Tuesday, October 22, 2024

Jim Geraghty: The Chronically Underestimated Kamala Harris

Jim Geraghty - It is almost required in conservative circles to insist that Kamala Harris is stupid. But I do think the caricature of Kamala Harris as a bumbling dunce makes it easy to underestimate her, particularly in the closing weeks of an exceptionally close and high-stakes presidential campaign. Harris's past is littered with older and more experienced men who saw her as easy pickings and came up short on Election Day.

Posted by tonyroma at 09:33 AM | 110 COMMENTS | permalink

More

Comments

But there's this nagging complication - if Kamala Harris is as stupid as her critics claim, why does she have the Democratic presidential nomination and a roughly 50"50 shot of being the first female president in U.S. history? Do you know how many ruthlessly ambitious Democratic men and women have desperately yearned to get where she is? How many smart, tough, shrewd, often underhanded and cold-blooded pols have tried to claw their way up the greasy pole and fallen short?

And somehow this supposed dunce managed to do it?

The record indicates that whatever Harris's results are on an I.Q. test or other measure of intellect, she is particularly talented by another measuring stick, one that may be even more important in politics: She is exceptionally skilled at getting other people emotionally invested in her success.

Read on to learn how Harris's political career got started, her connection to Clint Eastwood, how she persuaded the wealthiest and most powerful elites of San Francisco to back her when she was a little-known underdog, the BMW she received as a gift, who ended her relationship with Willie Brown, and the speculation that Halle Berry would play her in a movie someday.

This is no puff piece coming from a National Review writer. I'd call it 'damning, with faint praise.' But what it is is a compendium of Harris' storied career - full of the same right wing sneering and dismissal we see everyday, as though the decompensating fry cook, Donald Trump is showing himself to be an intellectual heavyweight (Person, woman, man, camera, TV.' ).

At least Geraghty does present a factual recitation of Harris' rise even while pointing out every perceived misstep or utterance her critics obsess over compared to her presidential opponent, a man who can't even form coherent sentences above the 4th grade level. I guess they both are what they are.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-10-22 07:42 AM

Cannot open the link.

#2 | Posted by shoeless at 2024-10-22 07:49 AM

#2

Works for me, straight to Mediate. Try Googling.

#3 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-10-22 07:59 AM

www.nationalreview.com

Works better for me.

#4 | Posted by shoeless at 2024-10-22 08:17 AM

You can't create a thread linked to national review on this blog.

#5 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-10-22 08:26 AM

I read this article yesterday. It's at best a backhanded compliment. NR doesn't quite say they agree that KH is "stupid" but they don't say she isn't either. NR portrays her as a skilled manipulator and self-promoter who has a knack for getting powerful people on her side. They don't claim she "slept her way to the top," but I think it is implied.

I think that is all b.s. That's actually a more accurate description of Trump.

#6 | Posted by anton at 2024-10-22 10:00 AM

Sorry Tony, did not know that.

#7 | Posted by shoeless at 2024-10-22 10:10 AM

More like chronically underwhelming.

If the GOP had nominated DeSantis, she'd be getting crushed right now. She's only viable because it's Trump again.

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2024-10-22 10:18 AM

I'm not under estimating her. I'm fully expecting her to continue to fail upwards and win this election. She's not dumb, she's quite crafty at manipulating the game to put her into these positions to fail up. She was probably a pretty skilled prosecutor as well. When it comes to governing and policy though that is a skillset that she doesn't seem to think well on on her feet, and it's that inability that causes me to have my negative view of her.

#9 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2024-10-22 10:30 AM

"...and it's that inability that causes me to have my negative view of her." -

#9 | Posted by kwrx25

No reason.

Unlike the Kumquat Pol Pot, Kamala Harris, like Obama and Biden, surrounds herself with competent, dedicated public servants who will work with her.

Trump surrounds himself with sycophants.

#10 | Posted by Hans at 2024-10-22 10:40 AM

I'm not under estimating her. I'm fully expecting her to continue to fail upwards and win this election.

