The US Presidency 2020

[shawn5o]

I guess it brings us back to this discussion,

Media Bias [Merged]
https://army.ca/forums/threads/18397.1325
56 pages.

Thanks mariomike

 

[a_majoor]

After reading this, I was frankly astonished anyone thought it was a good idea to nominate Kamala Harris as VP:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/kamala-harris-built-her-career-on-injustice

And given her poor performance in the Primaries and at the "debates" (Tulsi Gabbard pretty much sliced and diced her), I don't see what she actually brings to the table except "woman of colour".

We will see, however.....

 

[shawn5o]

After reading this, I was frankly astonished anyone thought it was a good idea to nominate Kamala Harris as VP:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/kamala-harris-built-her-career-on-injustice

And given her poor performance in the Primaries and at the "debates" (Tulsi Gabbard pretty much sliced and diced her), I don't see what she actually brings to the table except "woman of colour".

We will see, however.....

Hi Thucydides

Yes, she has a lot of negative baggage which cannot be reprited here. And her father wrote that she is descended from slave owners.

Look up the Hodgetwins through Louder with Crowder

 

[mariomike]

(Tulsi Gabbard pretty much sliced and diced her),

For comparison of the two,

Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_in_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Withdrawn_candidates

 

[OldSolduer]

After reading this, I was frankly astonished anyone thought it was a good idea to nominate Kamala Harris as VP:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/kamala-harris-built-her-career-on-injustice

And given her poor performance in the Primaries and at the "debates" (Tulsi Gabbard pretty much sliced and diced her), I don't see what she actually brings to the table except "woman of colour".

We will see, however.....

I know virtually nothing about her but then again we knew very little about Obama. It seems she fits the profile.
Does she speak French?

 

[FJAG]

After reading this, I was frankly astonished anyone thought it was a good idea to nominate Kamala Harris as VP:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/kamala-harris-built-her-career-on-injustice

And given her poor performance in the Primaries and at the "debates" (Tulsi Gabbard pretty much sliced and diced her), I don't see what she actually brings to the table except "woman of colour".

We will see, however.....

This is the way the writer of that piece describes herself in her byline:

Hannah Cox (@HannahCox7) is a libertarian-conservative activist and a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog.

It strikes me that when you strip away the rhetoric (words like "prison-industrial complex" and "crooked cop"), Kamala Harris was a law and order DA etc.

I'd take what she says with a barrel of salt.

:cheers:

 

[mariomike]

I know virtually nothing about her

If you are interested in learning,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris

 

[QV]

This is the way the writer of that piece describes herself in her byline:

It strikes me that when you strip away the rhetoric (words like "prison-industrial complex" and "crooked cop"), Kamala Harris was a law and order DA etc.

I'd take what she says with a barrel of salt.

:cheers:

To get a taste of Kamala Harris all you really needed to do was watch Harris' performances during some of the hearings and during the Dem primaries.  Which was terrible IMO. 

 

[mariomike]

To get a taste of Kamala Harris all you really needed to do was watch Harris' performances during some of the hearings and during the Dem primaries.  Which was terrible IMO.

Be interesting when she debates Mike Pence. ( Or, Ivanka, Trump jr., Eric, Nikki... whoever he picks as Veep. )

Trump said she was "nasty" to Brett Kavanaugh. "Extraordinarily nasty , mean, and horrible" to Brett.
https://www.google.com/search?ei=kD40X8nSMsPWtQbt-KXICQ&q=trump+harris+nasty+kavanaugh&oq=trump+harris+nasty+kavanaugh&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoLCAAQsQMQgwEQkQI6BQguEJECOgoILhCxAxCDARBDOggIABCxAxCDAToICC4QsQMQgwE6DgguELEDEIMBEMcBEKMCOgsILhCxAxDHARCjAjoNCC4QsQMQgwEQQxCTAjoECAAQQzoECC4QQzoKCAAQsQMQgwEQQzoHCC4QsQMQQzoECAAQAzoFCAAQsQM6CAguEMcBEK8BOgIIAFCxxwNYj6UEYIupBGgBcAB4AoABwgaIAYcvkgEOMC4yMS42LjAuMS4wLjGYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6sAEAwAEB&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjJ2rX9rpbrAhVDa80KHW18CZkQ4dUDCAs&uact=5#spf=1597259480188

Harris’s Approval Rating Soars After Trump Reminds Nation How “Nasty” She Was to Kavanaugh
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/kamala-harriss-approval-rating-soars-after-trump-reminds-nation-how-nasty-she-was-to-kavanaugh

 

[Brad Sallows]

Harris was definitely "law'n'order", which makes it the "law'n'order" ticket (Biden has a similar background).  Civil libertarians dislike both of them (see here, for example).

