Because Kamala

[seahawk]

4 hours ago, Josh said:

I mean, I guess there is the corruption angle, but Trump cheated on his third wife with a porn star and had his first buried on his golf course. Not sure this a road his campaign wants to open.

She however provided sexual services to gain positions and advance her career. Trump took advantage of his power, charm and wit to fuck willing sluts.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I dont know, the one in the clothing store didnt sound particularly willing. Neither did the 13 year old.

I have to say, I do find the double standards here somewhat revealing. There is little evidence that what Harris did was sleep to the top. There is certainly SPECULATION to that end. But there is not a smoking gun. There is no court case making it a central allegation for example. OTOH, there is a court case demonstrating Trump is on some level a sexual predator. He was clearly friends with Epstein, and there is a clear allegation made (one the victim stands by) that he had sex with a minor. You can argue endlessly about the validity of these facts, but they are documented and in the historical record.

Harris isnt a great candidate. Alright, lets be honest, she is a lousy candidate. But on the other hand, she hasnt gone anywhere near the low bar Trump has visited, time and again.. Perhaps that wont matter. Maybe the American people will retcon the last 8 years and pretend Donald Trump is just another candidate. In fact on twitter, among several posters ive respect for, Ive already seen that. Social Media has made the world of 1984 come real, New Ingsoc has always been at war with Oceanea.

Edited July 24 by Stuart Galbraith

[Der Zeitgeist]

9 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I have to say, I do find the double standards here somewhat revealing.

Considering how bad of a candidate she supposedly is, it's quite amusing to see the MAGA lunatics running around with their hair on fire though. 😄

[Stuart Galbraith]

The fear is knee deep in here already. And with good reason. All those attack ads the Republicans have been working up against Biden? Not really going to cut it against Harris. Alright, so they can still throw the Border at her. She can turn round and say the President wouldnt allow her to make changes, and anyway, she has some ideas of her own.

Meanwhile, all those Trump adverts the Biden campaign ran up, all they have to do is change the ending to 'Im Kamala Harris and I approve of this message'.  And they are now getting record funds coming in. Doesnt mean she is going to win. She remains a poor candidate. But as said, she only has to be better than Trump, and he is hardly the shining example of American manhood, even among New York real estate developers, where they arent exactly choosy as a rule.

Perhaps Trump will now consider bailing, and leaving it to JD Vance. Now that would be an interesting campaign....

[rmgill]

52 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The fear is knee deep in here already.

Concern yes. But then, we have just had an assassination attempt because the lawfare has failed. 

52 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

And with good reason.
 

Yes. There is nothing too far the democrats won’t do. 

52 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

All those attack ads the Republicans have been working up against Biden? Not really going to cut it against Harris.

You’re kidding right? Name her accomplishments. No googling. 
 

Name them off. 

52 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Alright, so they can still throw the Border at her. She can turn round and say the President wouldnt allow her to make changes, and anyway, she has some ideas of her own.

She said none of that. She was the Birder Czar. What did she do? She had ideas. Ok. She was in the administration, her political inability to get Joe to do the things would be a failure on her part. That goes direct to ability. 

Then there’s her coverup of Biden’s dementia. She was saying he was sharp as a tack not two weeks ago. 

Carter sucked as president because he could not get democrats to work with him. 

52 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Meanwhile, all those Trump adverts the Biden campaign ran up, all they have to do is change the ending to 'Im Kamala Harris and I approve of this message'.  And they are now getting record funds coming in.
 

So the control establishment gets a new puppet. 

52 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Doesnt mean she is going to win. She remains a poor candidate

I direct you to Tulsi’s brutal defenestration of Harris in the previous DNC presidential debate in 2020. 

 

52 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Perhaps Trump will now consider bailing, and leaving it to JD Vance. Now that would be an interesting campaign....

The electorate voted for Trump. Figures you’d make the undemocratic suggestion. I thought you cared about democracy and not oligarchy. 

Edited July 24 by rmgill

[Stuart Galbraith]

Name an accomplishment Biden had before coming into office. The only accomplishment he had was standing against Trump. For some Americans that was enough. So, If it was enough for Biden, why not enough for Harris?

Trump is an Oligarch. And the way the entire Republican party capitulated towards HIS choice of VP demonstrates that this is true. Its not a Republican party now, its Trumps party. He bought and paid for it.

