Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell Green Fan
Not sure I understand the price of tea in China comment. We were discussing the VPs and my comment addressed the VPs on the ticket as I defended her pick.
For the record I preferred Kelly to as he was from a swing state. But after learning more about Walz I have no problem with the pick. Above all else he is a good guy and likeable, you just can't say that about Trump and Vance.
I disagree with your comment that both choices hurt their running mate, Vance has been damaging and the Pubs have so little on Walz that they have resorted to critcizing Walz for claiming he went to combat when he did not, meanwhile Trump calls those killed or captured "losers", he claimed the Presidential Medal of Honor given to a rich donor was more important than the Congressional Medal of Freaking Honor. They just don't have much on Walz obviously when compared to all Vance has given the Dems.
So no I don't agree with you when you say she would be comfortably ahead had she selected Kelly and that both VPs have hurt their running mate.
|
I said Walz was a mistake she should have chosen a moderate ie Kelley. Your reply was Vance was worse. That response didn't address what I said (ie What has that to do with the price of tea in China - this is a colloquialism meaning what you said was not relevant to what I said - seems a lot of these old common sayings are starting to die off).
Kelley would have reinforced Harris's messaging attempt to portray her as more moderate than she actually is and almost certainly would have gotten her more votes probably a 1-2% difference - that difference may be the difference in stopping Trump (who must be stopped - wanted to remind you I'm sending my vote her way despite hating her policies - My vote isn't for her it is against Trump).