The prime piece of stupidity in this issue was the knee-jerk assumption that Kamala Harris was entirely on board with Joe Biden's Gaza policies. This is a replay of the stupid mistake anti-Vietnam war activists (and I was one of them, although I wasn't in Chicago) made in 1968 when they protested Hubert Humphrey's nomination. Humphrey, w…
The prime piece of stupidity in this issue was the knee-jerk assumption that Kamala Harris was entirely on board with Joe Biden's Gaza policies. This is a replay of the stupid mistake anti-Vietnam war activists (and I was one of them, although I wasn't in Chicago) made in 1968 when they protested Hubert Humphrey's nomination. Humphrey, we later learned, had been opposed to sending troops to Vietnam all along and had advised Johnson to end the war, but he couldn't say so because Vice Presidents do not undermine a President's policies in public. And particularly when there were delicate peace negotiations going on, anything Humphrey might have said might have destroyed the chance that a cease fire could be reached. Kamala Harris was in exactly the same position. She did make it clear that she supported a two-state solution, and she supported Biden's cease fire proposal, which is the one that went into effect as soon as Netanyahu decided Trump could take credit for it. To those paying attention it was obvious Trump was Netanyahu's boy. In Humphrey's case, very shortly before the 1968 election he did put out a statement in opposition to the war, but people didn't believe him. So we got Nixon, who (we learned later) had sabotaged the peace talks and whose "secret plan" was to escalate the war. Most of the dead whose names are listed on the Vietnam Memorial in DC died on Nixon's watch. And I have a brother buried in Arlington who was in Vietnam on Nixon's watch, so excuse me if a get little heated on the subject. So now Trump is in power, is following the dictator playbook and destroying our country through an illegal seizing of all federal functions. But according to you, this is not a big deal and we're not supposed to be angry about it. I would speak more plainly about what I think of your post above, but it would require too many vulgarities. Bye.
If the Vice President refuses to “undermine the President’s policies in public”, how on earth is anyone supposed to believe them when they say they don’t support them? What compels the Vice President to not chastise the policy of the President?
The prime piece of stupidity in this issue was the knee-jerk assumption that Kamala Harris was entirely on board with Joe Biden's Gaza policies. This is a replay of the stupid mistake anti-Vietnam war activists (and I was one of them, although I wasn't in Chicago) made in 1968 when they protested Hubert Humphrey's nomination. Humphrey, we later learned, had been opposed to sending troops to Vietnam all along and had advised Johnson to end the war, but he couldn't say so because Vice Presidents do not undermine a President's policies in public. And particularly when there were delicate peace negotiations going on, anything Humphrey might have said might have destroyed the chance that a cease fire could be reached. Kamala Harris was in exactly the same position. She did make it clear that she supported a two-state solution, and she supported Biden's cease fire proposal, which is the one that went into effect as soon as Netanyahu decided Trump could take credit for it. To those paying attention it was obvious Trump was Netanyahu's boy. In Humphrey's case, very shortly before the 1968 election he did put out a statement in opposition to the war, but people didn't believe him. So we got Nixon, who (we learned later) had sabotaged the peace talks and whose "secret plan" was to escalate the war. Most of the dead whose names are listed on the Vietnam Memorial in DC died on Nixon's watch. And I have a brother buried in Arlington who was in Vietnam on Nixon's watch, so excuse me if a get little heated on the subject. So now Trump is in power, is following the dictator playbook and destroying our country through an illegal seizing of all federal functions. But according to you, this is not a big deal and we're not supposed to be angry about it. I would speak more plainly about what I think of your post above, but it would require too many vulgarities. Bye.
If the Vice President refuses to “undermine the President’s policies in public”, how on earth is anyone supposed to believe them when they say they don’t support them? What compels the Vice President to not chastise the policy of the President?