to getting things done by command, whereas in the USA, NOTHING gets done that way (or often any other way, sadly.) I'm still digesting the Harris pick, but at least at first glance, I'm likely to dislike her because her politics is a bit too heavy-handed on the SJW side of the coin.

 

[Steve R.]

@Steve R.
Your comments about Democrats and Republicans are always the same
No matter who had been chosen as Biden's VP nominee, you would have written something very similar.

There is an irony in what you wrote. The Democrats march in lock-step. So you are "correct" that my comments concerning Democrats would have been very much the same except for a degree of customization.

However, have you noticed that I avoid commenting on Republicans?
But, in case you are interested in some Republican dirt. Trump appeared for a news conference soon after after the Harris announcement. Instead of making the expected gratuitous congratulatory comments and stating that he looked forward to discussing policy with the Biden/Harris ticket, he drooled on and on and on other matters. Very disappointing. That would have been an opportunity for him to project a positive and enthusiastic image of the coming election.

I watched parts of the hearings and the Democratic debates - the entire sessions weren't available here in the UK.
Did you watch all the debates before the last UK general election?

No. But, I will also say that the US news media is quite negligent about covering stories outside of the US.

 

[Steve R.]

Like most of you, I've seen the reports about Jussie Smollett, and I'm sad, frustrated, and disappointed. pic.twitter.com/91OHOymShi

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) February 21, 2019

Facts matter.

I do not subscribe to Twitter, so content that appears there is "invisible". It also points to how people can make inflammatory headline news. When the falsehood of their comments are exposed, the supposed apology appears later quietly hidden in some media corner. Did she ever appear on any of the news media outlets to actually formally say "sorry" to the American public?

While Harris may have issued a supposed apology, it is troubling that Harris, a lawyer and prosecutor, participated in a "rush-to-judgement" and used racially inflammatory language based on no facts. One person in the Tweeter feed wrote (in part): "How lucky is it that there were no white guys walking around that night? You already had them convicted and sentenced the minute Smollett made his claim."

Correction (8/20/2020): Turns out that I do have Twitter account. Forgot about it at the time of this posting.

 

[AccessBlaster]

These candidates have track records, they have made their feelings very clear over decades. It no mystery how they feel.

 

[moke123]

I do not subscribe to Twitter, so content that appears there is "invisible". It also points to how people can make inflammatory headline news. When the falsehood of their comments are exposed, the supposed apology appears later quietly hidden in some media corner. Did she ever appear on any of the news media outlets to actually formally say "sorry" to the American public?

well they did cover it on Fox so I'm surprised you missed it.

 

[Isaac]

God bless America

 

[Steve R.]

well they did cover it on Fox so I'm surprised you missed it.

Maybe it was my nap time. Can't stay-up 24 hours a day plastered to the TV. But the point remains that she made unprofessional and unjustified racially inflammatory remarks to get a cheap headline.

 

[deletedT]

I do not subscribe to Twitter, so content that appears there is "invisible".

You don't need an account to be able to use tweeter. Without an account you can view, search whatever you like.
Or did I get you wrong?

 

[Steve R.]

You don't need an account to be able to use tweeter. Without an account you can view, search whatever you like.
Or did I get you wrong?

Not exactly. I do not have an account with Twitter as I am not interested. As I consequence I do not go "looking" into Twitter.

Furthermore, there are more media websites than you can count. Given that there are only so many that you can reasonable visit. Trying to fully investigate one fact through following every possible hyperlink is an exercise in futility. You will always be searching for the next "stone" to turn-over. As such, you will alway have imperfect information on which to make to make a decision, such as making a post on this website.

 

[Isaac]

Regardless of specific links here and there that we can all go hunting for to support our opinion, the overall impression gathered by many of us was, and is, clear: Jussie Smollett got away with something horrible and extremely racist, except because it was not against certain groups, most liberals were fairly gentle in their condemnation of what he did compared to the fierceness with which they condemned what they originally thought might have happened to him. (Thanks moke for posting K.H.'s tweet--it's a perfect example).
All subjectivity aside, you are free to research what actually happened to him and judge for yourself. The answer is, next to nothing.

 

[NauticalGent]

The answer is, next to nothing.

True...but the Court of Public Opinion can be just as harsh. In the end, justice usually prevails...

 

[deletedT]

Furthermore, there are more media websites than you can count. Given that there are only so many that you can reasonable visit. Trying to fully investigate one fact through following every possible hyperlink is an exercise in futility. You will always be searching for the next "stone" to turn-over. As such, you will alway have imperfect information on which to make to make a decision, such as making a post on this website.

for sure, the most strange thing I've ever heard.

 

[moke123]

All subjectivity aside, you are free to research what actually happened to him and judge for yourself. The answer is, next to nothing.

Again facts matter. He was just indicted in Feb.2020 and the case is still pending. So how is it nothing happened to him?

 

[Isaac]

Again facts matter. He was just indicted in Feb.2020 and the case is still pending. So how is it nothing happened to him?

Wrong/misleading. What you are referring to is the second attempt to charge him. He got through the first major case unscathed, with the exception of a tiny bond forfeiture and 16 hours community service. After the first case against him failed mysteriously, the city tried to sue him. His response was a counter suit. (Not sure yet if anything came of that). So far he has been quite lucky.

Facts matter, but so does slant...as your post indicates

 

[moke123]

What slant?

What you are referring to is the second attempt to charge him.

It's not an attempt when a GJ returns a true bill.


https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loc...ent-on-indictment-of-jussie-smollett/2217493/

 

[Isaac]

I think we've beat this dead horse enough, my posts make my point clear. Your slant is pretending only the second case against him occurred, rather than both. Now that it's been pointed out to you, you're deflecting onto the definition of the word 'attempt', which has nothing to do with what we were disputing.

 

[Pat Hartman]

The hypocrisy of the left was in play again today in an amusing way. Apparently last night Tucker Carlson did not pronounce Kamala's name correctly and so the talking heads were quite critical of that and one of them even let it slip that occasionally they intentionally mispronounce names to take pot shots at people. However, when Joe introduced Kamala today, he pronounced her name exactly the way Tucker did. Hmm. Is there trouble in paradise already? Was Joe taking a pot shot at her on their first day as a team? Somehow, I don't think Joe's faux pas will be as roundly criticized as was Tucker's carrying on with the left's rules for thee but not for me position.

 

[Steve R.]

The hypocrisy of the left was in play again today in an amusing way. Apparently last night Tucker Carlson did not pronounce Kamala's name correctly and so the talking heads were quite critical of that and one of them even let it slip that occasionally they intentionally mispronounce names to take pot shots at people. However, when Joe introduced Kamala today, he pronounced her name exactly the way Tucker did. Hmm. Is there trouble in paradise already? Was Joe taking a pot shot at her on their first day as a team? Somehow, I don't think Joe's faux pas will be as roundly criticized as was Tucker's carrying on with the left's rules for thee but not for me position.

And along those lines. Fox News this morning showed the front page of the New York Times comparing Pence's selection as the vice-Presidential candidate to that of Harris. In the case of Pence, he had a small picture and small blurb below the fold. In the case of Harris, the entire front page above the fold plus a large picture was devoted to Harris. Unsurprisingly, the headlines, of course, were unabashedly "glowing".

Additionally, there has been a very recent explosion of articles and pundits (as if on-que) publicly proclaiming Biden and now Harris as "moderate". So far, I have not heard or seen any instance were a reporter has asked Biden, Harris, and/or one of their pundits it that means that certain radical propositions that they have previoulsy made have now been retracted.

 

[NauticalGent]

Had to...