#9 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2024-10-22 10:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

Speaking of 'failing upward':

I assume you are aware Trump is a trust fund baby who inherited $413 million from his daddy, who managed to lose it, and whose career was in the tank until a TV network created a gameshow that (somehow) convinced morons he is some sort of "Captain of Industry."

#11 | Posted by anton at 2024-10-22 11:55 AM

#11 Thread isn't about Trump...

I am however in a social club that has elections for officers. The process is that an election committee brings forth a ballot with the officers they are nominating... Pres/VP/Sec/Treas. The club votes yes or no on the ballot as is. If it's a no the committee produces a new ballot completely or partially edited.

I wish this election were the same and we could vote no to both candidates, and the DNC and RNC had to start over with new choices.

#12 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2024-10-22 12:02 PM

"I wish this election were the same and we could vote no to both candidates"

You do realize you still have that option? You can always write in "NOTA" if you can't stomach either of them or anyone on the ballot.

#13 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-10-22 12:27 PM

#12

You can vote for anyone you want.
Roadkill Bob is an option, as is Kremlin Jill.
Or you can write in Jesus.

#14 | Posted by anton at 2024-10-22 12:32 PM

In order for a known figure to be chronically underestimated, he/she has to give the appearance, speech, or actions that make people underestimate him/her. So that person only has themself to blame.

"I wish this election were the same and we could vote no to both candidates, and the DNC and RNC had to start over with new choices."

Completely agree. That's been the case for at least the last 20 years, though. W and the ones prior to him while I've been alive at least had the political experience and connections to make things happen. Today the candidates can be anyone because it's not the person people are voting for, it's the party. Trump proved that, many Reps wouldn't vote for an idiot like him if there were a better option. Now Harris is proving the same thing. Biden at least had many years in politics; unfortunately, his lack of doing anything meaningful and then saying how much he can do now (what happened to the previous 40 years?) prevented most Reps from at least seeing him as a viable candidate. They wouldn't have voted for him anyway because votes are for the party now, not for who is best to lead our country.

#15 | Posted by humtake at 2024-10-22 12:33 PM

"I wish this election were the same and we could vote no to both candidates"

You don't get off that easy.

If you don't vote for either candidate then you are voting Trumpy.

If you don't vote then America will get the government it deserves.

#16 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-10-22 12:43 PM

"I wish this election were the same and we could vote no to both candidates"

I wish it was the law that you HAD to vote.

AND I wish that you had to do at least two years of public service.

But if I wish in one hand and take a crap in the other I know which one will fill up first.

#17 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-10-22 12:46 PM

"If you don't vote for either candidate then you are voting Trumpy."

Not really true since we really have 50 elections and not one. I'm in MA, it's a foregone conclusion that Harris is going to carry this state regardless of how I vote.

So I will be voting for a third party as it will be the closest thing to a No to both of them. If more people were willing to send a message to the major parties perhaps we could get it through to them that we aren't going to stand for the crap they've been offering.

But both sides are too worried they might lose, and each party has convinced their bases that each candidate is an existential threat to our very ways of being that there is not real threat of an actual protest "lack of voting" to occur.

So it will be another year of singularly protesting against the parties.

#18 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2024-10-22 02:01 PM

" If you don't vote for either candidate then you are voting Trump"

That is completely illogical.

#19 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-22 03:26 PM

#19 | Posted by JeffJ | Flag: Please give us a reason why anyone should read - (much less respect) - whatever you say when you're unwilling to respond to this?

#20 | Posted by Hans at 2024-10-22 03:31 PM

The Democratic Party really does look ready to lose yet another easily winnable election by running yet another awful candidate that represents the same genocidal foreign policies as her predecessor.
After the loss, establishment Dems are again going to go around blaming their loss on everyone in America who is a better person than they are.

