Have not read accounts of his staffers from his first administration. Trump cannot follow a briefing. Trump does not read anything. Trump only hears what he wants to hear. While running for president in 2016, Trump had no idea what the nuclear TRIAD is, had no idea why he was saying "health insurance across state lines, and even today has no idea how tariffs work.
Trump inherited $400 million from his father and if he had just invested in a broad based stock mutual fund, Trump would have made more money. See Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father's Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success by Buettner and Craig.
And having three trophy wives is a reason for scorn, not admiration.
lmao. "Trump just keeps falling upwards, I tell ya! Just luck!"
Man you Kamabla liars really are dumb, thinking anyone intelligent believes you. :P
P.S. Imagine being a Kamabla campaign stooge like Guest007 and thinking "if I just cited to the discredited NY Times 'jounralists' book instead of making an argument myself, I'll have evidence! Yeah, that's the ticket!"
P.P.S. Imagine also thinking a good argument against Trump is "he couldn't predict the future of the stock market, so he's dumb!"
Neither of her parents were citizens when she was born...in Oakland...she's an anchor baby. Candidates for the Office of President must be natural born per the Constitution.
Being born in Oakland made her natural born. This has been settled law for a long time. And there have been lawsuits over this recently that have all failed.
Check Reuters, AP, Snopes, etc. All agree with one another. Here, for example, is Snopes: “The requirements to qualify for the U.S. presidency have nothing to with the citizenship status of one’s parents. The individual must have been born in the United States or born to a parent who is a citizen of the United States.”
Says many presidents had at least one parent not born in the US. The constitution doesn't further define the term, but the most literal interpretation would just be that you were born in the USA, born in the USA!
This requirement did not anticipate air travel but there it is.
Jus soli is based on the post-Civil War 14th Amendment, so it is entirely possible the drafters of the 1789 Constitution thought "natural-born" meant children of US citizens, because everyone else, even if born on US soil, had to go through the naturalization process.
Thinking about it further that makes some sense. Either both your parents were US citizens so you were born to it, or you were naturalized after spending 2 or 5 years in the same town.
It doesn’t matter that her parents weren’t citizens. Her parents could’ve been TERRORISTS and it wouldn’t make a bit of difference, because she is a textbook case of “born in the United States.”
So far, I've seen a video about a black mother that Harris pushed to have prosecuted for her daughter's truancy after surgery. I can't believe her many years of other perps are totally gruntled. Why aren't the black men she allegedly kept in prison past their time all over Tik tok? Not very impressive oppo research by either side, but for opposite reasons. So many hoaxes about Trump have led to scandal fatigue.
I lived in English speaking Montreal and went to school a few years before Kamala's arrival. It was not "overwhelmingly white," unless you were used to much less white. One boy from Trinidad vented for hours to me about wanting not to be black. The school was probably 10 to 15% immigrant minority. I had classmates from Jamaica, Trinidad, Hong Kong, Pakistan, Korea.
Why do beta-cucks like Robert Draper seen to get a tingle down their leg when discussing useless people like Kumquat? He reminds me of the losers we used to mock in high school - the ones that never got over their mommy (and daddy) issues.,
Steve seems to be somewhat of a hypocrite when it comes to female politicians. Steve criticizes Harris for not being a policy wonk while previously criticizing Elizabeth Warren for being a policy wonk. So which is better or worse?
Steve should name the female Senator, House member, or governor who he thinks is the best role model for being a good politician and a good presidential prospect.
> Kamala has risen all the way to being the boss of Tim Walz, who was, let me remind you, a high school assistant football coach. You can’t get much more extraordinary than that.
🙄
Your writings are more impactful when they are less-nakedly partisan.
> Note that Hastings Law School, now the UC San Francisco Law School, is now the UC Berkeley Law School (Boalt Hall). It’s not Stanford Law or Berkeley Law
Is the second "now" supposed to be "not"? As an aside, both Hastings and Boalt have had their names removed from their law schools because their pasts are considered problematic by modern standards.
> Barbara Boxer had been Senator from California since 1992, as had Diane Feinstein.
