Who is Kamala Harris and what are her credentials? She comes well suited for this endeavor .....

[ultmd]

iLOL I see you failed to address the information provided and it's legitimacy.

Typical of a liberal.

Thinly-veiled, anti-intellectual, racist b.s.

Typical conservative.

 

[ultmd]

yet she is responsible for locking up a ton of black males in prison more than white males.
doesn't that make her a racist?

Not at all.

But it does make a lot of actual racists reveal themselves.

Right, ludin?

 

[cabse5]

Whatever her political vulnerabilities, the aspiring vice president is chiefly characterized by her power. Some old-guard advisers in Biden’s inner circle told him to pick an innocuous running mate, whose selection would not so obviously herald a generational changing of the guard. Biden was right to reject this caution and to commit boldly to the future with Harris, who looms in stature over the feckless yes man who currently holds the office of vice president.

In looking to the future, a wide swath of America will also be eagerly anticipating the vice presidential debate — watching and waiting for that moment when Harris makes Mike Pence cry out for mother.


Kamala Harris, Gen X Vice President - Rolling Stone

As a candidate in the Democratic primaries, Kamala Harris stood astride the fault lines of the Democratic Party. The Californian presented herself as an establishment politician (reaching the Senate after serving as San Francisco’s DA and California’s attorney general) whose platform was responsive to the idealism of the party’s grassroots. Harris backed the Green New Deal, a version of Medicare for All (albeit with some vacillation on the details), and marijuana legalization.

Harris embodied a classic Gen X straddle: She’d navigated a path to power through a system controlled by older, whiter, more-conservative politicians, and then proposed to wield the levers of that power in the service of ideals she shared with the enormous, diverse, and progressive millennial and zoomer generations coming of age behind her.

Kamala Harris is a progressive.

 

[ultmd]

she was Willie Browns girlfriend! a low life piece of trash! Q 2024

Yeah. Shame on a single woman for dating a man! Shame on her!

But commit adultery, repeatedly, with hookers and porn stars...and then pay them off to keep quiet...and you can become a conservative hero.

Bigots are such idiots.

 

[Razoo]

Whatever her political vulnerabilities, the aspiring vice president is chiefly characterized by her power. Some old-guard advisers in Biden’s inner circle told him to pick an innocuous running mate, whose selection would not so obviously herald a generational changing of the guard. Biden was right to reject this caution and to commit boldly to the future with Harris, who looms in stature over the feckless yes man who currently holds the office of vice president.

In looking to the future, a wide swath of America will also be eagerly anticipating the vice presidential debate — watching and waiting for that moment when Harris makes Mike Pence cry out for mother.


Kamala Harris, Gen X Vice President - Rolling Stone

As a candidate in the Democratic primaries, Kamala Harris stood astride the fault lines of the Democratic Party. The Californian presented herself as an establishment politician (reaching the Senate after serving as San Francisco’s DA and California’s attorney general) whose platform was responsive to the idealism of the party’s grassroots. Harris backed the Green New Deal, a version of Medicare for All (albeit with some vacillation on the details), and marijuana legalization.

Harris embodied a classic Gen X straddle: She’d navigated a path to power through a system controlled by older, whiter, more-conservative politicians, and then proposed to wield the levers of that power in the service of ideals she shared with the enormous, diverse, and progressive millennial and zoomer generations coming of age behind her.

Review ,,,,,

 

[Razoo]

Who is Kamala Harris?

Joe Biden picked a former presidential campaign rival whose debate performances during the Democratic Party primary hurt his own poll numbers at the time.

But Biden has said that Kamala Harris, a U.S. Senator from California, does not hold grudges and neither does he.

Here is a look at Harris:

A history of firsts

Harris becomes the first Black woman and Indian American to appear on a major party’s presidential ticket.

Firsts are nothing new to her. Harris won a race for California attorney general in 2010. She was the first woman and the first Black person to earn the job.

Before that, she was the first woman elected district attorney for San Francisco.

Personal story

Harris is 55 and was born in California to Donald Harris and Shyamala Gopalan. Her father was a Stanford University economics professor who came from Jamaica, while her mother, the daughter of an Indian diplomat, was a cancer scientist.