#21 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2024-10-22 04:27 PM

"If you don't vote for either candidate then you are voting Trump"

Brought to you by the same -------- logic that gave us:

"either you are with us or you are with the terrorists"

-George W. Bush

#22 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2024-10-22 04:30 PM

#22 - No, it is a statement of the outcome if Harris doesn't receive enough votes. You will get Trump. That is a cold, hard fact.

#23 | Posted by YAV at 2024-10-22 05:00 PM

Yav,

The statement that not voting for either candidate is a vote for Trump is completely nonsensical.

#24 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-22 05:21 PM

#24 | Posted by JeffJ | Flag: Please give us a reason why anyone should read - (much less respect) - whatever you say when you're unwilling to respond to this?

#25 | Posted by Hans at 2024-10-22 05:25 PM

If everyone that was going to waste their vote voting for Kamala Harris actually voted with those voting for Jill Stein, Trump would lose, 100%.

#26 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2024-10-22 05:38 PM

"If..."

#26 | Posted by NerfHerder

If?

If you were smart you might be dangerous.

If.

#27 | Posted by Hans at 2024-10-22 05:49 PM

"The statement that not voting for either candidate is a vote for Trump is completely nonsensical."

Be careful not to confuse them with sense and logic. They might bite.

#28 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-10-22 05:49 PM

#26

'If wishes were horses, then I'd go a'riddin''... is how they put it in Texas

"If wishes were horses, beggars would ride", is the original.

If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.
If turnips were swords, I'd have one at my side.
If "ifs" and "ands" were pots and pans,
There'd be no work for tinkers' hands.

A shorter variant:

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
If turnips were bayonets, I'd wear one by my side.[3]

A variant intended to be humorous:

If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.
If horse turds were biscuits, they'd eat 'til they died.

en.wikipedia.org

#29 | Posted by Corky at 2024-10-22 05:55 PM

I was explicit.
The math is the math.
You can argue all you wish.
You can jump off a building and vote against gravity.
It won't change the result.

That is the essence of logic.

Common sense is neither common nor sense.

#30 | Posted by YAV at 2024-10-22 05:55 PM

If?

perpetual Kremlin dinner guest Jill Stein is like some ****ed-up asteroid. every four years, her weird-*** orbit swings her too close to the Earth, and she ends up dicking with the tides and screwing with our electoral magnetic field.
If.

#31 | Posted by Hans at 2024-10-22 05:59 PM

As much as I enjoy watching Bill Maher's show most of the time, someone really needs to call him out for pushing that lie back in 2016. I can almost guarantee that it pushed at least some would-be third-party voters and non-voters into voting for Trump, out of spite. Yes, it was and is irrational for anyone to vote for Trump, but if you aren't aware that a section of the electorate will always behave this way then you have no business talking about politics.

#32 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-10-22 05:59 PM

#30, "The math is the math."

I don't want to ever see anyone talk about Republican Math on here again unless they denounce the nonsensical bull ---- you just wrote.

#33 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-10-22 06:03 PM

If you don't vote for either candidate then you are voting Trumpy.

If you don't vote then America will get the government it deserves.

#16 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-10-22 12:43 PM | Reply

That's utter poppycock and you know it too.

#34 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2024-10-22 06:03 PM

The statement that not voting for either candidate is a vote for Trump is completely nonsensical.

#24 | Posted by BellRinger

The statement that not voting for either candidate helps trump win is a fact.

But after your cult leader attempts a fascist coup, it's best to just argue minutiae and semantics instead of big picture stuff.

#35 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-10-22 06:07 PM

"The statement that not voting for either candidate helps trump win is a fact."

So someone who leans more toward the R cult than the D cult chooses not to vote for either is somehow helping Trump? And you're not, by encouraging those people to choose only between the top two candidates? You can't possibly be this stupid.

#36 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-10-22 06:15 PM

Hillary shoulda just Declared Victory like Trump did.

Then sent an armed and angry, violent mob of cat ladies to the Capitol so that her Electors Scam could become the Coup of America!

That's History book stuff there.

Harris has shown gumption, and may still win, anyone who says they know is lying and or stupid...

