Kamala Harris vs. Donald J. Trump

[Logician Man]

Derogatory terms:

Leftists. It is derogatory. Do not subscribe to leftist liberal silliness.
Socialism and socialists. Also unAmerican, atheistic, and destructive.
Anarchists. Uncivilized barbarians.
Marxists. Greedy atheists seeking to confiscate the power and wealth of others.
Ungodly humanists. Enemies of God.
Black. Not a derogatory term.
Black democrat voter fraud. Very derogatory term for despicable cheats in American elections.

I wasn't referring to anything related to blacks. try to focus on your own posts and derogatory terms and learn to count.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Listen to her speech, she did a good job of spelling out her beliefs and goals if she became President.

Understood, and agreed, but I'm "from Missouri" and a speech isn't enough. There's no shortage of great speechifiers. Show us in writing.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Kama had a large gathering. She will no doubt rival Trump's following in the coming months. She may have some pretty bad ideas but she is likely one of the best hopes of firing up the democrat base of assorted unAmerican radical leftists, socialists, communists, anarchists, Marxists and ungodly humanists of any democrat candidate running. Plus, she is black and that should be useful to campaign workers skilled in energizing black voter turnout and risky black democrat illegal vote stuffing.

You just can't resist the Bircher hysteria, can you?
You actually believe that Democrats consist of nothing but "radical leftists, socialists, communists, anarchists, Marxists and ungodly humanists".
Spare me the harumphing about "JFK Democrats" too please, because in JFK's time you still sound like one of the folks who plastered these all over the place:



JFK has a little piece of advice for you.

 

[marke]

You just can't resist the Bircher hysteria, can you?
You actually believe that Democrats consist of nothing but "radical leftists, socialists, communists, anarchists, Marxists and ungodly humanists".
Spare me the harumphing about "JFK Democrats" too please, because in JFK's time you still sound like one of the folks who plastered these all over the place:

View attachment 67249106

JFK has a little piece of advice for you.

View attachment 67249107

Now I am being condemned for sixties posters? That does not surprise me considering the low level of uncivilized foolishness the typical modern leftist democrat has descended to.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Now I am being condemned for sixties posters? That does not surprise me considering the low level of uncivilized foolishness the typical modern leftist democrat has descended to.

You SOUND JUST LIKE them.

Do you ever go back and read your own posts?

 

[poweRob]

That still does not indicate if she favors H.R. 676 or not. Like I said, she spouts many "progressive" talking points that lack much depth. I have read news reports that she supports "Sanders' upcoming bill" - hard to tell exactly what that means.



https://www.vox.com/2017/8/30/16230390/kamala-harris-medicare-single-payer

If she's backing Sander's bills I think that's great. But I can just vote for Sanders for that. I'm wondering what does she take the lead in?

 

[TheGoverness]

Compare and contrast your thoughts and observations on a Trump rally and Kamala Harris's Town Hall meeting she held tonight with the American populace. ( 1/28/2019 )

Meh. I don't think she brings enough to the table. She's way too vague, and it's not exactly clear what she stands for. Like her opening video, where she announced her campaign, was just a bunch of words that meant nothing. Plus, her history as a "progressive" prosecutor, isn't really boding well with me.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not even a contest.

Harris would run the board in all the swing states.

She'd win women, college educated whites, independents and moderates by a country mile.

keep thinking that-she's also a hard core gun banner. that will really help with blue collar union voters.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...-get-gun-control-legislation-passed/23655730/

 

[TurtleDude]

Meh. I don't think she brings enough to the table. She's way too vague, and it's not exactly clear what she stands for. Like her opening video, where she announced her campaign, was just a bunch of words that meant nothing. Plus, her history as a "progressive" prosecutor, isn't really boding well with me.

she a lightweight. She has a resume thinner than Obama's and far less intelligence. And it appeared she slept her way into at least some positions other than "missionary"

 

[ttwtt78640]

If she's backing Sander's bills I think that's great. But I can just vote for Sanders for that. I'm wondering what does she take the lead in?

Getting her POTUS campaign off the ground.

 

[Acadia]

she a lightweight. She has a resume thinner than Obama's and far less intelligence. And it appeared she slept her way into at least some positions other than "missionary"

This will need to be addressed when and if Kamala rolls out a national campaign.
I'd like to see just one progressive, Medicare for all candidate give detailed information about how it could be fiscally sustainable. All these bumper-sticker campaign promises and bromides sound wonderful, and her base-the socialist Left-will eat it up without ever questioning what happens when the rubber meets the road.

 

[poweRob]

Getting her POTUS campaign off the ground.

True. She may be good I dunno. Right now she looks a lot like Corey Booker to me where she says pretty things with no content. Like... "if it's worth fighting for, then it's a fight worth having." She said that on Colbert and the crowd got all excited. And to me, that sentence is just hollow, meaningless campaign drivel.

 

[TurtleDude]

This will need to be addressed when and if Kamala rolls out a national campaign.
I'd like to see just one progressive, Medicare for all candidate give detailed information about how it could be fiscally sustainable. All these bumper-sticker campaign promises and bromides sound wonderful, and her base-the socialist Left-will eat it up without ever questioning what happens when the rubber meets the road.

too many of them are filthy rich and while they pander to the socialist left, they really aren't all that interested in programs that would cost them beaucoup bucks

 

[TurtleDude]

True. She may be good I dunno. Right now she looks a lot like Corey Booker to me where she says pretty things with no content. Like... "if it's worth fighting for, then it's a fight worth having." She said that on Colbert and the crowd got all excited. And to me, that sentence is just hollow, meaningless campaign drivel.