Harris has a sister, Maya, who has served as a public policy advocate.

Harris married attorney Doug Emhoff in 2014, and she is stepmother to his two children from a previous marriage.


Harris studied economics and political science and graduated in 1986 from Howard University, a historically Black university.

Her law degree came from the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law.


== Published author

In 2009, she authored “Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make Us Safer.” The book examines myths in the criminal justice system and solutions to improve approaches to fighting crime.

In 2019, she released a memoir, “The Truths We Hold: An American Journey.”

Review .....

 

[Razoo]

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden announced on Tuesday that Sen. Kamala Harris would be his vice-presidential running mate.

The 55-year-old former California attorney general will be the first Black woman to be nominated by either major party for vice president.

Harris ran for president in 2020 on a policy platform that included a public option for healthcare, universal paid leave, and salary increases for teachers.

During the primary, Insider polling found that voters viewed Harris as among the most progressive candidates in the field and among the most prepared for the presidency.


Who is Kamala Harris? Bio, age, family, and key positions - Business Insider

Review .....

 

[Excon]

This is what racism sounds like.

Yes. Your reply is what racism sounds like.
You folks on the left have a real problem with slinging out those false claims.

Was it racism when I showed that McCain wasn't qualified? Of course not.

It is a legitimate question of qualification.

---

Geez....what's next from you....a Qanon thread?

:lamo
Your idiotic deflection is noted.

Instead of getting your Constitutional interpretations from alt-right/white nationalist blogs, you might want to try actually READING the damn Constitution for yourself, Excon.

What a stupid reply. Just as deflective as your first comment was.
I provided relevant information. Cleanly you can't refute it.
And it didn't come from any "alt-right/white nationalist blog". But since you clearly cant refute it, you had to make something up to be dismissive. :lamo

Harris is on the ballot for VPOTUS, not POTUS. But, that said, by ANY standard, she meet any/ever Constitutional requirement to be a future POTUS.

By any standard? Wut? Wrong.

You white nationalist types are so transparent...and so predictable.

Your commentary is as idiotic as it is wrong.
You imagine "white nationalist" because that is where your absurd thoughts lay. Me, being a jew, from my understanding, I am anathema to a "white nationalist".

Thinly-veiled, anti-intellectual, racist b.s.

Typical conservative.

Get grip and stop imagining bs.
Whether or not Harris is qualified is a legitimate issue.

 

[d0gbreath]

So, being born in the USA makes someone a citizen. How does being born a natural born citizen differ? No epidural?

 

[Excon]

So, being born in the USA makes someone a citizen. How does being born a natural born citizen differ? No epidural?

The SCt acknowledged that there were no doubts as to those born to citizens parents within the country as being NBC, they also recognized that there were doubts as to those only being born within the country as being so.
So those who think it isn't a legitimate issue are just lying to themselves.

 

[Sabre]

Who is Kamala Harris? Here is the Kamala the left does not want you to know about.

The Vortex — Kamala Family, Slave Owners - YouTube

 

[ultmd]

Your idiotic deflection is noted.

:lamo...he's says, as his deflects from the question asked of him.

Do better, my mis-educated white-nationalist friend.

I provided relevant information. Cleanly you can't refute it.

:lamo I "can't refute it"? You're so clueless..

It's already been refuted. So that's not the issue. The issue hear is that you can't understand it, because you're a rightwing ideologue, and we all know that wingnuts don't do the whole "critical thinking" thing very well.

So the simple fact here is that Madison v. Marbury is a moronic excuse for your birtherism. And in this case, your "relevant information" is just an OPINION piece from a well-known right-wing attorney (John Eastman)...the same wingnut attorney who wrote an opinion expressing the EXACT OPPOSITE point of view, back in 2016 (to argue that Ted Cruz is a "naturalized citizen") when he was supporting Ted Cruz's candidacy. His op/ed was thoroughly discredited (without rebuttal from Eastman) by another legal scholar, Eugene Volokh, as well as by famed Constitutional Law from expert Harvard, Lawrence Tribe.