For those wondering how this happened, the latter was elected to finish the unexpired term of Pete Wilson, who was elected governor. As an aside, the former is from Brooklyn and moved to California with her husband who was attending law school.
> Why she couldn’t catch a husband until she was too old for children seems like an interesting question but one I’ve not seen written about.
Yes, because that's the sort of question that isn't asked in polite company.
Hallinan...Cooley...Kavanaugh...Biden...she has won most of her political victories by exploiting a vulnerability in specifically Irish opponents. Maybe loyalty.
> Why she couldn’t catch a husband until she was too old for children seems like an interesting question but one I’ve not seen written about.
From what I've read, Occam would suggest it's because she (and likely other potential suitors) thought she was going to become Mrs. Willie Brown until she was past her prime marrying years.
The presidency is a challenging leadership role. It would be useful to have candidates who had managed to achieve success in a prior leadership challenge…perhaps leading Allied Forces to victory in WWII, or something similar?
The Times article shows how low our qualifications have reached. Not a word about improving an organization that she led.
We now must cross our fingers and hope that whichever one of these two mid-wits is elected doesn’t screw things up too badly.
If Elon can be coaxed, Trump oughta give him any typically screwed-up, but arguably needed, government Bureau or Office (a Department would be too big) and the wherewithal (authority and funding) to get in there and fix it in, say, 18 months (bonus for 6 months or a year, natch). Then Elon could get back to his off-worlding of humanity project and we would know how to fix government operations.
Musk would fall flat on his face, generate a large number of lawsuits, pick fights with Congress that he cannot win, and probably become bored with the project in less than 18 months.
That result, as well, would represent valuable and useful knowledge to guide the impetus, leadership, and process attending future "reforms." The drastic changes in staffing (7,500 to 1,500) and mission (censorship to free speech) of those still employed by Musk's X (formerly Twitter) is illustrative of his capabilities, determination, and methods (as was relocation of the company's headquarters from San Francisco to Texas).
The value of twitter (X) has gone down since purchase, twitter (X) is losing money, and Musk has created a worse product. Not exactly a sign of someone who can reform the public sector.
James Buchanan is consider my most Historians as the worst president ever in U.S. History. Yet, James Buchanan was Congressman, A Senator, an ambassador to two different countries, and a cabinet secretary. He has a great resume and yet failed badly.
Buchanan’s experience as a representative and patronage appointee predicted his response when confronted with the most inflammatory issue of our nation’s entire history: he chose not to lead…he punted.
This is the most important argument. A large number of people don't think competence matters in a president. We could survive four years of a president asleep at the switch on domestic policy but as the global hegemon, we need a smart president on foreign policy. If people wanted to see it, we have a great example of what happens when the president is demented.
How did she rise so far on such thin accomplishment? I think this is the crucial question and contains the best solid information we have on her, that she has risen so far on such thin accomplishment. My work experience has led me to conclude that people tend to be one of two types in their work, those that accomplish productive work and those that accumulate power over others by means other than work, the politicians among us. Harris must be a very good politician to have risen so far. This also means that she is not stupid. Her inability to express coherent thoughts and opinions in public doesn't mean she doesn't have thoughts and opinions and doesn't mean she is stupid, it is a character trait that hides what her thoughts and opinions truly are, and if her thoughts and feelings need to be this well hidden they are likely truly radical, even murderous. Dismissing her as stupid is falling for her deception.
>Harris must be a very good politician to have risen so far.
Or the system is so bad, so flawed that a bad politician could rise this far. Kamala's rise to VP essentially seems to be the result of a black swan event (another black person killed by cops in a visible, emotionally triggering way) plus a ludicrous Democratic party that believes in auctioning off seats on Air Force One by demographic categories (Biden guaranteed a female VP) which then left them trapped when important members of their coalition demanded that, if it were to be a woman, it'd have to be a black one. There are very few women who could fill that roll, so a half-Indian, Jamaican woman was anointed because she was a Senator.