[Rick]

The following is from the NavWeaps Forums, the Politics of War,  the warships1desucssionboards
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/kamala-s-record-and-why-prosecutor-vs-felon-won-t--t50890.html
Kamala Harris' record as vice president and in California statewide office show a long history of scandal and management failings that are certain to draw scrutiny in presidential race.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy ... ten-follow
Before she was Joe Biden’s understudy the last four years, Kamala Harris ran offices as a California prosecutor and senator. Often, scandal and failings followed in her wake.
As California Attorney General, Harris was widely criticized for failing to take on prosecutorial misconduct. In fact her office was “called out” by judges for “defending convictions obtained by local prosecutors” who had inserted false confessions, lied under oath, and withheld evidence. A federal appeals judge even admonished officials in 2015 to talk to Harris "and make sure she understands the gravity of the situation" involving prosecutorial misconduct.
Likewise, Harris’ top deputy was accused of sexually harassing a staffer while working for Harris at the California Department of Justice, costing the state $400,000 to settle the case.
Now, as vice president, not only has Harris’ office been plagued by staff issues, but the vice president is scrutinized for her role as "Border Czar" leading the Biden administration’s efforts to solve the border crisis. Early in their term,  Biden designated Harris to address the migration challenges at the border after he initially rolled back several of his predecessor’s initiatives.
Harris came under fire after she failed to visit the border for months after she was given the assignment. By the time she finally showed up in El Paso, untold tens of thousands had illegally crossed into the United States, many of them violent criminals and gang members.
“Serving as our nation’s Border Czar, VP Harris has overseen the worst, unmitigated border security crisis in our lifetime. The data is irrefutable," Mark Morgan, former Commissioner of Customs Border Protection under Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump, told Just the News.
"She fully supported the dismantling of the network of tools, authorities, and polices we had in place under the Trump Administration that had led to the most secure border in our lifetime and has repeatedly lied to the American people regarding the government’s loss of operational control of our own borders,” Morgan continued.
“Under her reign, more Americans have died from fentanyl pouring across the border; more potential national security threats and criminals have attempted to exploit our open order policies; and more illegal aliens have been encountered during her tenure, than any other time in our nation’s history.  Her performance has negatively impacted every aspect of our country’s safety and national security and can only be described as - complete failure,” he added.
In fact, NewsNation reported Monday that Harris failed to speak with the new Border Patrol Chief after he assumed the office last year. Earlier in the year, former Chief Raul Ruiz said he also never heard from Biden or Harris during his tenure. "I’ve never had one conversation with the president or the vice president for that matter. I was chief of the Border Patrol. I commanded 21,000 people. That’s a problem," Ortiz said on 60 Minutes.
At the beginning of the Biden-Harris administration, Harris famously visited Central America and called on immigrants not to make the journey to the United States. “At the same time, I want to be clear to folks in this region who are thinking about making that dangerous trek to the United States-Mexico border: Do not come. Do not come,” Harris said at the time.
However, little progress was made following the visit. Indeed, the opposite happened—millions of illegals immigrants continued to enter the United States throughout the last three and a half years . The Federal Reserve estimates that 3.8 million new illegal aliens could enter the country in 2024 alone, if current crossing rates continue.
The Kamala Harris campaign did not respond to a request for comment from Just the News.
"You know, with Kamala Harris, you know, what has she done as borders are? What has she done? Nothing. And I think the her record speaks for itself,” Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., told the John Solomon Reports podcast on Monday.
Harris’ prior public service in California reveals a pattern of scandal and failures that will come to the forefront if Harris replaces President Joe Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket. Biden announced his decision to drop out of the race over the weekend and endorsed Harris to replace him on social media platform X.
During her term as California Attorney General, Harris was rebuked by judges after her office attempted to defend a conviction obtained by local prosecutors, who had inserted a false confession in a 1995 murder case. The defendant, a housekeeper for the murdered couple, was charged but never confessed.
When the defendant appealed the conviction on the grounds that prosecutors presented false evidence, Harris’ state office challenged the appeal to uphold the conviction, which earned a rebuke from the judge. The judge criticized Harris by asking her deputy, Kevin Vienna, if her office wanted to defend the conviction “obtained by lying prosecutors,” according to the Los Angeles Times.
In December 2018, during Harris' first term as a U.S. senator from California, one of her long-time staff members resigned after the Sacramento Bee inquired with Harris' office about a $400,000 sexual harassment settlement dating from her tenure as attorney general. Larry Wallace, who was the director of the Division of Law Enforcement under Harris in California,  joined her senate office after she was elected.
Harris claimed in a media statement at the time that she was unaware of Wallace’s behavior, but the incident’s timing was awkward for the senator—at the height of the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment. She was part of a prominent group of female senators who called on Senator Al Franken to resign after he was embroiled in an harassment scandal. She had separately introduced a bill that year to ban forced nondisclosure agreements in harassment lawsuits.
Before she became the California attorney general, Harris served for two terms as San Francisco district attorney. While in this role, one single error—failing to check the background of a lab technician—impacted 1,700 cases. But, when faced with scrutiny over the incident, Harris tried to distance herself from the blowback and let her staff take the hit.
In 2010, a judge admonished then-District Attorney Harris’ office for violating the rights of defendants when it failed to notify them of a police drug technician who admitted to skimming cocaine from the evidence stash at her laboratory. The judge said the failure of Harris’ office to notify the defendants of this information violated a “constitutional duty.” After the technician's illegal behavior was identified, prosecutors were forced to drop more than 600 drug cases, according to SFGATE.
Again, Harris tried distancing herself from the error. Speaking to the press, Harris said at the time that “contrary to public perception, I don’t run the crime lab.” Her efforts to distance herself from the scandal were not successful, however, because she admitted that her office failed to conduct a background check on the technician, instead relying on police to be forthcoming with that information. A background check would have revealed the technician’s previous conviction in a domestic violence case, information the prosecutors would constitutionally have to provide a defendant.
Neither were Harris’ campaigns free from scandal. When she first ran for San Francisco district attorney in 2003, an ethics board found she violated campaign finance laws, resulting in one of the largest fines in city history, according to SFGATE. Harris broke the voluntary $211,000 spending cap after she pledged to the voters that she would honor the limit.
The city’s ethics commission ultimately found that Harris committed the violation and fined her campaign $34,000, though they ruled that it appeared to be unintentional. Harris took full responsibility for the “mistakes” and promised to take responsibility. Her opponents, however, had a hard time believing the violations were not intentional and criticized her for being “sloppy.”
Later, in 2006, Harris came under scrutiny during her campaign for attorney general after she refused to return donations from a disgraced fundraiser after she accused her Republican opponent of something similar. Harris accepted, and kept, donations from Norman Hsu, a Democratic fundraiser and fugitive of 15 years for grand theft auto charges. Hsu had also contributed to other Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton, who promptly returned the funds.
In 2019, Harris accepted donations from the firm that defended Jeffrey Epstein a decade prior in his Florida sexual abuse case. Senator Harris, who was then running for president, had criticized the firm’s work on the same day saying their work on the case called "into question the integrity of our legal system."
The failings have followed the senator to the vice presidency. In addition to a struggle to address the border crisis, reports emerged after Harris became Joe Biden’s vice president that her office was dysfunctional and suffered from poor communications, Politico reported in June of 2021, only about six months after her term began.
“People are thrown under the bus from the very top, there are short fuses and it’s an abusive environment,” said one person with direct knowledge of how Harris’ office is run, according to Politico. “It’s not a healthy environment and people often feel mistreated. It’s not a place where people feel supported but a place where people feel treated like s—.”
The reported dysfunction points to a larger issue about Harris’ offices over her 18 years in public service—the high turnover rate. According to Washington, D.C.-based conservative watchdog Open the Books, Harris had a 92% turnover rate in her first three years as vice president.
“In the most recent publishing through March 31, only four of the original 47 staff listed in a 2021 government report remained consistently employed and are among the office’s 50 current staff members,” Open the Books CEO Adam Andrzejewski wrote in a post to Substack based on his organization’s findings.

