DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Kamala Harris

In short, she's followed a fairly traditional path:

Civic District Attorney
State Attorney General
US Senator
Vice President

Partisan politics aside, this is a fairly conventional/universally accepted career path by most metrics.
I don't have a vitae that reads like this... and I'm pretty sure all Dawgtalkers would have to admit the same.

So- Is she qualified?
Why not?

Her present boss's predecessor was a 'reality' game show emcee.
Let's all review his vitae for the job of POTUS, shall we?

My guess is this:
At the very least, she'll bring to the table campaign speeches that don't waste time talking about sharks, e-boats, shower head pressure, and Hannibal Lector (wtf?).


After that, we'll all just have to wait & see.

That's why we have campaigns. To get to know who's on the ballot.



02,
clem.

I don't question her qualifications. As you said, it's a fairly normal assent towards the office.

I don't like that she is a borderline communist.

How so? What communist ideas does she bring to the table? If you can’t be specific then you are just parroting.

Clowns and sheep.

Yeah equality for all is communism. lol You’re nuts.

Problem with your logic is the "tweet" (whatever they're called now) preferred equity to equality and talks about everyone ending up at the same place as the goal at the end.

I didn't give a commentary on it. Just gave an example of something that could be seen as "borderline communist."

Valiant ( ) attempt to put me down, though.

That was your takeaway from that? WOW. It wasn’t about being at the same place in the end at all. It was about starting off at the same place. Lifting those unfortunate people up. And it isn’t even close to borderline communism. But I’m not surprised that was your takeaway. And talk about snowflakes ..lol geez

"Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place" is literally written in the tweet.

Talk about nuts snowflakes.

Equitable treatment means treating all people equally. I know that seems to sound like a terrible concept to some.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

One would hope that if we are all created equal we should all be treated equally.

Lifting people up to give them an opportunity to climb to the same level as those more fortunate. You still don’t get it. Anyways……..


It’s Not communism bro. Not even close.

Once again you are arguing against a point I didn't make.

I never commented on whether I was positive, negative, or indifferent towards the tweet. I simply posted the tweet by itself. Later I commented how it could be seen as "borderline communist." I'm not one that treats communism like it's a dirty word.

If you and Perfect want to try to spin things , ignore things, make things up, etc, I will still point it out.

Yes, if you keep pretending the "communist" part at the end isn't there, it isn't communist.

It's the same standard label they've been attaching to ever democrat that's ran for president in my lifetime. Somehow they think that's the definition of anyone that puts people over corporations. You want all people to have healthcare? You must be a communist. You actually want people that work for a living to make a living wage? You must be a communist. And on and on it goes.

I'm not sure what you call people that advocate people work at wages they can't possibly make a living at and advocate people are being forced to file for bankruptcy and lose everything they've worked for due to medical bills. But I'm sure there's a name for it.

You seemed to be confused about what equitable treatment actually meant so I thought I would help you out. I suppose that's what I get for trying to be nice.

She's gaining quickly and nipping at trump's heels.

Yes, the exact words they use to describe isn't what they mean by it in your mind.

You're a closeted communist. Embrace it. It's not a dirty word. There's no shame in it.

Harris mocks Trump after he hedges (again) on presidential debate

The more Donald Trump hedges on debating the likely Democratic nominee, the more eager Kamala Harris is to mock the former Republican president.

The first sign of trouble came on Sunday. Just a few hours after President Joe Biden announced that he wouldn’t seek a second term, Donald Trump quickly turned his attention to one thing: an upcoming presidential debate, which he suddenly seemed reluctant to attend.

The Republican published an item to his social media platform, noting that the next debate is currently scheduled to air on ABC in early September, and though Trump and his campaign operation had already agreed to participate in the event, the former president declared on Sunday that he instead wanted a debate on Fox News, instead of a network he described as “fake.”

The second sign of trouble came two days later, when the GOP nominee doubled down on his original message, adding that he believes ABC “is not worthy of holding a Debate.”

