Because Kamala

[rmgill]

7 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Why not, he didn't seem to give a toss about arming Ukraine to avoid a war.

You can't escape that Biden gave the invasion of Ukraine a green light. 

You just cannot. 

7 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

And if you think Trump is going to give Bibi all he wants, you are gravely mistaken.

I think Trump has Bibi's back. He's not giving him the cold shoulder and making kissing noises to Hamaniks. 

[Tim the Tank Nut]

candidater Harris' position on sex work is one of the few things that she is at least honest about.  I don't really have a problem with it.  I sort of believe that the people (read: women) that are involved in that trade are more up  front about the transactional nature of life than many religious people are.  One of Napoleon's soldiers wrote a memoir that included vignettes of the local Priests' blessings of youg women.  That sort of thing is as old as time itself.  Regarding Trump, he's plenty blunt about it. 

Harris doesn't have a problem with how she got where she is and while I don't think it is the best way forward I'm willing to admit that it IS a way forward.  Unfortunately every other thing she believes is an anathema to running a successful nation so her honesty regarding how some women make ends meet won't convince me that she should be President.

[rmgill]

I would generally agree that sex work IS probably something that should be legal under certain circumstances. However it has a great many pitfalls and those need to be addressed carefully and pointedly. 

As to Harris' climb to positions of authority, it's a form of nepotism that should not be used and it's indicative of being unqualified. How it's ok and the Casting Couch methods that we saw 'under' Harvey Weinstein and others in Hollywood as an example of rape, but in Harris' case it's all good. Which is it? If it's merely transactional and it's ok then it's ok for the seller AND the buyer. 

Edited July 29, 2024 by rmgill

[Ivanhoe]

18 minutes ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

Harris doesn't have a problem with how she got where she is and while I don't think it is the best way forward I'm willing to admit that it IS a way forward.  Unfortunately every other thing she believes is an anathema to running a successful nation so her honesty regarding how some women make ends meet won't convince me that she should be President.

A huge problem with women sleeping their way to the top is that it supports an environment where that sort of thing is expected, which makes it quite unpleasant for those women not performing quid pro quo.

[Ivanhoe]

I concur with whatever the heck she said;

We are a looong way from a Dem POTUS who could speak with clarity and conviction.

 

[Tim the Tank Nut]

I wouldn't say that Harris is qualified because she isn't.  What I am saying is that I am moderately approving of the fact that she is honest enough to admit that her path up went through the oldest methods of them all.  The fact that she isn't in the least ashamed of her methodology may be an indication of her character.

 

Ivanhoe's point is really good though and something that I hadn't thought through.  For the women who succeed by sheer competence is does put them in a bad spot.  The soft bigotry of low expectations does fit here.

[Ssnake]

13 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

We are a looong way from a Dem POTUS who could speak with clarity and conviction.

It's much easier to speak clearly and with conviction if you have clarity of mind and actual convictions. Much harder to fake it ad hoc in an interview situation; you'd have to be extraordinarily glib and scarily manipulative to pull that off.

[rmgill]

15 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

It's much easier to speak clearly and with conviction if you have clarity of mind and actual convictions. Much harder to fake it ad hoc in an interview situation; you'd have to be extraordinarily glib and scarily manipulative to pull that off.

VP Harris will be working hard to be sure it seems like she's working hard. Because we have to work hard when we work hard. It's the American way for democracy that we work hard. But only if we work hard. 


And if you speak with clarity, so that you're clear, people know that you're clear. And you have to show your convictions to be sure of your clear convictions otherwise you leave people feeling unclear. Are we clear on our convictions? 

Edited July 29, 2024 by rmgill

[Markus Becker]

On 7/27/2024 at 10:09 PM, Murph said:

Ok, this is also funny (and possibly true):

 

 

 

This one is IMO far better:

 

It highlights the media's flexibility with the narrative. The message is whatever advances their agenda, so reader beware. 

And wouldn't she be much more vulnerable wrt her time as a DA in California? Note, this is from 2019!

 

https://theappeal.org/san-francisco-is-paying-for-jamal-truloves-wrongful-conviction-will-kamala-harris/

[rmgill]

I think the Black voter base is less happy with her. Trump did real efforts at reforming miscarriages of justice. She seemed to be fine with keeping people in prison because it was good a good $ value for the state government. 

[Ivanhoe]

She's only 25% black, same percentage as George Zimmerman.

 

[Ssnake]

Dear god, not melanin math again. Just because they do it all the time doesn't mean we have to play by their set of racist intersectionality rules.

[DKTanker]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Why not, he didn't seem to give a toss about arming Ukraine to avoid a war.

And if you think Trump is going to give Bibi all he wants, you are gravely mistaken.

1st, I'm noting that Russia attacked no nation during the time of the Trump administration, though they were already actively engaged in Syria.

2nd, you can't possibly know what has never happened, no matter what dreams and nightmares you might have while you sleep.