But even more definitively, this issue was anticipated, addressed and resolved (at the request of REPUBLICANS who controlled the House) by Congress' Congressional Research Service, back in 2011.
Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement

QUOTE:
At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with
respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states,
from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the
soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as
noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the
United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution ...” with respect to
citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the
document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law”
since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”

In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and
state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and
subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to
alien parents, are citizens “at birth” or “by birth,” and are “natural born,” as opposed to
“naturalized,” U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling
American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the
eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.

And it didn't come from any "alt-right/white nationalist blog".

No, it came from an alt-right/white nationalist whose column was so offensive that Newsweek posted a public apology for it afterward.

Same thing.

But since you clearly cant refute it, you had to make something up to be dismissive. :lamo

:lamo
Stupid comment, my uneducated rightwing friend. You'll need to actually READ the Constitution, and then come back ready to further discuss (in YOUR OWN WORDS) this issue. You won't do that, of course, because (like all rightwinger) YOU DO NOT READ anything that doesn't re-affirm your biases.

By any standard? Wut? Wrong.

By any CREDIBLE standard. The only people in the Harris Birtherism 2.0 camp are ignorant rightwing ideologues...and gutless bigots (because the honest bigots don't hide behind pseudo-intellectual talking points (as you are doing now).

Your commentary is as idiotic as it is wrong. Me, being a jew, from my understanding, I am anathema to a "white nationalist".

Really? Tell that to Steven Miller. And Jarod Kushner. There is PLENTY of room for white nationalism in the Trump world. Trump doesn't care about religion. All you have to do is fall in line with the Trump white nationalist agenda, and you'll be welcomed (and loved). So that "I'm a Jew" argument is just objectively nonsensical.

It's not much better. In fact, it's worse.

Get grip and stop imagining bs.

No, sorry. Not imagining. Anti-intellectual, racist b.s. was about right.

Whether or not Harris is qualified is a legitimate issue.

No, it's really not. It's the "issue" of white people with "issues" about race.

 

[Excon]

For purposes of length, lets address most of your moronically irrelevant chaf first.

:lamo...he's says, as his deflects from the question asked of him.

iLOL Yes, I clearly deflected from your idiotic and irrelevant question because it has no bearing in this thread or reality.
I do not do "Qanon" threads.

But way to go in trying to make your moronic commentary relevant. :thumbs:

It's already been refuted. So that's not the issue.

Wrong.

The issue hear is that you can't understand it, because you're a rightwing ideologue, and we all know that wingnuts don't do the whole "critical thinking" thing very well.

You are spewing nonsense while making more false assumptions.
I fully understand the opposing arguments, which is why unlike you, I am capable of refuting them with pertinent information when made.

Do better, my mis-educated white-nationalist friend.

A very sad reply from you and indicative of very flawed thinking on your part, especially given that I already told you I am Jewish.
I am a jew and can not be a white nationalist, nor would I want to be a white nationalist even if they accepted jews. Their beliefs are not mine.

Do you, or do you not understand that?

As for mis-educated? iLOL Apparently you are projecting.

No, it came from an alt-right/white nationalist whose column was so offensive that Newsweek posted a public apology for it afterward.

Same thing.

Wrong as usual.
Like I said, you have no clue as to what you speak. It did not come from his "blog" or published opinion, nor have you shown it did.

Stupid comment, my uneducated rightwing friend. You'll need to actually READ the Constitution, and then come back ready to further discuss (in YOUR OWN WORDS) this issue. You won't do that, of course, because (like all rightwinger) YOU DO NOT READ anything that doesn't re-affirm your biases.

Yes, your comment is very stupid, but it does go right along with those asinine assumptions you made. :lamo
I am here willing to debate the arguments. You on the other hand are not.

By any CREDIBLE standard. The only people in the Harris Birtherism 2.0 camp are ignorant rightwing ideologues...and gutless bigots (because the honest bigots don't hide behind pseudo-intellectual talking points (as you are doing now).

This is nothign more than your idiotic biased thoughts talking again.

Really?

Yes really.