This is not mutually exclusive with her being incredibly dangerous, because the same civilizationally corrosive attitudes that enabled her rise may be even more powerful if she wins. You have to dance with the one that brung ya after all
Had there been any real contention for the nod, an open convention would've been needed to select the standard-bearer from among a (sudden) raft of claimants. Political positions the party would rather not have publicly exposed would've been, thereby tarnishing and giving oppo soundbites to undermine all members of the Democratic "bench" seeking higher office in the future.
Yeah, I recall our venerable host noting they likely wouldn't run Kamala due to her terrible unfavorables, so I think her selection was a surprise to many. Was it because...
1: They wanted to avoid a messy convention that could've given ammo to Trump (As Richard noted above);
2: They could roll Joe's campaign war chest into hers without getting snagged by campaign finance laws; and thus
3: They thought it'd be cheaper/more effective to prop her up via a massive PR/propaganda push (which we saw executed day 1 with amazing coordination across all their media assets) than to start fundraising from $0 with a better candidate?
I'd answer 4: all of the above...plus if things go as badly for her in the race as they may, they've just ended her career and cleared the decks for next time.
I also assume their backup plan, if she loses, is to just stymie Trump again like they did with his first term (endless lawfare, impeachments, etc.). Keep a lid on MAGA for four years and then go back to business as usual and run Newsome vs. some miscellaneous GOP schmuck/foil.
Only problem they might have with that is if Trump is cagey enough to have learned form his mistakes first term and outflank them. With Musk, Vivek, Gabbard, and RFK Jr. on board, I feel things might be more interesting this time around. Enough to actually change anything? No idea.
Don't forget the grooming of J.D. Vance for a presidential run in 2028. Trump's a lame duck on Inauguration Day, so a transition to Vance (or other) is inevitable and in Trump's (and America's) interest as both a triumph and a legacy.
The large war chest of campaign funds acquired by the Biden/Harris campaign could only be directly accessed by Harris. Any other candidate would have had to direct the funds to the DNC or perhaps even returned them to donors.
I assumed Biden would be pushed out by the end of 2021, but Harris may have saved him. Unfortunately, there's no one I would trust for an accurate inside history of the Biden WH.
She spent her formative years in Canada. She is clearly not bright and is either an alcoholic or a pill junkie, which has led to obvious cognitive issues. She quite literally whored herself out to get her start in politics. None of what I'm saying is harsh. In fact, given the disaster of the last 4 years, it's rather measured.
She has never been foreign really according to the NYT's deft elision: after all, she was just "attending school" in Montreal while her mother worked at McGill. She may as well have been at a Swiss boarding school, see?
Comala is an Indian, Jamaican, Canadian who is technically not eligible for the Office.
Kamala Harris was born in Oakland, California. How is she “technically not eligible”?
Because she's a moron
If being an idiot was disqualifying for running for president, then the Republicans would not have nominated Trump three times.
Bazinga!
LOL. Trump is a lot of things but "idiot" isn't one of them.
Have not read accounts of his staffers from his first administration. Trump cannot follow a briefing. Trump does not read anything. Trump only hears what he wants to hear. While running for president in 2016, Trump had no idea what the nuclear TRIAD is, had no idea why he was saying "health insurance across state lines, and even today has no idea how tariffs work.
That doesn't really make your case.
Guy's a self-made billionaire, hit TV show host, married 3 supermodels, who shocked the world to beat 16 other veteran pols to become President.
If that guy's stupid, please, Heavens, make me as stupid as Trump!
God beat us to it
Trump inherited $400 million from his father and if he had just invested in a broad based stock mutual fund, Trump would have made more money. See Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father's Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success by Buettner and Craig.
And having three trophy wives is a reason for scorn, not admiration.
lmao. "Trump just keeps falling upwards, I tell ya! Just luck!"
Man you Kamabla liars really are dumb, thinking anyone intelligent believes you. :P
P.S. Imagine being a Kamabla campaign stooge like Guest007 and thinking "if I just cited to the discredited NY Times 'jounralists' book instead of making an argument myself, I'll have evidence! Yeah, that's the ticket!"
P.P.S. Imagine also thinking a good argument against Trump is "he couldn't predict the future of the stock market, so he's dumb!"