Maybe Trump should have invited Putin to invade Ukraine so that the arms grift could have started a few years earlier?

Edited July 29, 2024 by DKTanker

[Mr King]

[DKTanker]

For some reason I don't think the 304 candidate will get much scrutiny, sexual or otherwise.

[rmgill]

You have to love how the party of anti-racism and anti-sexism has calls where it's people of a very specific demographic allowed to call in. 

Edited July 30, 2024 by rmgill

[Mr King]

I dont know about white dudes, but Kamala has the mentally ill white chick vote on lock.

[Stuart Galbraith]

7 hours ago, DKTanker said:

1st, I'm noting that Russia attacked no nation during the time of the Trump administration, though they were already actively engaged in Syria.

2nd, you can't possibly know what has never happened, no matter what dreams and nightmares you might have while you sleep.

Maybe Trump should have invited Putin to invade Ukraine so that the arms grift could have started a few years earlier?

Well you see, there you are completely wrong. Because Russia engaged in a war of attrition, pretty much from the day the invasion of Crimea ended, till the day the 2020 war started.  Dont believe me? See for youself. Tell me, who was in office all these years listed here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_war_in_Donbas_(2017)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_war_in_Donbas_(2018)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_war_in_Donbas_(2019)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_war_in_Donbas_(2020)

Did Trump 'solve' this problem? No, no more than he did the tensions with North Korea. In fact, I seem to recall he equivocated about selling Javelins to Ukraine (not giving, only selling) and only did so when the phone call recordings came up, and even then requested assurances they would only be used for 'defensive' purposes. Despite the fact of course, Russia was already fighting a war on Ukrainian territory.

I cant know what would have happened. I can know what DID actually happen,he didnt create deterrence towards Russia, and did not adequately arm Ukraine, which was probably the only thing that would have deterred him. He then  went and kissed the Putin ring, and came out looking like he had been buttfucked.

 

Yes, sell out a fellow Democracy, so we dont have the encumberance by actually giving them taxdollars worth of soon to be expired weapons, and monkey model variants of our tanks. Truly your generosity knows know bounds. Arms grift? The only grift going on is convincing yourself you are sending them warwinning equipment.

 

 

[Josh]

It appears we are seeing real movement in approval ratings and polling in the first week. Pretty much the entire blue wall is now within the margin of error in one direction or the other. In the first week she raised $200 million, signed on >170,000 volunteers, and saw 100,000 new voters register, 86% in the 18-34 demo. Quite a week.

[Murph]

11 hours ago, Mr King said:

I dont know about white dudes, but Kamala has the mentally ill white chick vote on lock.

Man, does she ever.  

[Stargrunt6]

12 hours ago, rmgill said:

You have to love how the party of anti-racism and anti-sexism has calls where it's people of a very specific demographic allowed to call in. 

Those Star Wars royalties must be thin, Hamill has become a Jedi Shill-lord.

[Josh]

44 minutes ago, Stargrunt6 said:

Those Star Wars royalties must be thin, Hamill has become a Jedi Shill-lord.

It is certainly possible, but it seems at least as likely that he just does not want Trump to be president, like the majority of voters in 2016 and 2020 (and I’ll call it right now: 2024).

[Skywalkre]

5 hours ago, Josh said:

It appears we are seeing real movement in approval ratings and polling in the first week. Pretty much the entire blue wall is now within the margin of error in one direction or the other. In the first week she raised $200 million, signed on >170,000 volunteers, and saw 100,000 new voters register, 86% in the 18-34 demo. Quite a week.

Regarding the bolding - I'll believe it when I see it.  In my lifetime we saw some of them show up for Obama and then again in '20... but otherwise that's a demographic pols have been ignoring with good reason.

[Josh]

4 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Regarding the bolding - I'll believe it when I see it.  In my lifetime we saw some of them show up for Obama and then again in '20... but otherwise that's a demographic pols have been ignoring with good reason.

I have no idea if these individuals will actually vote, but the fact they registered as soon as Biden left seems to indicate some enthusiasm for the change. I'd be willing to bet black females are over represented in that number. The original statistic comes from vote.org; it would not include new voter registrations in total, just people who used that particular service.

[17thfabn]

I like talking and debating politics, especially with those I disagree with...... in a civilized way. I hope my posts have been civilized.

In that vein....

I am no fan of Donald Trump. I voted against him in three primaries. I have reluctantly voted for him against Clinton and Biden.

Voting for Trump over Harris is an easy choice. She would push DEI, ESG and open borders among other policies I disagree with.

By my unofficial count TN is overwhelmingly Republican leaning, with two or three being MAGA Republicans.

By the same unofficial count, I think TN has two or three Democrat leaning members. 

Those of you who are Democrat leaning, how do you feel about Kamala Harris? I can understand the disgust with Trump. Many times debate breaks down to the D's did this, the R's did something similar or worse. And back and forth.

Democrat leaning members, do you agree with Harris's expected policies?