US Presidential Election 2024 - Trump vs Harris - Vote Hard with a Vengence

[Fishbone Jones]

If it becomes a narrative that creates controversy around a candidate, that's what it for. Real, substantial or bullshit. If it drowns out her message, and she needs to take time to address it, it takes away here talking point time. I don't think it's unusual at all. Both sides play this game. This is not one sided. You're going to see more of it, from both sides in the next two months. If you get in a discussion about it, it worked. It pulled you in and takes your eye off the ball. Plain old deflection.

 

[FJAG]

Harris's husband, Emhoff, is Jewish. Why should he not count?

Walz brings other things to the table like his military service which is useful notwithstanding Vance's hollow attempts to slight that. Only Republicans think Walz is controversial or damaging. I expect if Shapiro had been nominated then the argument would have been he never served. His representatives statement that when in Israel he "at no time engaged in any military activities" would be trucked out.

And then there is this.

Critics of Shapiro have said that he has exaggerated and misrepresented the threat student demonstrators pose to their peers. Rafael Shimunov wrote, "The leap of logic in which Shapiro engaged by suggesting they posed a threat to Jewish safety relies on a perception of Jews who are pro-Palestinian as less Jewish than Jews who are pro-Israel, and a belief that any ideological disagreement with pro-Israel Jews is a kind of violence." First Amendment advocates have criticized Shapiro for a revision to the state employees' code of conduct prohibiting "scandalous" behavior. Pro-Palestinian and Muslim groups raised concerns that the order was intended to chill speech related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. One First Amendment lawyer from Bryn Mawr called the regulation "impossible to adhere to because it's impossible to understand what it applies to."

All of that is grist for the mill for those who are looking for something.

Walz also has experience in the US House while Shapiro only served in the Pennsylvania House.

I've heard both Shapiro and Walz speak and while they are both good I like the vigour and down homeness of Walz's style.

I don't doubt that Shapiro was also a good choice, but I think the differences between them are nuanced and I wouldn't consider selecting one over the other a mistake; just a choice.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Harris's husband, Emhoff, is Jewish. Why should he not count?

Walz brings other things to the table like his military service which is useful notwithstanding Vance's hollow attempts to slight that. Only Republicans think Walz is controversial or damaging. I expect if Shapiro had been nominated then the argument would have been he never served. His representatives statement that when in Israel he "at no time engaged in any military activities" would be trucked out.

And then there is this.



All of that is grist for the mill for those who are looking for something.

Walz also has experience in the US House while Shapiro only served in the Pennsylvania House.

I've heard both Shapiro and Walz speak and while they are both good I like the vigour and down homeness of Walz's style.

I don't doubt that Shapiro was also a good choice, but I think the differences between them are nuanced and I wouldn't consider selecting one over the other a mistake; just a choice.

He doesn't count because he not getting elected as President or Vice, nor is he running. He's possibly going to be in the WH because he's married. My point was there has never been anyone Jewish elected to those two positions.

As for the rest, some good points, but they don't change my mind.

 

[FJAG]

He doesn't count because he not getting elected as President or Vice, nor is he running. He's possibly going to be in the WH because he's married. My point was there has never been anyone Jewish elected to those two positions.

Fair enough, but it makes Harris Jewish adjacent. Let's get past getting a woman into the presidency - then we can worry about giving all the competing religions an opportunity.

As for the rest, some good points, but they don't change my mind.

Somehow I expected that.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Fair enough, but it makes Harris Jewish adjacent. Let's get past getting a woman into the presidency - then we can worry about giving all the competing religions an opportunity.

Somehow I expected that.

I don't care whether it's a woman or not. You brought that in, that sounds like your hangup. In 248 years there has never been a Jewish person as #1 or #2. I wasn't arguing for or against just stating a fact and why I thought it would be a good thing campaign wise. You disagree.

Why? My narrative didn't do anything for you. Why should yours for me? At least I conceded you had some good points and made me think. Just because I didn't give out a big mea culpa doesn't mean I didn't consider them. They just weren't strong enough to make me think I,was wrong.

 

[FJAG]

I don't care whether it's a woman or not. You brought that in, that sounds like your hangup.

Ooooh. You took all that much more seriously than I intended it to be. Presidential gender (nor any of the many other classes of diversity) is not a hang up of mine.

In 248 years there has never been a Jewish person as #1 or #2.

It took them until 1960 before they elected a Catholic and until 2008 for a black man, so another decade or two for a Jewish president ..... no biggy.

I wasn't arguing for or against just stating a fact and why I thought it would be a good thing campaign wise. You disagree.

Yup. We often do. I doesn't bother me nor bother you.

Why? My narrative didn't do anything for you. Why should yours for me?

Absolutely zero reason.

At least I conceded you had some good points and made me think.

You do too, from time to time.

Just because I didn't give out a big mea culpa doesn't mean I didn't consider them.

Wasn't looking for one. Like you I just run my opinions up a flag pole to see if someone salutes. If they don't, like you, it doesn't trouble me.

They just weren't strong enough to make me think I,was wrong.

Wouldn't be the first time I failed to convince someone. You have to remember that in court, statistically, half of us lawyers lose.

For future reference, don't ever take me too seriously. I'm not that deeply invested in most things and certainly not the Democrats. Hell, I used to trend Republican until they went off the deep end with their social agenda and Trump.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

All that is fair and on point. If I misunderstood your intent, I apologize.

We really, really need that sarcasm emoji. Or have the mods declare one of the existing ones as such.