Tell that to Steven Miller. And Jarod Kushner. There is PLENTY of room for white nationalism in the Trump world. Trump doesn't care about religion. All you have to do is fall in line with the Trump white nationalist agenda, and you'll be welcomed (and loved). So that "I'm a Jew" argument is just objectively nonsensical.

It's not much better. In fact, it's worse.

Nothing more than your idiotic bigoted nonsense.
Something tells me your opinion about those you mentioned would be as flawed as your commentary is about me.

No, sorry. Not imagining. Anti-intellectual, racist b.s. was about right.

Yes imagining, and still wrong.

No, it's really not. It's the "issue" of white people with "issues" about race.

Wrong as usual.
I argued McCain was not qualified becasue he was not born a citizen and only became a citizen by legislation long after he was born.
If you did not notice, he was a white republican, so there goes your bs about race and ideology.

Like I said, qualification it is a legitimate issue.

 

[Excon]

I "can't refute it"? You're so clueless..

Says you... the clueless one. You clearly know not of what you speak, and make false assumptions of others.
And no, you have not refuted what I presented, nor could you.
The SCt was clear in what I presented. Unless you can show they were wrong in what they stated, it is not refutable.


And for you to refute it, you need to go beyond simply presenting another's opinion/argument you agree with, and actually argue the information you think refutes what is presented. Thus far you failed.

So the simple fact here is that Madison v. Marbury is a moronic excuse for your birtherism.

This shows you have no real understanding of the issue.

And in this case, your "relevant information" is just an OPINION piece from a well-known right-wing attorney (John Eastman)...the same wingnut attorney who wrote an opinion expressing the EXACT OPPOSITE point of view, back in 2016 (to argue that Ted Cruz is a "naturalized citizen") when he was supporting Ted Cruz's candidacy. His op/ed was thoroughly discredited (without rebuttal from Eastman) by another legal scholar, Eugene Volokh, as well as by famed Constitutional Law from expert Harvard, Lawrence Tribe.

Wrong as usual.
1. As you were already told, the relevant information I provided does not come from any alt-right/nationalist blog. So for your further edification, it also did not come from any John Eastman blog.
2. I have previously showed Cruz was not qualified. He is a citizen by legislation like McCain, and not a naturally born one. By law their citizenship attaches after birth.
3. Your linked opinion piece does not thoroughly discredited anything, and actually misstates the truth in relation to what U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) found.
And as an opinion piece, it is an argument, not fact. An argument that does not address the entirety of the relevant information.

Nor does U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) address the clear intent of Congress in the framing of the 14th. It is not a settled issue by any means.

And Minor v. Happersett (1875) already pointed out that it is not a settled issue. So saying otherwise is just utterly stupid.

But even more definitively, this issue was anticipated, addressed and resolved (at the request of REPUBLICANS who controlled the House) by Congress' Congressional Research Service, back in 2011.
Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement

QUOTE:
At the time of independence, [...] snipped for length [...] American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the
eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.

Not just Doh!, but Double Doh! :doh :doh
More definitively? iLOL Wrong.
That is an opinion piece from one attorney in the Congressional research Service. It is not a holding and in no way settles an issue that is not settled.
Holding such out as definitive is as boneheaded as it is moronically stupid. :lamo



Now if you want to argue points that opinion made, you are more then welcome to, but really, you need to argue them on your own.

What was really sad is that this attorney cited a State case where the case was dismissed but the Court went ahead and offered an opinion of the issue when they had no legal authority to do so. (Their dismissal for standing legally precluded them from making any decision on the issue becasue it was not before them to consider.)


And just so it is clear to you and anyone else who may be reading, the author of that opinion does not even address the information from Marbury.
So just how do you think this opinion refutes what I presented when it does not even address it?
That is some piss poor thinking on your part.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

The Constitution requires for the higher office of the President that the person be a "natural born Citizen".
The Constitution requires for the lower federal offices that the person be a Citizen.


Those two conditions are distinctly different and can not mean the same.

As the Supreme Court found in Marbury v. Madison.

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it. [p175]

Marbury v. Madison | 5 U.S. 137​

As the 14th Amendment already establishes who is a citizen for Constitutional purposes, a "natural born Citizen" must mean something different.


