VP Harris top choice to replace Biden in election race if he steps aside.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Kamala Harris is the top alternative to replace U.S. President Joe Biden if he decides not to continue his reelection campaign, according to seven senior sources at the Biden campaign, the White House and the Democratic National Committee with knowledge of current discussions on the topic. Biden's fumbling, sometimes-incoherent and widely-panned first-debate performance against Republican rival Donald Trump last week set off a wave of panic within the Democratic party over concerns that he may not be fit enough to serve a second term, and prompted calls for top aides to resign.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
@Patriot96 Name one more disliked. I can't think of any American vice president more universally disliked except maybe Alexander Hamilton Stephens, who was Vice President of the Confederate States of America. Not sure if that should be counted, so probably Kamala Harris.
Usually Vice Presidents get ignored, or are described as bumbling idiotic characters both sides can laugh at who might get relegated aome executive function by the president but mostly site around in the Senate wacking around a gavel and sitting around in silence most of the day. You can literally hire a homeless person off the streets to do that job because the president can fix any bad legislation they pass with a Veto.
But Kamala figured out a way to be hated by most everyone. Alot of democrats are revolted by her, it's only the hardcore party members who support her, and only because she is vice president. If someone else was vice president I doubt anyone would notice her.
@Patriot96 I'm pretty sure it wasn't diversity but rather the democratic party elites in South Carolina insisting on her. If it was diversity they would of supported Governor Sara Palin. I was in Alaska and largely unpolitical back then, and when I got back from Iraq spent the winter mostly handing out in the sauna. A couple of retired black veterans would go in, turns out they more or less ran the republican party up in Alaska and were starting the campaign to get Governor Palin as Vice President. I knew about it before most of the country. I shocked alot of democrats I knew with my prediction it would be Palin and one hates me passionately to this day (even tired to ruin a funeral over it) thinking I was some republican insider pulling strings. Never been a republican, I'm in The Prohibition Party, and prior to that refused any party affiliation. But those two black republicans did break me lf the myh that black people couldn't vote republican. You see it happening more and more, and the left is becomming more and more racist in reaction. I'm just mildly conservative and hold some commonplace leftist viewpoints, and don't let people decide for me what to think.
To be an American, one has to believe in and defend the "Constitution of the United States," the Confederates fought for and defended the "Constitution of the Confederacy." Two completely different documents with different ideologies.
@calicuz I don't know. Like, George Washington's brother was a America (colonial but still american) and also a British military officer.
The post war independent americans had no issue seeing colonial americans as americans. I went down a few times to West Liberty, West Virginia to a colonial and revolutionary war cemetary when researching Samuel Brady, who was George Washington's top military scout and ranger..... the graveyard has a british general buried in 1774. His grave never vandalized and removed, and this was the county seat back then. British did start in 1774 a war of attrition called Lord Dunmore's War, instigating fights between the colonists and indians to thin out both sides and keep the Americans in the area distracted (mutual genocide for both sides). The loyalists were considered Americans then, like Dirty Girty but today are remembered as Canadians even though they spent their lives in places like Ohio and Pennslyvania, largely because Canada needs a history and the US disowned them, but they disowned them for Colonial American period acts, and the colonial military records of guys like Samual Brady were readily accepted still by the American Republic. I even found evidence of guys getting paid by the US government for colonial military service out of Fort Pitt just two years prior to the revolutionary war (they had to get witnesses who served with them and were already being paid a pension to vouch for them that they served).
US civil war confederates called themselves Americans, just a different America. The american former slaves who colonized Monroeville, Liberia definately were entitled to call themselves Americans (those of that generation at least) but once they achieved independence I dunno, it be weird in the same sense of loyalistist american traitors who fled to Canada still having the nerve to call themselves Americans. The confederacy was mostly composed of former american citizens in a american geographical region. They had every right to call themselves Americans, just couldn't be called Americans first and foremost, above all as that name was already taken by the north who had a older government. But.... I get the succession causes confusion and so am willing to keep it murky and confused, as it is confusing. But we wouldn't look at England during the War of the Roses and debate which side was more entitled to be called English, now would we? But we do do jt for France during the 100 years war. The British had equal rights to be called French on the continent as those who backed Joan of Arc and the Dauphin, and the burgundians had some claim to it (that's weird for other reasons), but today we just see it as nationalistic french overthrowing a alien imperialistic power. Infact the british crown had a very old claim going back to the Normans and the initial rise of French monarchial authority and France had a rather diverse population.
So we change the rules from place to place. I don't have a fully coherent reason as to why. I like some of the insights of guys like Ibn Khaldun but it doesn't seem nearly robust enough of a theory of civilizational changes.
I disagree, they had no right to call themselves Americans when they wanted to start a new country. We call those people traitors to the Stars and Stipes.
@calicuz See, that's the contradiction, because American Colonists were accused of wanting to start a new country when colonial representatives, such as Benjamin Franklin, went to the English Parliament and asked for a end to the repressive ideology of Parliamentry Supremacy and recognize the British living in America as fully British, and give them representation. This was a special, nonvoting parliamentry envoy in Benjamen Franklin's case.
British stupidly didn't agree, and stuck with Parliamentry Supremacy to this day. They claim they understood why the America colonies broke away, and came up with their unwritten constitution declarations for increasing degrees of automomy for colonies until they reached peaceful independence. It somewhat worked but didn't have to happen that way. US has a largely systemmatic system of federal, state, and local government seperation of powers, we divide the executive from the legislature clearly, and won't allow a state ever to leave the union. We can and have done it with territories. British however sloppily handled the decolonization movement. It didn't move gradually and rationally over time. If the Soviets or Chinese backed a faction, it went fast. Enough time for them to prop up the idea of a British Commonwealth. But Canada was more or less toyed with and didn't achieve indepednence till Margaret Thatcher, and she had doubts Canada was ready. New Zealand didn't even seek independence, they were just informed they were their own country one day when the UK in the North Atlantic decided to join the European Economic Community. They couldn't brink New Zealand in too so chucked them, pissed New Zealand off. That's all a direct reaction from keeping Parliamentry Supremacy and doubling down on ideology as to "the real reasons why America left" and refusing to fix anything. They were able to build a new empire in Africa and Asia but it fell like a sack of bricks a century and a half later.
During the revolutionary war, Montreal was for a while American. Florida was a British loyalist colony. Today Montreal is French Canadian and Florida American.
We have weird rules that stem from ideology one region to the next as to who gets to be called what. It's not quite universal. Alot is codified in the international laws of nations but still murky.
@calicuz a bunch of poor southern farmers were traitors, but the rich elites in the north that inherited all their wealth from the old world were the "real americans"?
@Dignaga technically speaking is more qualified than most of her peers. But the real issues with Harris is a woman, smart, a all around good person who a flawed like most of us, she had checked all the boxes in her professional career, but her only issue is something she can’t control or change and America isn’t ready for her. It’s sad that people can’t be judged by their content.
But the real issues with Harris is a woman, smart, a all around good person
acts like a reality tv bimbo, laughs inappropriately, displays complete disregard for anything serious, and talks like and to people like a 12 year old
To say she's more qualified than anyone, or that she's smart and good, etc. is more demeaning to women in general than just about anything else one could say or do...