I don't think people who think things through are the people she is trying to appeal to

 

[ttwtt78640]

she a lightweight. She has a resume thinner than Obama's and far less intelligence. And it appeared she slept her way into at least some positions other than "missionary"

Yep, dating (to avoid using the, no longer empowering, term having an affair with) the Mayor (30 years her senior?) got her some (two?) plum six figure salary (part-time?) public positions and "access to" the monied elite necessary to succeed in CA politics. She initially did things the old fashioned way but soon "blossomed on her own merits" as a get tough on crime pubic officer giving birth to her "for the people" slogan. Who could possibly be against a woman of color who is solidly for the people?

 

[TurtleDude]

Yep, dating (to avoid using the, no longer empowering, term having an affair with) the Mayor (30 years her senior?) got her some (two?) plum six figure salary (part-time?) public positions and "access to" the monied elite necessary to succeed in CA politics. She initially did things the old fashioned way but soon "blossomed on her own merits" as a get tough on crime pubic officer giving birth to her "for the people" slogan. Who could possibly be against a woman of color who is solidly for the people?

I wonder how all the TDS types-the ones who bashed the first Lady for marrying Donald-will say about her banging a guy 30 years older for lucrative jobs.

 

[poweRob]

I don't think people who think things through are the people she is trying to appeal to

I understand that campaign fervor is needed. Gotta whip up the people. She seems quite good at that. I think maybe she is trying to go old school campaign where you show your hand late. Because if you show your hand early (policy-wise) then you give opposition more time to tear it down? Just a guess.

I recall pols doing this a lot back in the day. Basically wait until the debates to do the more detailed reveals. Not a fan of that but I recall that being done.

 

[TurtleDude]

I understand that campaign fervor is needed. Gotta whip up the people. She seems quite good at that. I think maybe she is trying to go old school campaign where you show your hand late. Because if you show your hand early (policy-wise) then you give opposition more time to tear it down? Just a guess.

I recall pols doing this a lot back in the day. Basically wait until the debates to more detailed reveals. Not a fan of that but I recall that being done.

an astute analysis-good points

 

[ttwtt78640]

True. She may be good I dunno. Right now she looks a lot like Corey Booker to me where she says pretty things with no content. Like... "if it's worth fighting for, then it's a fight worth having." She said that on Colbert and the crowd got all excited. And to me, that sentence is just hollow, meaningless campaign drivel.

It is almost a necessity to use meaningless drivel because to win the primaries often takes (requires?) different policy positions than to win the general. The more meaningless the drivel is, the less one has to "evolve" on a given "issue". Campaigning is about 'addressing issues' while governing is about 'enacting/implementing policy'. Any strong connection between the two is purely coincidental.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I wonder how all the TDS types-the ones who bashed the first Lady for marrying Donald-will say about her banging a guy 30 years older for lucrative jobs.

She managed to get elected to the Senate (that stuff is OK in CA?) but it may come up in a POTUS race. IMHO, she lacks any depth yet has the edge in lacking any voting record to pin her into a box (much like Obama had). In the DNC primaries simply not being an old white male may put her into the 'top tier'.

 

[Grokmaster]

Compare and contrast your thoughts and observations on a Trump rally and Kamala Harris's Town Hall meeting she held tonight with the American populace. ( 1/28/2019 )

I don't think Trump had to "put out" to anyone to get where he is.....

 

[Logician Man]

I don't think Trump had to "put out" to anyone to get where he is.....

Yeah...He had to 'pay out' to get where he is ...Paid the blacks who sued him for discrimination.....paid Stormy Daniels 130,000 bux for a 2 minute 'mushroom' fling.....paid McDougal 6 digits to keep her quiet.......:lol:

 

[Surrealistik]

She managed to get elected to the Senate (that stuff is OK in CA?) but it may come up in a POTUS race. IMHO, she lacks any depth yet has the edge in lacking any voting record to pin her into a box (much like Obama had). In the DNC primaries simply not being an old white male may put her into the 'top tier'.

Don't forget the money, and political and media allies behind her; she'll need them to counterbalance her spotty history and in general lack of clear, committed positions.


Moreover, I think it's a very bad sign that Wall Street executives support her while vilifying traditional progressive leaders: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/28/wall-street-2020-economy-taxes-1118065

That in a nutshell insinuates a lot about where she's really at; maybe they're wrong to think of her as an ally, and I certainly hope so, but it's the furthest thing from reassuring.

 

[Fishking]

All's I say is that she'd better step up her game. I'm not onboard at the moment. I went to her website to find out more about her and she doesn't even have an, "ISSUES" page. Right now she's just primping and people are falling in line. I need more than that. I wanna see the issues and what she fights for. Her track record is that she's fast-tracking herself for this presidential run. I need more than "we need to be on another path". I need to know what her path actually is.

For the sake of argument, do you actually need more than that? Say she wins the nomination w/o providing much of substance and it's her against Trump, do you vote 3rd party or go with the "not Trump" vote?

 

[Mr Person]

I understand that campaign fervor is needed. Gotta whip up the people. She seems quite good at that. I think maybe she is trying to go old school campaign where you show your hand late. Because if you show your hand early (policy-wise) then you give opposition more time to tear it down? Just a guess.

I recall pols doing this a lot back in the day. Basically wait until the debates to do the more detailed reveals. Not a fan of that but I recall that being done.

I will never run for a political position.

If I run for a political position, Day 1 will include launch of a pre-made website. This website will have every single idea I have, which I will have thought about for between years and deacdes, mapped out in sort-of-outline form. People can go as detailed as they want. But it will be all out there because that's straight-forward and it makes a record. I cannot get accused of BS'ing.

Granted, there will be plenty of things I don't know about if this happens. But there will be an explanation about that, the hope being that lying about reality will have stopped being a good move in this horrible future where I run for something.