Later Tuesday, Trump told reporters he was “absolutely” prepared to debate the likely Democratic nominee, though he quickly added, “I haven’t agreed to anything. I agreed to debate with Joe Biden.”

The latest sign of trouble came last night. The New York Times reported:

Advisers to former President Donald J. Trump said they would not commit to another debate, one they had already agreed to participate in, now that the Democrats have changed candidates from President Biden to Vice President Kamala Harris.

The written statement from Steven Cheung, the Trump campaign’s communications director, was weird, even by 2024 standards. It said there’s “chaos” in Democratic politics (there’s not). It said Biden is corrupt (he isn’t). It suggested Barack Obama opposes Harris (he doesn’t). It suggested it was necessary to use Obama’s middle name (it’s not). It said the opposing party is called the "Democrat Party" (it's not). It also said “many” Democrats want to nominate someone other than Harris (they don’t).

But after combing through the nonsense, the bottom line was simple: Team Trump concluded that it would be “inappropriate” to “finalize” the existing debate schedule until after the Democratic National Convention.

It led the Democratic vice president to respond with a simple and derisive message via social media: “What happened to ‘any time, any place’?” It came hours after Harris told reporters that she was prepared to stick to the agreed upon debate schedule, despite the fact that she’s only been a candidate for less than a week, and she didn't know why her rival was "back-pedaling."

Harris’ mockery was rooted in fact. Trump spent the better part of a year begging for debates against Biden, and expressed total indifference to the details. The former president summarized his position in three words: “ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, ANYPLACE.” When Biden proposed a pre-convention debate, Trump was only too pleased to agree.

The Republican’s position is obviously vastly different now.

When we last kicked this around, it seemed as if there were a couple of possible explanations for the antics. One was that Trump was engaged in a mind-numbing “work the refs” exercise, whining incessantly about ABC, in part in the hopes that the network will tilt the debate in his favor and in part to preemptively have an excuse in case Harris fares well in an upcoming standoff.

The other possibility is that Trump and his team are simply afraid of how he’d perform against the incumbent vice president.

All things considered, the latter explanation appears to be the accurate one.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...tion-presidential-debate-2024-rcna163777

j/c...

As with everything, things aren't always cut and dried, especially when talking about something like "communism".

The first thing that goes hand-in-hand with these conversations is the prerequisite of trusting the government with the five w's. I don't , you shouldn't. Half the things done under the guise of "equity" are done to favor interests that have nothing to do with equity. Point that out and you're racist. Everybody is so blind in their hatred that they cover their eyes and ears and don't even understand what they're arguing about.

Example: May 1, 2023. The Biden Administration (whatever that even means anymore) directed the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to implement new rules concerning their fees schedule. It punishes creditworthy home buyers to subsidize less creditworthy and high risk. And before you argue the lame talking point the left invented ("they don't actually take more fees from someone and give that money to someone else!"), yes, they do.

The wink towards the industry was that they still make the same in fees while opening the door to the lower rung of borrowers. The rung at which they all make obscene profits by exploiting them with higher interest rates. They simply shifted the scale and imposed higher fee rates for credit worthy buyers while lowering the fee rates for non.

And all this in the name of equity. Any opposers shamed for not wanting to make things equal. In fact, that same cartoon above was used to try to explain it to creditworthy, blind, white guys like myself.

So I ask you... we're some people born with a bad credit rating? Did they "come from bad credit"? Or did they just make stupid decisions? Should people that didn't make dumb decisions be responsible for those that did?

This is what a lot of conservative voters fear with furthering the cause of the current state of the democratic party. These kind of decisions are celebrated and nobody seems to care how little sense they make. As long as you can show it provides "equity" in any way, shape or form, regardless of the amount of equity or the people that are punished in return, it's full speed ahead.

Aw... Back to that labeling tactic with nothing of substance to add.

I see actually showing you that equitable treatment means treating people equally is of no value to you. Same as it ever was....

You "showing me" your made up BS/misuse of words is of no value to anyone except as examples of what not to do.

Just because you don't notice the substance you dive into face first doesn't actually mean there is no substance. Your ability to ignore things you don't like makes it very hard to take anything you say seriously.

