It’s the way people *refuse* to actually voice why they’re quite certain Kamala is a non-starter that really gets me. I know why I’m not a fan, former prosecutor-reliable centrist (derogatory)-convoluted and ultimately useless economic policy, but that’s a *lot* of people’s whole jam, until now.
Like if you were an Eric Adams booster, a Val Demings booster, a Ridin’ with Biden booster, what exactly is it about Kamala you find totally unacceptable as a Presidential candidate?
and they really sent her on routes across the middle that looked like crash dummy missions. “Go to Central America and tell people to stop trying to come to the US” was a Jay Novaceck route. She didn’t complain, she did that shit. It’s wild to see people act like that was supposed to work.
“well she didn’t solve immigration” is not an actual objection I’m willing to listen to is what I’m saying. There’s never been a Vice President in the history of the country that would be able to solve the problem of other nations being so miserable that people seek a life in the US. Be serious.
She was a whole ass US Senator. To argue she’s “unqualified” for an office for which people *just recently* voted in Donald fucking Trump is going to be grounds for me to block you, I’m sorry.
I’m guessing that the calculation by the sensibility you’re describing/interrogating is, she is *unelectable* (in their analysis). Which reveals her selection as a running mate to be the cynical, idpolitik tokenism (from their perspective, in their value-add calculus) it always was (and ever is).