Neither of her parents were citizens when she was born...in Oakland...she's an anchor baby. Candidates for the Office of President must be natural born per the Constitution.
Which made technically ineligible for VP too probably. Of course, she didn't get democratically nominated by her own party either.
Being born in Oakland made her natural born. This has been settled law for a long time. And there have been lawsuits over this recently that have all failed.
NO, it didn't.
You're confusing citizenship with requirements for the Office of President
Not...the...same
Check Reuters, AP, Snopes, etc. All agree with one another. Here, for example, is Snopes: “The requirements to qualify for the U.S. presidency have nothing to with the citizenship status of one’s parents. The individual must have been born in the United States or born to a parent who is a citizen of the United States.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_(United_States)
Says many presidents had at least one parent not born in the US. The constitution doesn't further define the term, but the most literal interpretation would just be that you were born in the USA, born in the USA!
This requirement did not anticipate air travel but there it is.
Jus soli is based on the post-Civil War 14th Amendment, so it is entirely possible the drafters of the 1789 Constitution thought "natural-born" meant children of US citizens, because everyone else, even if born on US soil, had to go through the naturalization process.
Correct
Really? I didn't know there was a naturalization process back then. Seems strange. What was the point?
Thinking about it further that makes some sense. Either both your parents were US citizens so you were born to it, or you were naturalized after spending 2 or 5 years in the same town.
That's irrelevant
Check Factcheck.org
😅🤣😂 Uh...NO
It doesn’t matter that her parents weren’t citizens. Her parents could’ve been TERRORISTS and it wouldn’t make a bit of difference, because she is a textbook case of “born in the United States.”
Not for the Office of President. That's fine for other Political offices but not that one...sorry.
Yes you're right if you're talking about people who don't follow the Constitution and want to use their power
She’s not eligible to be president because she lost
So far, I've seen a video about a black mother that Harris pushed to have prosecuted for her daughter's truancy after surgery. I can't believe her many years of other perps are totally gruntled. Why aren't the black men she allegedly kept in prison past their time all over Tik tok? Not very impressive oppo research by either side, but for opposite reasons. So many hoaxes about Trump have led to scandal fatigue.
She seems to be a prosecutor who never prosecuted anyone.
I lived in English speaking Montreal and went to school a few years before Kamala's arrival. It was not "overwhelmingly white," unless you were used to much less white. One boy from Trinidad vented for hours to me about wanting not to be black. The school was probably 10 to 15% immigrant minority. I had classmates from Jamaica, Trinidad, Hong Kong, Pakistan, Korea.
Why do beta-cucks like Robert Draper seen to get a tingle down their leg when discussing useless people like Kumquat? He reminds me of the losers we used to mock in high school - the ones that never got over their mommy (and daddy) issues.,
Steve seems to be somewhat of a hypocrite when it comes to female politicians. Steve criticizes Harris for not being a policy wonk while previously criticizing Elizabeth Warren for being a policy wonk. So which is better or worse?
Steve should name the female Senator, House member, or governor who he thinks is the best role model for being a good politician and a good presidential prospect.
Didn't I just praise Nancy Pelosi for being really good at her job?
So the best qualification for doing well in Congress is to be the wicked witch of the West whose father was a bona fide East Coast gangster?
If you're talking about Congress it probably is.
absolutely yes
there probably couldn't be better preparation for Congress than learning at the knee of the Mob.
like lesson 1: keep your friends close but your enemies closer!
> Kamala has risen all the way to being the boss of Tim Walz, who was, let me remind you, a high school assistant football coach. You can’t get much more extraordinary than that.
🙄
Your writings are more impactful when they are less-nakedly partisan.
> Note that Hastings Law School, now the UC San Francisco Law School, is now the UC Berkeley Law School (Boalt Hall). It’s not Stanford Law or Berkeley Law
Is the second "now" supposed to be "not"? As an aside, both Hastings and Boalt have had their names removed from their law schools because their pasts are considered problematic by modern standards.
> Barbara Boxer had been Senator from California since 1992, as had Diane Feinstein.