What's so bad about "Communism?" That it hasn't worked? Is "Capitalism" working so great?

I almost considered voting for Kamala there for a bit before you and Perfect reminded me about the people she'll try to please to get elected, and her willingness to toe the party lines.

Kamala's father is a Marxist. It seems some of his beliefs may have informed her opinions. I don't see that as a bad thing. I think a balance b/w "Capitalism" and "Communism" needs to be found. The extreme versions of either that we've seen don't seem to lead to good outcomes.

You do understand that words have definitions until someone klike yourself tries to pervert their meaning.

equitable; having or exhibiting equity : dealing fairly and equally with all concerned

treatment; the manner in which someone behaves toward or deals with someone or something.

I understand how difficult it must be for you to wrap youer mind around that.


I'm sorry you somehow created some alternative meaning of this in your own mind and feel others should believe your perverted invention of what two obviously common words mean to you.


As with any system, if it is used in an unbridled way without the proper checks and balances, both will fail. I didn't actually say having a system that at least to some extent incorporates both systems to achieve a balance that's beneficial for all is a bad thing. Maybe you should ask someone who believes that any time someone proposes doing something that will help all Americans screams communism like it's a nasty word that question instead of me.


That's like trying to claim you didn't know who she was all along. Nobody is going to buy that BS. And then trying to claim that perfect and i have some influence in the way you do or don't vote? People need to put on their hip waders at this juncture. Shirley you can't be serious. And yes, I typed in Shirley. I did that purposefully so Frank will come along and claim I plagiarized the movie Airplane.


Which is exactly what I said above.

You do realize that words can have multiple definitions. When someone explicitly states they are using a different one, you can't just choose to say they are using one that supports what you believe and have it be true.

It's interesting how, to you, quoting something word for word is a "perverted invention."

You're the one that was treating Communism like it's a dirty word earlier.

Sadly, the idea of being in the same group as you and Perfect is abhorrent to me and does have some effect on my choices. Don't underestimate your ability to get people to avoid something just because you support it. It won't prevent me from making a choice, but it is a consideration.

Claiming something is exactly what you said above usually requires one to actually say that something. Trying to respond to an old post by referencing something you just wrote (well, did not actually write but claim to) in the current post is also rather ...typical.

Show me where there is any definition in a dictionary that fits your definition. Don't worry I'll wait. I'm not sure why you think just making a definition that doesn't exist qualifies as a different definition to you.

So being here is abhorrent to you yet you spend time here pretty much on a daily basis? Hmmmm.... And then you blame your choices on us? So much for the personal responsibility angle.

It seems you have no example of me saying that having a blended system that incorporates both capitalism and communism exits. That it's nothing more than some assumption you created in your on mind based on what you perceived I was saying. That's what I thought. Let me explain that to you. When someone claims I'm nothing more than a communist that''s simply not true. If someone called me a supporter of unbridled capitalism that would not be true. You think objecting to that description from others means something different than what it means. But I can see how that might happen coming from you.

Obama endorses Kamala Harris for president, solidifying Democratic support......

When someone says "X" means "Y," they are assigning definition, "Y", to "X."

When they wrote "Equitable treatment ("X") means we all end up at the same place ("Y")," they provided the definition they were using.

No, people thinking of me as being in the same group as you (politically) is abhorrent to me. People thinking I agreed with your fantasies presented as reality and condoned your willful ignorance is off-putting.

There is little to no benefit in proselytizing to the "righteous." One is supposed to try to turn the "evil" to "good." It's a duty I don't enjoy, but I try anyway. Hopeless as it may be.

I never said anything about you saying blending a system "exits." You claimed to have said that "exact same thing" in response to a blended system, and I more or less asked, "where?"

No one ever said nothing more than a communist. The voice in your head is making things up again.

For some strange reason since you can't hear your own thoughts, what was being said is that the only way people can ever manage to end up in the same place is they must have the ability to start on equal footing. You can't expect to put people two steps behind and expect them to have an equal opportunity to achieve the same success. It's actually not that complicated.