... but I guarantee you that only about 1 percent of Trumpers know the Transgender in Prison policies were already in place under Trump.

The other 99 percent of them have seen the commercial of Kamala on the subject, which infers the policy originated with her... and they've been told it's more important than whether their Candidate for President is a Crook.

And a Liar, and an Insurrectionist... many of his underlings and dupes are in prison right now wondering how the F their lives are ruined and the Mob Boss is getting away with the same crimes... which he ordered like they were 5 Big Macs and 5 fries and a Diet Coke.

#37 | Posted by Corky at 2024-10-22 06:22 PM

So someone who leans more toward the R cult than the D cult chooses not to vote for either is somehow helping Trump? And you're not, by encouraging those people to choose only between the top two candidates? You can't possibly be this stupid.

#36 | Posted by sentinel

Republicans can't deny that they're in a cult so all they can do is say "dems are in a cult too!"

Just like they can't deny they attempted a coup so all they can do is say "the BLM marches were a coup attempt too!"

#38 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-10-22 06:31 PM

" You can jump off a building and vote against gravity"

I don't need to. I'm the Road Runner.

#39 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-22 07:07 PM

Yav,

You and Donnerboy aren't saying the same thing.

#40 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-22 07:08 PM

you are a cartoon for sure.

#41 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-10-22 07:08 PM

" The statement that not voting for either candidate helps trump win is a fact."

It neither helps or hurts Trump or Harris. Logic101 is a course that it seems certain people on this site have utterly failed.

#42 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-22 07:10 PM

It neither helps or hurts Trump or Harris. Logic101 is a course that it seems certain people on this site have utterly failed.

#42 | Posted by BellRinger

Do dems or repubs do better when turnout is lower?

#43 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-10-22 07:17 PM

It doesn't change the illogic. Also, 3rd party votes are in the mix.

#44 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-22 07:37 PM

- you are a cartoon for sure.

I get Randy Marsh vibes from his current alias.

#45 | Posted by Corky at 2024-10-22 07:39 PM

You have a duty.

So, yeah, any vote for anyone but Harris is a vote for -------

#46 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-10-22 07:40 PM

Posted by JeffJ (A special moniker, with a h/t to Corky)

Flag: Please give us a reason why anyone should read - (much less respect) - whatever you say when you're unwilling to respond to this?

#47 | Posted by Hans at 2024-10-22 07:44 PM

"...any vote for anyone but Harris is a vote for -------" -

#46 | Posted by truthhurts | Flag: 100% Truth

#StrongerTogether + #Indivisibles

#48 | Posted by Hans at 2024-10-22 07:46 PM

" So, yeah, any vote for anyone but Harris is a vote for -------

#46 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2024-10-22 07:40 PM |"

No, it isn't. If a person votes 3rd party that vote doesn't magically go Trump.

#49 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-22 07:52 PM

" I get Randy Marsh vibes from his current alias.

#45 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2024-10-22 07:39 PM | FLAG: "

My current alias is more like Bluto.

#50 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-22 07:53 PM

My current alias is more like Bluto.

#50 | Posted by BellRinger

More like a carbuncle on bluto's ass.

#51 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-10-22 07:54 PM

#52 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2024-10-22 07:55 PM

jeff you are neither funny nor profound nor interesting.

You are a low intelligence, boring, pedantic troll. Nothing more, nothing less.

#53 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-10-22 07:55 PM

It doesn't change the illogic. Also, 3rd party votes are in the mix.

#44 | Posted by BellRinger

It's illogic to notice historical patterns?
And when are third party votes NOT in the mix?

#54 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-10-22 08:01 PM

Trump ran kanye as a spoiller candidate in 2020 just like he's doing with RFK in 2024

#55 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-10-22 08:01 PM

Yes, Bluto was rather dense and loud, not very bright, I'm afraid.

More interested in the process of starting trouble than sorting out the facts.

His name is from the German Blute or bloom... 'flowerhead' to be exact.

#56 | Posted by Corky at 2024-10-22 08:05 PM

Twoothy,

The fact that you have nothing but ad hominem shows that I live rent free in your head and am the opposite of how you describe me.