For those wondering how this happened, the latter was elected to finish the unexpired term of Pete Wilson, who was elected governor. As an aside, the former is from Brooklyn and moved to California with her husband who was attending law school.
> Why she couldn’t catch a husband until she was too old for children seems like an interesting question but one I’ve not seen written about.
Yes, because that's the sort of question that isn't asked in polite company.
>Yes, because that's the sort of question that isn't asked in polite company.
Politics isn’t discussed in polite company either. So her personal life is entirely fair game
Hallinan...Cooley...Kavanaugh...Biden...she has won most of her political victories by exploiting a vulnerability in specifically Irish opponents. Maybe loyalty.
"her 'unexpected' journey to the precipice of the Oval Office"
...as opposed to Monica Lewinsky's journey to the prepuce of the Oval Office.
> Why she couldn’t catch a husband until she was too old for children seems like an interesting question but one I’ve not seen written about.
From what I've read, Occam would suggest it's because she (and likely other potential suitors) thought she was going to become Mrs. Willie Brown until she was past her prime marrying years.
One may want to look up how long she was involved with Brown before speculating.
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-check-kamala-harrisandwillie-brownhad-a-relationshipover-adecadeafte-idUSKBN26Y2RJ/
The presidency is a challenging leadership role. It would be useful to have candidates who had managed to achieve success in a prior leadership challenge…perhaps leading Allied Forces to victory in WWII, or something similar?
The Times article shows how low our qualifications have reached. Not a word about improving an organization that she led.
We now must cross our fingers and hope that whichever one of these two mid-wits is elected doesn’t screw things up too badly.
If Elon can be coaxed, Trump oughta give him any typically screwed-up, but arguably needed, government Bureau or Office (a Department would be too big) and the wherewithal (authority and funding) to get in there and fix it in, say, 18 months (bonus for 6 months or a year, natch). Then Elon could get back to his off-worlding of humanity project and we would know how to fix government operations.
Musk would fall flat on his face, generate a large number of lawsuits, pick fights with Congress that he cannot win, and probably become bored with the project in less than 18 months.
That result, as well, would represent valuable and useful knowledge to guide the impetus, leadership, and process attending future "reforms." The drastic changes in staffing (7,500 to 1,500) and mission (censorship to free speech) of those still employed by Musk's X (formerly Twitter) is illustrative of his capabilities, determination, and methods (as was relocation of the company's headquarters from San Francisco to Texas).
The value of twitter (X) has gone down since purchase, twitter (X) is losing money, and Musk has created a worse product. Not exactly a sign of someone who can reform the public sector.
Hey Corvy !
James Buchanan is consider my most Historians as the worst president ever in U.S. History. Yet, James Buchanan was Congressman, A Senator, an ambassador to two different countries, and a cabinet secretary. He has a great resume and yet failed badly.
Buchanan’s experience as a representative and patronage appointee predicted his response when confronted with the most inflammatory issue of our nation’s entire history: he chose not to lead…he punted.
But Buchanan did not want a war. And the U.S. was not at war with itself when he left office.
The whole damn war was Lincoln's fault. If he hadn't promised to join NATO, the South would never have seceded at his election.
The cooking videos she has done are her at her most competent and joyful. Which is pretty funny.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd like to avoid WW3 if possible and word salad ain't gonna cut it with Putin and Xi.
This is the most important argument. A large number of people don't think competence matters in a president. We could survive four years of a president asleep at the switch on domestic policy but as the global hegemon, we need a smart president on foreign policy. If people wanted to see it, we have a great example of what happens when the president is demented.
How did she rise so far on such thin accomplishment? I think this is the crucial question and contains the best solid information we have on her, that she has risen so far on such thin accomplishment. My work experience has led me to conclude that people tend to be one of two types in their work, those that accomplish productive work and those that accumulate power over others by means other than work, the politicians among us. Harris must be a very good politician to have risen so far. This also means that she is not stupid. Her inability to express coherent thoughts and opinions in public doesn't mean she doesn't have thoughts and opinions and doesn't mean she is stupid, it is a character trait that hides what her thoughts and opinions truly are, and if her thoughts and feelings need to be this well hidden they are likely truly radical, even murderous. Dismissing her as stupid is falling for her deception.