The instability of Harris’ vice presidential office was reportedly a factor considered by Biden and his advisors as they prepared for the president to potentially drop his reelection bid. Her office management style was reportedly part of a tense relationship between her office and the West Wing, Axios reported.

[futon]

A collection of statements by Harris regarding the Ukraine War. The statements have dates on them. Jan 2022, Feb 2022, an early 2023 one, the last being Feb 2024. Basically they reflect a policy of continued support for Ukraine. 

So a policy that supports the Ukraine probably has a higher chance under Harris than Trump.

Some arguments out there say Ukraine sizably partly at fault, or NATO expansion. Etc. I do not think that. Russian is at greatest fault for the war. There was no intolerable event that triggered Russia's actions in 2014 and later in 2022.

However there is still the matter of competency and capability on the Ukraine side.

And the far eastern parts of Ukraine are solidly Pro-Russia. Pro-any country doesn't de-facto have to mean changing the sovereign borders. Without the events in 2014, Russian language official status that was recently elevated at that time (2010 or something like that) may likely have remained. The Ukraine in Kyiv wanted an economic deal with EU and expected it. Thus massive protests when the president flip flopped and delayed the signing. Which is curious since it was an EU at that time that had was growing its consumption of Russian energy. Countries like even Germany were not sentamentally anti-Russia. And France seldom aligned with the US. I do not see how the billions of "Ukraine fault, NATO fault" adds up. 