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=mariomike[/quote]
Harris’s Approval Rating Soars After Trump Reminds Nation How “Nasty” She Was to Kavanaugh
[/quote]

Of course it does, because that's how simple minded a lot of people are. If Trump said he hates apples people would rush out to buy bags of them and post Instagram pictures of them eating them.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

Perhaps some are, but the man has done little to negate the flow of activity directed towards him if for no other reason than to simply rile him up to see what he says/does next. He’s a sideshow that, love him or hate him, many can’t get enough of. He’s a form of entertainment.

Ref his opinions about her cited elsewhere—honestly, who can take seriously what he utters? He’s repeatedly shown that he maintains loyalty for no one. He belittles or glorifies whomever at any given time if it’ll form the narrative he’s pushing at that moment. The next day could be a total 180 in his opinion of an individual. He donated to Harris’s 2014 re-election as California AG, so if she is indeed what he says she is, clearly, at one point in time he was all for it.

 

[QV]

... He donated to Harris’s 2014 re-election as California AG, so if she is indeed what he says she is, clearly, at one point in time he was all for it.

During the Republican primaries in 2016, he was questioned about his political donations.  He was quite candid in his response where he stated words to the effect that he knew how politics worked and he donated money to politicians so that when he made a phone call the politician on the other end answered it.  It has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting, but rather getting things done.   

 

[BeyondTheNow]

During the Republican primaries in 2016, he was questioned about his political donations.  He was quite candid in his response where he stated words to the effect that he knew how politics worked and he donated money to politicians so that when he made a phone call the politician on the other end answered it.  It has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting, but rather getting things done. 

And? You’ve given more credence to my prior statement.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

During the Republican primaries in 2016, he was questioned about his political donations.  He was quite candid in his response where he stated words to the effect that he knew how politics worked and he donated money to politicians so that when he made a phone call the politician on the other end answered it.  It has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting, but rather getting things done. 

Well that's more honesty than a certain serving PM I am unfortunately acquainted with.

 

[QV]

And? You’ve given more credence to my prior statement.

No.  Where you state "at one point in time he was all for it" I suggest is wrong. He did it to buy favours not show support.

 

[Remius]

No.  Where you state "at one point in time he was all for it" I suggest is wrong. He did it to buy favours not show support.

That certainly explains who he takes calls from.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

No.  Where you state "at one point in time he was all for it" I suggest is wrong. He did it to buy favours not show support.

Right. And you said that he purportedly used words to the effect of ‘...I know how politics works...’ so, it’s all about what he can and can’t get out of any given situation using whatever method(s) suit his fancy at the time. The problem is that he thinks he’s better at playing the game than he actually is, and that’s the sole reason why he doesn’t have (all) the outward public support he craves, nor the numbers, etc.

I’m not saying he won’t win. (Tbh, I have a horribly sinking feeling he will. But that’s neither here nor there.) But he routinely kicks himself in his orange giblets and then plays the victim when a greater percentage of US citizens don’t kiss the ground he walks on.

Further, I have yet to figure out how any Canadian can still be in support of his leadership, when, again, he has no loyalty to us in the least. There’s a game to play, and he refuses to play it in such a way that benefits the relationship his country ought to have with its closest allies.

 

[QV]

I think you miss the point.

If you had watched the Republican Primaries in 2016 you'd know he stated he understood how politics worked and that he specifically wasn't for sale and didn't owe anyone any favours.  Yes, he said he knew the game and played it.  Take that how you want to.  I stated that as the counter to your suggestion he once supported Harris because he donated to her.   

If you only get your information from CNN and you've never actually listened to the endless hearings, debates, testimony, personal interviews for yourself to hear what is actually said than I'd suggest you have some catching up to do for an informed opinion.  Doesn't the abuse of intel and law enforcement powers for political purposes bother you? That's rhetorical. 

With respect to "Canadian supporting".  What I am against is corruption in high office or positions of public trust, and the Trump term has shown in ugly detail how bad that was in the last administration and most importantly the media shirking their fourth estate responsibility.  SNC, WE, etc have shown those problems to exist up here too.         

 

[Jarnhamar]

That certainly explains who he takes calls from.

Mic drop!