#57 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-22 08:07 PM

"You are a low intelligence, boring, pedantic troll. Nothing more, nothing less."
#53 | Posted by truthhurts

Physician, heal thyself.

#58 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-10-22 08:07 PM

"jeff you are neither funny nor profound nor interesting.

You are a low intelligence, boring, pedantic troll. Nothing more, nothing less."

And yet you follow him everywhere begging for his attention.

#59 | Posted by eberly at 2024-10-22 08:08 PM

As a cartoon character Bluto was awesome.

#60 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-22 08:09 PM

" And yet you follow him everywhere begging for his attention.

#59 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2024-10-22 08:08 PM | FLAG: "

Amazingly, he's being out-hustled by Hans.

#61 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-22 08:10 PM

"No, it isn't. If a person votes 3rd party that vote doesn't magically go Trump."
#49 | Posted by BellRinger

Let them have their little fantasy. These people most likely started out just trolling, and like many addicts they've started buying into their own nonsense. Even if they know they're wrong, they can't admit it because they'd lose too much face and self-respect. Just like many Trump supporters.

#62 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-10-22 08:13 PM

#61 | Posted by JeffJ | Flag: Please give us a reason why anyone should read - (much less respect) - whatever you say when you're unwilling to respond to this?

#63 | Posted by Hans at 2024-10-22 08:13 PM

like many addicts they've started buying into their own nonsense.
#62 | Posted by sentinel

"stop the steal! stop the steal!"

#64 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-10-22 08:29 PM

61

I know. He's out trolling the trolls.

#65 | Posted by eberly at 2024-10-22 08:29 PM

I know. He's out trolling the trolls. -

#65 | Posted by eberly (new)

So?

#66 | Posted by Hans at 2024-10-22 08:32 PM

No, it isn't. If a person votes 3rd party that vote doesn't magically go Trump.

Trump: 50
Harris: 49

3rd party vote: Thrown away.

Trump wins.
The lack of the vote for Harris ensured it.
The 3rd party vote effectively made Trump President.
That vote "went" to Trump.

This is practiced art in politics. There are criminal actions being taken in Florida over ghost candidates recruited for exactly this purpose. This isn't even debatable. Google "Ghost candidate Florida criminal". Then google "Russia backs Jill Stein." There's a reason Russia saw this as a winning strategy.

#67 | Posted by YAV at 2024-10-22 08:36 PM

- Even if they know they're wrong, they can't admit it because they'd lose too much face and self-respect

Once some people say something, their ego won't let them take it back, true.

Also, they won't admit that their Candidate is a criminal traitor... that people are rotting in jail for crimes they committed at his instructions... because they have this Fantasy that they are, 'owning them some libs!' by obfuscating for and supporting said criminal traitor.

They are themselves, in fact, anti-patriots, not merely opposition political policy advocates, but far rwing opinionates.

#68 | Posted by Corky at 2024-10-22 08:41 PM

#67 | Posted by YAV | Flag: A dose of sanity and reality

#69 | Posted by Hans at 2024-10-22 08:50 PM

#68 | Posted by Corky | Flag: A dose of sanity and reality

#70 | Posted by Hans at 2024-10-22 08:51 PM

"3rd party vote: Thrown away."

#67 | Posted by Yav

perpetual Kremlin dinner guest Jill Stein is like some ****ed-up asteroid. every four years, her weird-*** orbit swings her too close to the Earth, and she ends up dicking with the tides and screwing with our electoral magnetic field.
#StrongerTogether + #Indivisibles

#71 | Posted by Hans at 2024-10-22 09:01 PM

"The 3rd party vote effectively made Trump President.
That vote "went" to Trump."

Unless you have evidence that third party vote definitely would have gone to Trump's opponent, as opposed to sitting the election out, that's a baseless claim. And you know it.