Then there's the other angle about US defense industry types that like to benefit/strategic perception from the war or from Ukrainian corruption. Biden on the latter a little? Some Ds and Rs (Nikki Haley?) in the former perhaps?

Anyway, gut base, I feel more for the Ukraine. One other factor is not only Ukraine capability/competency, but also the capabilty of support. HIMARs, Patriot missiles, 155mm rounds, storm shawdow certainly had a notable role. Was it enough? Not enough to help Ukraine recapture what Russia has taken in the southern half. There's a limit in the support side as well. Tech and companant leaks via China surely pour into Russia so Russia can keep up on precision weapons. How long can this go? The World Bank has numbers showibg Russian GDP is going well. Almost gives Carlson's visit to Moscow legitimacy.

So there's the other point. Is Europe doing enough in defense and for Ukraine? Yes and No. Depending on what set of expectations. Can Europe do more? Can the US really continue support to Ukraine. Can Ukraine itself keep going or is attrition reach a threshold? Can Ukraine continue the war if the US stops support but if Europe continues the support?

The fate of Ukraine, or in other words, the fate of the policy towards the Ukraine, is quite likely at the presidential election. 

[rmgill]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Name an accomplishment Biden had before coming into office. The only accomplishment he had was standing against Trump.

I am better at this. 

Representing MBNA as a senator. Mother Jones, a news rag noted for their left wing leaning said Biden was the Senator from MBNA. 
Being wrong on foreign policy. 
Fucking everything up (Obama's words). 
 

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

For some Americans that was enough. So, If it was enough for Biden, why not enough for Harris?

There's the reason why you're sucking so bad in the UK. If leaky sewers is good enough for London, why isn't it good enough for the rest of the UK? 

It's straight out of Brazil (the movie). 

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Trump is an Oligarch. And the way the entire Republican party capitulated towards HIS choice of VP demonstrates that this is true. Its not a Republican party now, its Trumps party. He bought and paid for it.

Trump was elected AGAINST the wishes of the leadership of the GOP. As some have noted, he tended to vote democrat. But he's clearly able to do the man of the people thing that FDR could. And he seems to be able to channel Theodore Roosevelt to a degree. 

And again, Trump was elected. By the citizenry. This was NOT the case with Harris. She was picked by the party leadership. 

[rmgill]

Mayor Pete??!?!?

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, rmgill said:

I am better at this. 

Representing MBNA as a senator. Mother Jones, a news rag noted for their left wing leaning said Biden was the Senator from MBNA. 
Being wrong on foreign policy. 
Fucking everything up (Obama's words). 
 

There's the reason why you're sucking so bad in the UK. If leaky sewers is good enough for London, why isn't it good enough for the rest of the UK? 

It's straight out of Brazil (the movie). 

Trump was elected AGAINST the wishes of the leadership of the GOP. As some have noted, he tended to vote democrat. But he's clearly able to do the man of the people thing that FDR could. And he seems to be able to channel Theodore Roosevelt to a degree. 

And again, Trump was elected. By the citizenry. This was NOT the case with Harris. She was picked by the party leadership. 

There you go, so he had literally nothing on his sheet as a positive other than time served, and yet he still beat Trump. Now people say Harris has done nothing. Absolutely, but so what?

The best politicians, the best skilled, most intelligent, don't always win. If it was as simple as qualifications, Bill Clinton wouldn't have beaten George Bush, and Obama wouldn't have beaten McCain.

Yes, you loathe Harris, fair enough, I've read some recent things that show her in a bad light. What I'm trying to tell you is this isn't exactly the bar you think it is. You loathed Clinton, he won twice. You loathed Obama, he won twice.

A week ago, Republicans were crowing they won the election from Trumps kevlar ear. I even agreed. And now it's all up for grabs again.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Oh God, post of the year.

 

 

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

There you go, so he had literally nothing on his sheet as a positive other than time served, and yet he still beat Trump.
 

Thats not a ringing endorsement of the electorate that voted for Biden you know. Or for that matter, the citizens of Delaware who kept electing him. 

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Now people say Harris has done nothing. Absolutely, but so what?

What is this? A study on the greek philosopher Mediocrities? 
 

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

Yes, you loathe Harris, fair enough, I've read some recent things that show her in a bad light. What I'm trying to tell you is this isn't exactly the bar you think it is. You loathed Clinton, he won twice.

I supported Clinton the first time around. Then I saw through the crap and the gross mistakes. 

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

A week ago, Republicans were crowing they won the election from Trumps kevlar ear. I even agreed. And now it's all up for grabs again.

And the news media and DNC were in panic mode. 

