Racism And Kamala Harris

[laughing dog]

And there's the difference. I don't think that Trump (or almost any other feasible republican candidate) is any more of an existential threat to our republic than Harris (or almost any other feasible democratic candidate). Both far-right conservatives and far-left progressives hold views that I think are material threats to liberty and our nation's stability; both of those cohorts have far more influence over the parties than I would like. And whether you want to admit it or not, both of those cohorts also hold views that I think are beneficial to the country.

Mr Trump helped organize and lead an insurrection which ought to suggest to any disinterested observer that he is a threat to democracy. His constant bluster and posturing about using the military to go after political rivals, protesters and alleged undocumented aliens is further evidence of his threat to democracy.
There is no one in the “far left” who can reasonably be expected to cone clise to becoming POTUS.

I find your observation not unconvincing but a denial of reality.

I mean, yeah, he tried to overthrow the results of an election... once. Are you telling me the Democrat party in the last 100 years hasn't tried to overthrow the results of an election. Puhlease! When are you going to drop January 6th? Get over it!

I will drop Jan. 6th the nanosecond after Trump drops dead.

 

[Elixir]

I don’t see anyone here assuming any such things,

Emily has accused me of thinking race and sex are the most important attributes in a candidate.
That’s FALSE.
But to me it is to be expected of someone performing the mental contortions required to equivocate the threat posed by Harris’ assumed incompetence (being a DEI pick and all, that’s the risk according to Emily) with the obvious existential threat Trump poses to representative government.

 

[Toni]

Diversity isn't a danger; the prioritization of diversity above competency and acument is a danger.

And yet, they attack people like Kamala Harris, whose credentials and record are both well known and above reproach, accusing them of only having been elected for their "vagina and skin color" even though that is obviously not the case.

Some people are idiots. Are you under the impression that I dispute that?

On the other hand... there are a great many people who do NOT think that her record is above reproach - including some within the democratic party. That you think her record is fantastic is fine - her views align with your own priorities. But that doesn't make it universally so.

Do you think that Kamala Harris is an idiot? Incompetent? Unqualified?

If the answer is yes, please exp look son why.

If the answer is no, then why this discussion?

Do you think Harris would be a better president than Trump? Because that’s the real question. If no, then why not?

 

[Elixir]

I’ll take “not above reproach” to “trying to overthrow American democracy” any day of the week.
BTW Emily, nobody is above reproach.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Diversity isn't a danger; the prioritization of diversity above competency and acument is a danger.

And yet, they attack people like Kamala Harris, whose credentials and record are both well known and above reproach, accusing them of only having been elected for their "vagina and skin color" even though that is obviously not the case.

Some people are idiots. Are you under the impression that I dispute that?

On the other hand... there are a great many people who do NOT think that her record is above reproach - including some within the democratic party. That you think her record is fantastic is fine - her views align with your own priorities. But that doesn't make it universally so.

Do you think that Kamala Harris is an idiot? Incompetent? Unqualified?

If the answer is yes, please exp look son why.

If the answer is no, then why this discussion?

Do you think Harris would be a better president than Trump? Because that’s the real question. If no, then why not?

This is where the Narnia level fantasy of third-party vote comes in.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The thing is The Felon and associates keep talking about rolling the clock back.

Rolling back the clock to when? It seems like a lot of progressives have decided that he means to roll it back to the mid 1800s, whereas a lot of conservatives think he means to roll it back to the early 2000s.

I think they're looking for something like 1950. Before the civil rights movement.

 

[ZiprHead]

Apparently you have not seen the attacks on Harris' and Vance's wife.

You're going to need to be more specific. I've seen insinuations from progressives that any objection to Harris is racially motivated and cannot be anything else. And I've seen commentary from progressives about how Vance won't be accepted by republicans because she's Indian and that this will hurt Vance. Now, I don't frequent stormfront (is that even still around), so it's entirely possible I'm missing something... but I haven't actually seen anything from conservatives or republicans that focus on the race or ethnicity of either Harris or Vance's wife.

It's not hard to find.