#72 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-10-22 09:37 PM

Unless you have evidence that third party vote definitely would have gone to Trump's opponent, as opposed to sitting the election out, that's a baseless claim. And you know it. -

#72 | Posted by sentinel | Flag: Intellectual level

Meanwhile ...there's this

#73 | Posted by Hans at 2024-10-22 09:58 PM

The 3rd party vote effectively made Trump President.
That vote "went" to Trump.

This is practiced art in politics. There are criminal actions being taken in Florida over ghost candidates recruited for exactly this purpose. This isn't even debatable. Google "Ghost candidate Florida criminal". Then google "Russia backs Jill Stein." There's a reason Russia saw this as a winning strategy.

Posted by YAV at 2024-10-22 08:36 PM | Reply

Are you that desperate to blame third party voters for Trump's presidency?? Seriously?? It's inconceivable to you that it's Hillary who holds the blame for Trump winning in 2016. Nobody else.

#74 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2024-10-22 10:34 PM

I'm not desperate at all, Laura.
Put your big girl pants on.
Figure out if what I laid out applies to you or not.
You are in KS.

#75 | Posted by YAV at 2024-10-23 08:42 AM

Ghost candidates swing elections.
Foreign enemies of the United States fund 3rd party candidates.

But you go on believing all that is done for no reason.
Stick your head in the sand. Make this all about *you* without understanding there are lots of *you* out there.

#76 | Posted by YAV at 2024-10-23 08:45 AM

it's amazing that people here equate all votes the same way. We don't have one election we have 50. My 3rd party vote in MA which will go overwhelmingly to Harris, is in no way going to help Trump. If I chose to vote for Trump in MA, it isn't going to weigh in and determine some swing states tight vote count.

Stop being so disingenuous and dramatic "oh dear a non vote for a major party is a vote for Trump"... Get over yourself.

#77 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2024-10-23 10:31 AM

"Foreign enemies of the United States fund 3rd party candidates."

They also fund the two major parties. It's irrelevant to the spurious claim you keep spouting. You might as well just argue for banning third party and independent candidates.

#78 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-10-23 10:54 AM

"Whatabout!"

#79 | Posted by YAV at 2024-10-23 11:39 AM

"if you're not voting for Hillary, you might as well vote for Trump." -Martin Short, 2016
"If you're not voting for Kamala, you might as well vote for Trump " -Yav, 2024

Let us know how telling people to vote for Trump works out for you.

#80 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-10-23 12:17 PM

I'm not interested in giving -------- to 3rd party voters so they *might* make an intelligent decision in their own best self-interst. I'm not going to say nothing in the hope that they won't do what they're saying they are going to do. All I've said is what the effective results of that course of action will be.

They can do whatever they please. You got a problem with that then come up with a solution and respond with it.

#81 | Posted by YAV at 2024-10-23 12:24 PM

- If I chose to vote for Trump

Then you are siding with a criminal traitor, no matter the outcome of the election.

#82 | Posted by Corky at 2024-10-23 12:29 PM

"If you're not voting for Kamala, you might as well vote for Trump" -Yav, Corky

Anyone wanna add their names to this list?

#83 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-10-23 02:01 PM

83

Ah, trying your hand at fiction, I see. You're doing great so far!

#84 | Posted by Corky at 2024-10-23 02:04 PM

So no solution, just more whinging from Sentinel.

#85 | Posted by YAV at 2024-10-23 02:11 PM

"I'm not going to say nothing in the hope that they won't do what they're saying they are going to do."
#81 | Posted by YAV

No, instead you're going to say something stupid which will likely encourage them to do the opposite of what you want them to do.

#86 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-10-23 02:13 PM

What have I said that isn't factual and is driving anyone to vote for Trump?

#87 | Posted by YAV at 2024-10-23 02:26 PM

No, instead you're going to say something stupid which will likely encourage them to do the opposite of what you want them to do.

#86 | Posted by sentinel

"I'm going to vote for fascists out of spite!"

#88 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-10-23 02:29 PM

Sentinel seems to think the best way to prevent fascism in America is to STFU.
That has never worked.