Being born in this country only makes Harris a citizen under the current 14th Amendment interpretation, not a Natural born citizen as required to hold the position.

That is, with a doubt, the dumbest argument I have ever heard. It boils down to this:

If you are qualified for office as a citizen, then you cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution to be president, because "citizen" and "natural born citizen" are not the same thing and are mutually exclusive.

Therefore, Harris is disqualified BECAUSE she is a citizen.

Well done, Excon! Well done!

 

[Excon]

That is, with a doubt, the dumbest argument I have ever heard. It boils down to this:



Therefore, Harris is disqualified BECAUSE she is a citizen.

Well done, Excon! Well done!

Wow. Wrong as usual you are.


Just Citizen is required for the lower offices of Congress and Senate.
A "natural born Citizen" is required for for the higher offices of President and Vice President.

Those qualifications and distinctions exist.


The Court already recognized the issue is not a settled one, and yet somehow people have come to believe it is.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Wow. Wrong as usual you are.


Just Citizen is required for the lower offices of Congress and Senate.
A "natural born Citizen" is required for for the higher offices of President and Vice President.

Those qualifications and distinctions exist.


The Court already recognized the issue is not a settled one, and yet somehow people have come to believe it is.

Your argument is a citizen cannot be a natural born citizen. Therefore Harris is disqualified.

 

[Excon]

Your argument is a citizen cannot be a natural born citizen. Therefore Harris is disqualified.

Wrong as usual.

 

[TheParser]

Who is she?

One lucky person, that's who.

She just came along at the right time.

The Establishment was looking for non-Euro Americans to promote,

And they chose her. Not for her capabilities. But simply for who she is.

Of course, she herself still cannot believe what has happened. She probably thinks it's a dream from which she will awake. Just imagine: in a few months, she will be the de facto President of the United States of America. Un-be-liev-a-ble!

 

[d0gbreath]

The SCt acknowledged that there were no doubts as to those born to citizens parents within the country as being NBC, they also recognized that there were doubts as to those only being born within the country as being so.
So those who think it isn't a legitimate issue are just lying to themselves.

Scream 'anchor baby' to the treetops until you're blue in the face. It won't make a damned bit of difference.

 

[Excon]

Scream 'anchor baby' to the treetops until you're blue in the face. It won't make a damned bit of difference.

So you clearly are making deranged commentary.
I have not used that term in regards to her..

 

[d0gbreath]

So you clearly are making deranged commentary.
I have not used that term in regards to her..

You're certainly dancing all around it by talking about citizens of non-citizen parents.

 

[Excon]

You're certainly dancing all around it by talking about citizens of non-citizen parents.

iLOL :doh Not using such a term does not mean I am dancing around it.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Wrong as usual.

Do you believe that Harris is a natural born citizen? It is a simple yes or no answer. And you will not answer it.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Whatever her political vulnerabilities, the aspiring vice president is chiefly characterized by her power. Some old-guard advisers in Biden’s inner circle told him to pick an innocuous running mate, whose selection would not so obviously herald a generational changing of the guard. Biden was right to reject this caution and to commit boldly to the future with Harris, who looms in stature over the feckless yes man who currently holds the office of vice president.

In looking to the future, a wide swath of America will also be eagerly anticipating the vice presidential debate — watching and waiting for that moment when Harris makes Mike Pence cry out for mother.



https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploa...den-kamala-harris-87.jpg?quality=80&strip=all
As a candidate in the Democratic primaries, Kamala Harris stood astride the fault lines of the Democratic Party. The Californian presented herself as an establishment politician (reaching the Senate after serving as San Francisco’s DA and California’s attorney general) whose platform was responsive to the idealism of the party’s grassroots. Harris backed the Green New Deal, a version of Medicare for All (albeit with some vacillation on the details), and marijuana legalization.

Harris embodied a classic Gen X straddle: She’d navigated a path to power through a system controlled by older, whiter, more-conservative politicians, and then proposed to wield the levers of that power in the service of ideals she shared with the enormous, diverse, and progressive millennial and zoomer generations coming of age behind her.

Biden spotted with Kamala Harris talking points amid VP speculation