Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
It Could Have Been Worse
As I watched the interview of Kamala Harris, I found myself folded up in my chair, waiting for the worst. Her comments have been so cringe-worthy, her lies so obvious, her word salads so infamous, that I figured that the interview would be a disaster. Even her sidekick, Walz, wouldn’t be able to bail her out.
When the interview was over, I uncurled myself from my chair and breathed a sigh of relief. Well, it could have been worse.
I watched the panel on CNN say that she was better than “worst,” and in fact lauded her appearance. And then I switched to Fox News and Joe Concha, which woke me up from my lethargy.
I realized how pathetic and gratuitous my thinking was.
Kamala Harris is such a poor candidate that anything better than horrible was acceptable. She only told a couple of lies. Her word salads were minimal. (Walz stepped in with his reference to his poor grammar regarding his military service.) And she pointed to the fact that her values hadn’t changed.
What values? And how in the world does she define values?
Harris has no values that I can identify with. She has outrageous positions that she holds too tightly. Her views—not her values—change as often and as frequently as the wind blows. And she doesn’t represent anything—and I mean anything—that I would endorse for a candidate for President.
Unfortunately, I was aghast at how easily I fell into tolerating mediocrity. Am I really prepared to settle for “less than worst” with a person running for President? How many people who want to find a reason to vote for her are doing the same thing?
I have been swimming in the ocean of lies and betrayal from the Left for far too long.
But I’ve been rescued.
And I’m back.
BTW, I’ve been voting for Trump and Vance from the start.
Published in Elections
Rebroadcast her foolish statements and let the voters decide on the evidence.
I hope they actually made it “Debating herself… and losing.”
The administrative state will not let Trump win.
Your comment about the current Democrat nominee for President who is running even with, or slightly ahead of Trump at the moment, was that she “has never accomplished anything in her political career.”
I disagree.
What horrifies me is that a charmless, tin-eared, opportunistic, manipulative, shrewish, Socialist harridan has managed to achieve so much in her political career, culminating with what looks very like a calculated, well-organized, and well-executed overthrow of her doddering and senile boss, engineered with the help and direction of other Party luminaries who clearly didn’t want to 25th Amendment Joe and put Kamala in there now, so that she’d be forever stuck, like Brer Rabbit, to the tar baby that is the disaster of the Biden presidency. Rather, she and they shoved him aside but left him “in control” of the country for the next several months, and I am sure they pray regularly to the God of whatever it is they pray to, for his health and survival through at least the first week of November so she can continue to pretend that she’s in no way incumbent to, or responsible for, the parlous state of the country.
The contempt that Harris, senior Democrats, and the nomenklatura have shown for this country and its citizens over the years of Biden’s senile declension beggars belief. And it continues. And yet their chances of remaining in power for another four years seem quite good.
Of course they’re helped by their minions in the media, entertainment, academia, and most of big tech. And of course, the Republicans have an uphill battle, all round. But that’s what Rumsfeld would have called a “known known,” and something which should be dealt with by a focused, united, and competent team. I’m hoping the Republicans come up with one soon, starting at the top.
As revolting on a personal level as I find Harris to be, I think a blanket dismissal of her as politically unaccomplished is a mistake. I’d like to see someone take her seriously as a candidate (this doesn’t necessarily mean believing that she is a serious, consequential, person), and actually explain, coherently and succinctly, to the American people why electing her would be a continuing disaster for the country. Trump’s very good at telling stories, but coherence, focus, and staying away from cheap personal attacks, aren’t his strong suits. Vance is very good at coherence and focus, but hasn’t connected with those outside the base. I hope someone with even a tenth of Reagan’s ability to cut through the noise and do this sort of thing comes along on the Right, and soon.
Trump and Vance are certainly good enough to serve the next 4 years. They have my vote.
For their campaign to really take off they need campaign proxies, especially ones who have credible claims to understanding the motivations and methods of Harris and Waltz. Proxies who have been red-pilled.
The proxies do not need to be perfect, but they do need the ability to make a memorable case for Trump and Vance.
RFK Jr and Gabbard seem, to me at least, to fill the bill.
Harris is proof “useful idiots” are useful even at the highest levels.
“Unfortunately, I was aghast at how easily I fell into tolerating mediocrity.”
Someday we may be seeing mediocrity as a best case scenario. (Sigh)
Is Kamala the mastermind, or the puppet du jour? She did once complained after some gaffe or other that she had not been “positioned to succeed.” Masterminds position themselves, they do not wait around passively for someone else to do it.
But there I go again, being unable to unburden myself of what has been.
Ah, the inevitable
excusebattle cry of the DEI hire, when things don’t turn out quite as well or as quickly as expected.I think she’s quite good at jumping into the breach (with an “a”) when she spots the opportunity. As for her “mastermind” credentials, I’m not sure she has the necessary smarts to enact that as a full time job; however, I think she demonstrates a certain amount of cunning and discipline that serves her well. Clearly, some of her advisors have told her to “lose the cackle” because people find it supremely annoying, and she’s listened to them, and she’s largely done so. Additionally, I suspect she knows that banging on about identity politics, and herself as the “first Black/Indian/Woman/Something blablabla” is an invitation to her opponents to keep reminding people of the only reason Biden chose her in the first place, so she’s largely avoided that trap as well.
That may not make her a mastermind, but it does indicate that she’s capable of listening to good advice and following it. How much that translates into “smarts,” or if she’s just a useful idiot or a tool of the Left, I’m not sure yet. But even masterminds sometimes subsume their egos in pursuit of a longer game. I’m pretty sure when she took the job in 2020 that she had this next step in mind, whether in her 60th, or 64th year, or somewhere in between as circumstances dictated.
LOL. Me too. Me too.
Yes. And I finally see the difference in our assertions.
We disagree. I don’t think a definition can contradict an assertion.
The reason is this.
— if a sentence contradicts an assertion, then it asserts something.
— A definition is a sentence that does not assert anything.
— Therefore a definition cannot contradict an assertion.