#89 | Posted by YAV at 2024-10-23 02:37 PM

"If you're not voting for Kamala, you might as well vote for Trump"

Not exactly. Not voting for Kamala just means you are not doing anything to prevent Lewzer from winning if you live in a swing state.

Of course if you don't live in a swing state you can vote for Donald Duck and it won't matter.

#90 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-10-23 02:55 PM

#90 - It's so straight forward. It is incontrovertible.

#91 | Posted by YAV at 2024-10-23 03:26 PM

" Sentinel seems to think"

Citation necessary.

#92 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-10-23 03:50 PM

Attacking independent and third party voters is never going to work in your favor, no matter who you support. It's a sign of weakness and insecurity.

#93 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-10-23 05:06 PM

A wonderful piece! So Queen Kamala bungled what again today?

Surely no one will never forget the Queens overused arrogant phony furrowed brow look when she wants to say something she thinks is profound but is always quite stupid. She oddly believes that her special look will then the word salad she says something it isnt.

#94 | Posted by Robson at 2024-10-23 07:35 PM

Make that "surely no one will ever forget" the Queens..
.

#95 | Posted by Robson at 2024-10-23 07:37 PM

We are the champions, my friends!

#96 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-10-23 07:42 PM

Post script to 95-95.

My concern with Kamala is she does not have the gravitas and ability to discuss and convince leaders of substance who will see right thru her.

#97 | Posted by Robson at 2024-10-23 07:51 PM

@#97 ... My concern with Kamala is she does not have the ...

Yeah, stated without any manner of evidence.

As evidence to the contrary, just look what she did with fmr Pres Trump during their debate.

OK, I'll ask differently, does your current bot alias really want the fmr Pres Trump of that debate in a room, without interpreters, with Pres Putin?

This is the visual result of such a meeting...

foreignpolicy.com

Frm Pres Trump does not look at all happy about what Pres Putin did to him during that meeting.

I mean if, as fmr Pres Trump says, VP Harris is as stupid as he says, why did she seem to flail fmr Pres Trump's quite ample derriere during the debate?


#98 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-10-23 08:23 PM

btw, more from that image...

As Trump Walks Back Russia Comments, Senate Summons Pompeo for Hearing on Helsinki (July 2018)
foreignpolicy.com

... President Donald Trump tried to walk back his jarring performance with Russian President Vladimir Putin today, as top U.S. lawmakers called for a hearing to sort out what exactly happened when the two leaders met in Helsinki on Monday.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters he was requesting a public hearing with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo next week on the administration's Russia policy following Trump's meeting with Putin.

Two congressional aides confirmed to Foreign Policy that Pompeo will publicly testify before the committee next Wednesday. A Republican aide said the panel originally asked to meet him following Trump's meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un but added Russia to the agenda following the president's tumultuous meeting with Putin.

The push for a hearing reflects a growing Republican backlash against Trump after his closed-door meeting with Putin and a stormy press conference where he sided with the Russian leader and discounted the U.S. intelligence community's findings on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

On Tuesday, Trump walked back those comments, reading from a written statement saying he had "full faith" in the U.S. intelligence community and that he misspoke when he said he didn't think Russia interfered in elections. ...


Oh, such a different time when the GOP would actually criticize fmr Pres Trump, instead of signing up for his cult.

#99 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-10-23 08:26 PM

#97

My concern with you is that you're a Russian AI bot that has zero grasp in reality and all your "posts" are meaningless drivel.

#100 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-10-23 10:26 PM

#93

Beating Nazis senseless is always good policy.

#101 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-10-23 10:27 PM

"The record indicates that whatever Harris's results are on an I.Q. test or other measure of intellect, she is particularly talented by another measuring stick, one that may be even more important in politics: She is exceptionally skilled at...
#1 | Posted by tonyroma"

And that one skill was opening her legs for a married Willy Brown. This led to 2 no-show jobs on commissions which allowed her to run for an elected office - and with the support of Willie Brown, she won. In CA and in San Francisco politics, it is not running against the GOP, it is being selected by the Democrat political machine as the candidate because the Dem candidate always wins.