Your description sounds as if you are referring to yourself. If so we share that view. Once again you go to the personal while ignoring substance in true trumpian style.


So you believe those who think differently than yourself needs you to attempt to save them? That those who don't share your views are the evil? Your superiority complex, as if anyone had any doubt, has been reestablished. You labeling everyone who thinks differently than themselves as evil is yet another trumpian tactic.


For years on this very board. Ask anyone who has been paying attention.


Exactly. Nothing but labeling people as communist pure and simple. Thanks for help making my point. Not being able to hear yourself seems to be your biggest issue. Because if could hear yourself you would see the foolishness of what your labeling and personal attacks cause you to look like.

As usual, you're ignoring something that you don't like and pretending everyone is talking about things that you do like. Typical Pit, cherry picking and denying what's written in plain text.

You can only hear yourself, so of course you think everyone sounds like you.

No, I think those that present the "lesser evil" as a "good option" are using horrific reasoning. You're the one that refers to people as the lesser evil. I'm just using the language you chose to use.

Anyone that pays attention to Pit, has he been promoting communism for years?

I'm glad that you are finally willing to admit that you agree that the voice in your head is making things up. I agree that if I heard things in the voice in your head that they would sound foolish. Could make perfect sense, but I'd probably want to roll on the floor laughing if I heard them in your voice. That seems to be the effect it has on you anyways.

I'll ignore all of the prior useless rhetoric in your post and get down to this.


First I never claimed there was a "good option". Yet another thing you made up in your head. I said that in order to vote for anyone that stands a chance to win we will have to choose what we see as the better option of the two. Of course you knew that when you posted that nonsense.


I've been promoting a system that does not allow for unbridled capitalism. that we must have a government which balances the needs of business with what's best for our people at the same time. Which is the very thing people label as communism. You can choose to call that anything you like.


And posting such things makes you look far more foolish than me. It's the type of thing those who are incapable of having an actual discussion do. I'm sorry you can't hear just how foolish such personal attacks make you sound. But by all means, continue showing your lack of ability to discuss the topic and instead focus on attacking the poster. That's what desperation leads to.

And while you're at it, look up the entire premise of what she said. "Opportunity". Hopefully that can help you.

Better than borderline NAZI.

Nicely written! You da man!

She began her political career on her knees with a married man for favors. Is that the libtard idea of traditional path? Pathetic.

He shouldn't commit to a debate until Harris gets the nomination. Once she does I think you will see movement on this issue.

The Trump campaign he already spent significant money on TV ads to have in the can that they now can't use. I think all of this was planned from the beginning.

Thanks, bro.

I still try, from time to time.

I think everyone likes it when you take the time to post Clem.

There's one female troll who likes to think they can mess with you - but last time they tried there was a bloody nose and a royal put down, it's not gone unnoticed that since then they have not tried to bandy words with ya. Although safe to say on a day not too distant from now there'll be an alcohol induced pop at you that'll miss high and wide ... There's another troll who studiously doesn't engage with you. Other than that I'd say everyone enjoys your commentary. I know I do - so maybe time to step it up a fraction !

It wouldn’t matter to y’all if Trump was the married man…..You love the fat pig of a candidate who forces women to their knees for favors. Pfft Goper’s want a sexual predator and a fascist dictator. Pathetic.

Nobody has the nomination until they are confirmed at the convention. Yet that didn't stop trump from challenging Biden all the way back in April. Kamala, just like Biden, has the committed delegates to win the nomination at the convention.


I have no idea either way, but if that's what happened it's a brilliant political strategy.

Kamala Harris and Monica Lewinsky both made it to the White House in a similar manner.

Kamala did something with it.

Monica continues to live off "this one time at band camp"

Do you mean both were elected by the voters? I had no ideas that Monica had been elected to anything by voters.

Kamala was elected District Attorney of San Francisco (2004–2011). Then Attorney General of California (2011–2017). Then as a United States senator from California (2017–2021). Then Vice president of the United States. None of your nastiness can change that. How sad.