JD Vance's wife, Usha, faces racist online backlash from far-right social media posts

Usha Chilukuri Vance is the daughter of Indian immigrants.

abc7chicago.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/18/rnc-convention-usha-vance-maga-attacks/

Wow. I counted three guys. A couple of self described white supremecists and a conspiracy theorist don't like her. That's hardly a worrisome trend. Remember this is the internet, where everyone gets a voice from geniuses to complete nutters. You'll find such irrational hate on youtube comments about videos of cute puppies playing with cute kittens.

First you complain you haven't seen it, then when shown it's not enough.

View attachment 46886

If you're referring to my post earlier this morning to JH, I did ask if it was a signicant percentage of the right who were freaking out about JD Vance's wife. So I guess you answered my question...with a resounding, "No". I'm quite satisified with your answer. Those soccer players can go back to playing soccer.

Sorry, my bad. I was replying to your post as if it had come from Emily. My apologies.

No prob. It did seem like you were crabbier than usual towards me so I figured something was amiss.

Have you not seen my avatar?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The thing is The Felon and associates keep talking about rolling the clock back.

Rolling back the clock to when? It seems like a lot of progressives have decided that he means to roll it back to the mid 1800s, whereas a lot of conservatives think he means to roll it back to the early 2000s.

I think they're looking for something like 1950. Before the civil rights movement.

I'd say late 1800s. Back when monopolies were monopolies. And the 14th Amendment wasn't shoved down the states throats. Though, an argument can be made for the 1950s (before clean air, water, civil rights act) or 1920s (all of that and social security and Medicare).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some of it is absurd and ridiculous, some of it is more extreme than I would like, but there's some that I think is worthwhile. Mostly focused around policies toward China. At some point I expect to see policy positions from Harris, so I can compare and contrast.

I actually agree with all of that.
In my case though it doesn’t matter to my vote because Trump is an existential threat to this republic. I truly would prefer a rotten cabbage, for its lack of destructive intent and the difficulty of kompromatting a cabbage.

And there's the difference. I don't think that Trump (or almost any other feasible republican candidate) is any more of an existential threat to our republic than Harris (or almost any other feasible democratic candidate). Both far-right conservatives and far-left progressives hold views that I think are material threats to liberty and our nation's stability; both of those cohorts have far more influence over the parties than I would like. And whether you want to admit it or not, both of those cohorts also hold views that I think are beneficial to the country.

Neither party is acting for the interests of the citizens and the country. They are both acting in the interest of the party.

A guy who says he's only going to be dictator for a day isn't an existential threat??

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Some of it is absurd and ridiculous, some of it is more extreme than I would like, but there's some that I think is worthwhile. Mostly focused around policies toward China. At some point I expect to see policy positions from Harris, so I can compare and contrast.

I actually agree with all of that.
In my case though it doesn’t matter to my vote because Trump is an existential threat to this republic. I truly would prefer a rotten cabbage, for its lack of destructive intent and the difficulty of kompromatting a cabbage.

And there's the difference. I don't think that Trump (or almost any other feasible republican candidate) is any more of an existential threat to our republic than Harris (or almost any other feasible democratic candidate). Both far-right conservatives and far-left progressives hold views that I think are material threats to liberty and our nation's stability; both of those cohorts have far more influence over the parties than I would like. And whether you want to admit it or not, both of those cohorts also hold views that I think are beneficial to the country.

Neither party is acting for the interests of the citizens and the country. They are both acting in the interest of the party.

A guy who says he's only going to be dictator for a day isn't an existential threat??

Meh... it was just locker room talk. I know how much Emily Lake likes to handwave locker room talk.

 

[ZiprHead]

Derec. Always keeping it klassy.

 

[Politesse]

I’ll take “not above reproach” to “trying to overthrow American democracy” any day of the week.
BTW Emily, nobody is above reproach.

Nor should be.

 

[Shadowy Man]

A guy who says he's only going to be dictator for a day isn't an existential threat??

To be fair, it’s not like Trump works a lot in one day.

 

[Elixir]

A guy who says he's only going to be dictator for a day isn't an existential threat??