>Harris must be a very good politician to have risen so far.
Or the system is so bad, so flawed that a bad politician could rise this far. Kamala's rise to VP essentially seems to be the result of a black swan event (another black person killed by cops in a visible, emotionally triggering way) plus a ludicrous Democratic party that believes in auctioning off seats on Air Force One by demographic categories (Biden guaranteed a female VP) which then left them trapped when important members of their coalition demanded that, if it were to be a woman, it'd have to be a black one. There are very few women who could fill that roll, so a half-Indian, Jamaican woman was anointed because she was a Senator.
This is not mutually exclusive with her being incredibly dangerous, because the same civilizationally corrosive attitudes that enabled her rise may be even more powerful if she wins. You have to dance with the one that brung ya after all
My question is why she was picked. I was certain that they would go with Newsom.
Had there been any real contention for the nod, an open convention would've been needed to select the standard-bearer from among a (sudden) raft of claimants. Political positions the party would rather not have publicly exposed would've been, thereby tarnishing and giving oppo soundbites to undermine all members of the Democratic "bench" seeking higher office in the future.
Yeah, I recall our venerable host noting they likely wouldn't run Kamala due to her terrible unfavorables, so I think her selection was a surprise to many. Was it because...
1: They wanted to avoid a messy convention that could've given ammo to Trump (As Richard noted above);
2: They could roll Joe's campaign war chest into hers without getting snagged by campaign finance laws; and thus
3: They thought it'd be cheaper/more effective to prop her up via a massive PR/propaganda push (which we saw executed day 1 with amazing coordination across all their media assets) than to start fundraising from $0 with a better candidate?
I'd answer 4: all of the above...plus if things go as badly for her in the race as they may, they've just ended her career and cleared the decks for next time.
I also assume their backup plan, if she loses, is to just stymie Trump again like they did with his first term (endless lawfare, impeachments, etc.). Keep a lid on MAGA for four years and then go back to business as usual and run Newsome vs. some miscellaneous GOP schmuck/foil.
Only problem they might have with that is if Trump is cagey enough to have learned form his mistakes first term and outflank them. With Musk, Vivek, Gabbard, and RFK Jr. on board, I feel things might be more interesting this time around. Enough to actually change anything? No idea.
Don't forget the grooming of J.D. Vance for a presidential run in 2028. Trump's a lame duck on Inauguration Day, so a transition to Vance (or other) is inevitable and in Trump's (and America's) interest as both a triumph and a legacy.
The large war chest of campaign funds acquired by the Biden/Harris campaign could only be directly accessed by Harris. Any other candidate would have had to direct the funds to the DNC or perhaps even returned them to donors.
So the question becomes why did they stick with Biden so long only to decide yep we know, he really is in Stage 5 dementia.
I assumed Biden would be pushed out by the end of 2021, but Harris may have saved him. Unfortunately, there's no one I would trust for an accurate inside history of the Biden WH.
She wouldn’t have been picked had there been a convention.
“…during the height of the Anglophone Quebec Nationalism movement to retake Montreal from the economically dominant English-speakers like herself.”
I think in this context you meant “Anglophobe”. Didn’t you?
Yes what is Anglophone Quebec Nationalism? I’ve never heard of it—although I lived in B.C. in those years.
This woman is a foreign retarded whore and I can't wait to never hear her voice or name again
A bit harsh perhaps. Feelings tend to run high during elections, even apparently those of bots...
She spent her formative years in Canada. She is clearly not bright and is either an alcoholic or a pill junkie, which has led to obvious cognitive issues. She quite literally whored herself out to get her start in politics. None of what I'm saying is harsh. In fact, given the disaster of the last 4 years, it's rather measured.
She has never been foreign really according to the NYT's deft elision: after all, she was just "attending school" in Montreal while her mother worked at McGill. She may as well have been at a Swiss boarding school, see?
I lived in Minnesota from 10-18. I haven't lived there since but I consider myself Minnesotan. Those are your formative years
She was born in the US. Not that I like her.