You can say the same thing after the Biden coup. The Democrat machine goes to work to shut down all challengers. She has never 'won an election' in the normal sense of the word and everyone knows it.

Her faking being black is just her latest scam.

What Kamala should teach you, same as Kim Kardashian, is that when you have a person willing to sell their soul to the devil and follow the machine wherever it wants you to go, you can be rich, famous, and powerful beyond your wildest dreams. It is not something to aspire to. As much as I despite Taylor Swift, at least she has a modicum of talent - the other female singers are all pushed by the machine and more or less sell crappy music with a side of sex. Kamala is just the political branch of this same movement meant to control the stupid people.

#102 | Posted by deadman at 2024-10-24 02:17 AM

@#102 ...

Do try harder.

Your #102 just trivializes what your current alias posts here.

For example...

... when you have a person willing to sell their soul to the devil and follow the machine wherever it wants you to go, you can be rich, famous, and powerful beyond your wildest dreams ...

And even if VP Harris is guilty of that unsubstantiated assertion, fmr Pres Trump's escapades of his reality show are somehow different?

I mean really.

Valid criticism, or just the usual GOP projection of the wrongs they do upon others?



#103 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-10-24 02:29 AM

"And even if VP Harris is guilty of that unsubstantiated assertion, fmr Pres Trump's escapades of his reality show are somehow different?
#103 | Posted by LampLighter"

Trump went on TV AFTER he was already a billionaire many times over. It is not possible to buy someone that is already incredible wealthy. The most you can do is try to take away their wealth or freedom or kill them outright - which was the Dem playbook on Trump since 2016. See the difference yet moron?

#104 | Posted by deadman at 2024-10-24 02:33 AM

Kamala's basic inabilty to think and communicate are the real threat to our democracy. She is an appointed puppet to an unelected and unknown committee of left wing political elites. Even the MSM is starting to see the light.

#105 | Posted by Robson at 2024-10-24 08:21 AM

-She is an appointed puppet to an unelected and unknown committee of left wing political elites

She's an elected senator and elected VP. Regardless of what you think of her, She's not "appointed" as though she came in from left field.

#106 | Posted by eberly at 2024-10-24 09:13 AM

"She's an elected senator
#106 | Posted by eberly"

She literally DID NOT HAVE A GOP opponent for that race. This was the Dem machine appointing her. Calling it an election is an insult to democracy.

#107 | Posted by deadman at 2024-10-24 09:41 AM

#107
That's the top-two primary model they use in CA. It's tough on unpopular candidates.

#108 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2024-10-24 10:26 AM

-She literally DID NOT HAVE A GOP opponent for that race.

And a defeated GOP candidate makes her senate election more credible?

defeating a republican in California state-wide race?

#109 | Posted by eberly at 2024-10-24 10:56 AM

"And a defeated GOP candidate makes her senate election more credible?
defeating a republican in California state-wide race?
#109 | Posted by eberly"

No, it doesn't. I use it to show what a farce it is to pretend that she won an election. She didn't. It is Democrat machine appointed plain and simple some way she 'won' the nomination now.

#110 | Posted by deadman at 2024-10-24 09:15 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Gaetz Withdraws (60 comments)

Texas Offers Trump Huge Ranch for Mass Deportation Plan (58 comments)

Gaetz Sent over $10K in Venmo Payments to Women who Testified (32 comments)

1 in 5 Adults Get Their News from Social Media Influencers (28 comments)

Trump Struggling with Treasury Pick for the Dumbest Reason (25 comments)

Mike Johnson Institutes Transgender Bathroom Ban for U.S. House (23 comments)

Nikki Haley Trashes Trump Picks RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard (19 comments)

Murdoch's News Corp Accused of Undermining Democracy (18 comments)

Republicans on Ethics Panel Vote to Block Gaetz Report (16 comments)

ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Netanyahu, Galant, Deif (15 comments)