Well yeah sure.
But not any more of an existential threat than the YUUUUGE threat that a DEI pick, despite having served as State AG, US Senator and VP, becomes an incompetent President. Right, @Emily Lake ?

Again... rotten head of cabbage vs felon bent on destroying American Democracy to stay out of jail... let's see... yup. Cabbage all the way.

 

[Emily Lake]

I don’t see anyone here assuming any such things,

Emily has accused me of thinking race and sex are the most important attributes in a candidate.
That’s FALSE.
But to me it is to be expected of someone performing the mental contortions required to equivocate the threat posed by Harris’ assumed incompetence (being a DEI pick and all, that’s the risk according to Emily) with the obvious existential threat Trump poses to representative government.

Oh FFS. I don't think Harris is incompetent - nor have I said so at any fucking point. I'm so incredibly sick of this bullshit where any disagreement with progressive platforms means I must be a rabid right winger. It's beyond dumb and it's also contemptible weak sauce devoid of any actual fucking argumentation.

But hey, don't let reality get in the way of you building those windmills and getting yourself riled up.

I am curious though - what will you do if Trump ends up winning? Are you going to be okay with it? What's your plan for that potentiality?

 

[Emily Lake]

The thing is The Felon and associates keep talking about rolling the clock back.

Rolling back the clock to when? It seems like a lot of progressives have decided that he means to roll it back to the mid 1800s, whereas a lot of conservatives think he means to roll it back to the early 2000s.

I think they're looking for something like 1950. Before the civil rights movement.

Why do you think that? What supports your speculation?

 

[ZiprHead]

except that Biden explicitly made it clear that he was ONLY going to consider a black or brown woman for VP.

Are you complaining about his apparent prescience?
Who else, upon his timely exit from the race, would have generated the current level of enthusiasm? (Other than Trump, maybe)

Had Biden dropped out in January, the Dem convention would be a zoo. As it is, there will be a lot of unity going in, largely because of the compressed timeline. Plus the BS propaganda machine has been built for all the wrong attack angles. Pity.

Are you suggesting that way back in 2020, Biden was planning to drop out mid-way through the 2024 cycle so that Harris could take his place?

Where do you come up with these wild conclusions?

 

[ZiprHead]

P2025 makes it clear that they want to impose it at the federal level

Project 2025 makes it clear that The Heritage Foundation wants to impose it at a federal level.

The Heritage Foundation has been wanting that for pretty much as long as it has existed, along with several other things that aren't widely supported by americans as a whole, or even by right-leaning people.

Cite, please.

And, if so, the Heritage Foundation has never before had a candidate that would dare try to implement such extreme and anti-democratic policies.

 

[pood]

The thing is The Felon and associates keep talking about rolling the clock back.

Rolling back the clock to when? It seems like a lot of progressives have decided that he means to roll it back to the mid 1800s, whereas a lot of conservatives think he means to roll it back to the early 2000s.

I think they're looking for something like 1950. Before the civil rights movement.

Why do you think that? What supports your speculation?

Oh, gosh, who knows? How about stuff like repeated attempts to curtail the Voting Rights Act, gerrymandering to suppress the minority vote, outright racist bullhorning rather than merely dog-whistling, an attempted insurrection by the defeated president (which would have taken us back to antebellum times), typecasting Kamala as a “DEI” hire in the racist MAGGOT sense of the word, that NO minority is every qualified for anything, and, well, the list goes on …

 

[Jarhyn]

If someone cannot make a decision on who to support between a prosecutor and a convicted rapist criminal, if they in any way find any excuse to look past the crimes and the rapes, it does not matter what they have claimed to support. In actuality, they are supporting rapes and crimes.

Once someone runs defense or interference or "both sides" to muddy the waters around the criminal rapist, nothing they have said concerning crime or rape is at all valid anymore. At that point it is all just "moral grandstanding" and "virtue signaling".

In order to change this, they would have to actually stand up when it MATTERS, to stand up against the criminal rapist and tell them to pound sand.

If you talk a big game about wanting to end or prevent rapes, but every four years find a convenient excuse for voting for criminals, rapists, and those who enable them, then you are a rape/crime enabler.

Period.