[Harold Jones]

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

And again, Trump was elected. By the citizenry. This was NOT the case with Harris. She was picked by the party leadership. 

A. Why the fuck do you care how the Democrats pick their candidate?

B. The nomination belongs to the party to bestow as the party sees fit.  Awarding the nomination to whatever mook can convince people (hint barely 10% of party's voters vote in primaries) to show up and vote for them is not even 50 years old. The country did just fine with candidates selected in smokey back rooms up till then. 

[sunday]

12 minutes ago, Harold Jones said:

The country did just fine with candidates selected in smokey back rooms up till then. 

Why did they change those procedures, then?

[Skywalkre]

11 hours ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Considering how bad of a candidate she supposedly is, it's quite amusing to see the MAGA lunatics running around with their hair on fire though. 😄

The fact they feel threatened by Harris just reflects how bad of a candidate Trump has always been.  We shouldn't forget, that from the beginning of this election cycle, Americans didn't want Trump or Biden.

[Tim the Tank Nut]

it'll be a moot point when the next assasin is better prepared and history shows that only one candidate is under threat.

Watching the "D" coalesce is interesting.  I can't help but admire the ruthlessness.  That said, it's the same ruthlessness that always leads to the Republicans being the ones who get shot so maybe I need to rethink.

[17thfabn]

On 7/22/2024 at 1:35 PM, Tim the Tank Nut said:

The Borg acts as one, so does the Demcrat version and it is just as ugly and dangerous in real life as it is in fiction.

The Borg Ugly?

Behold the lovely Borg who paved the way for Biden to become a U.S. Senator and latter President:

[Ssnake]

10 hours ago, rmgill said:

Then there’s her coverup of Biden’s dementia. She was saying he was sharp as a tack not two weeks ago. 

So, she's a disciplined team player.

[Ssnake]

4 hours ago, rmgill said:

Trump was elected. By the citizenry. This was NOT the case with Harris. She was picked by the party leadership.

...and now, said citizenry will vote, and we'll see. If she wins, she'll have that legitimacy.

[Skywalkre]

15 minutes ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

it'll be a moot point when the next assasin is better prepared and history shows that only one candidate is under threat.

They're all under threat and the USSS has had issues for decades.  I mentioned this in another thread but there was some committee formed back during the Obama years to try and address the problems USSS was having (and had been having), proposals were made, and in typical DC fashion nothing was ever done with them.  To focus on this as something new or just about Trump is disingenuous.

[Ssnake]

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

Carter sucked as president because he could not get democrats to work with him. 

Also, the US military wasn't very good at the time and botched the rescue attempt for the hostages in the US embassy. Then, another oil price shock. A nuclear reactor looked as if it might blow up any moment (it didn't, but in public communmications peception is reality.

Bad luck may have been just as important when it comes to judging the merits of Carter's presidency. At least, he brokered a peace deal between Israel and Egypt. That was actually a fine accomplishment.

[Josh]

5 hours ago, rmgill said:

And again, Trump was elected. By the citizenry. This was NOT the case with Harris. She was picked by the party leadership. 

As someone else pointed out, primaries of both parties are hardly indicative of the voting public in reality and political parties can make any rules they want for nomination. That a vice presidential nominee becomes the presidential nominee when the presidential nominee suffers a health crisis seems rather normal to me. Certainly the enthusiasm of small donors seems to indicate few registered democrats are losing sleep over the prospect.

Speaking of being duly elected - how about that attempt by Trump to have Pence throw away the EC votes he did not like? Was that democratic enough for you?

[R011]

2 hours ago, Harold Jones said:

A. Why the fuck do you care how the Democrats pick their candidate?

B. The nomination belongs to the party to bestow as the party sees fit.  Awarding the nomination to whatever mook can convince people (hint barely 10% of party's voters vote in primaries) to show up and vote for them is not even 50 years old. The country did just fine with candidates selected in smokey back rooms up till then. 

Biden is clearly unfit to run.  Indeed, he's probably unfit to remain president.  Does anyone seriously expect the Democrats to run fifty primaries and caucuses to select a candidate, hold a convention, and run a camp[aign between now and November?

No.  Not even Ryan.

[sunday]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Also, the US military wasn't very good at the time and botched the rescue attempt for the hostages in the US embassy. Then, another oil price shock. A nuclear reactor looked as if it might blow up any moment (it didn't, but in public communmications peception is reality.

Bad luck may have been just as important when it comes to judging the merits of Carter's presidency. At least, he brokered a peace deal between Israel and Egypt. That was actually a fine accomplishment.

You forget the fall of the Shah, and Carter negative to support him "because of his bad record on human rights".