Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, September 12, 2024

Kamala Harris practiced a different kind of dominance politics in [Tuesday] night's debate, confronting the menace of Donald Trump directly and taking him down a peg like you would a schoolyard bully. The emotional weight of her presentation was centered on confronting him with a combination of mockery, scorn, bemusement, disdain, and condescension.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

After nearly a decade of Trump doing as he pleases with little accountability, a lot of appeasement, and very rare consequence, he was brought up short by an opponent who looked him in the eye, called him out, didn't back down, and in the process threw him off his game and took command of the debate stage.

Yes, it got under his skin, Yes, he was rattled, Yes, it turned him into a fulminating old man. I'm less interested though in the stagecraft she used than in the catharsis it provided to viewers who have craved to see Trump get his comeuppance for so many years, only to be repeatedly and endlessly disappointed.

It was Joe Biden's failure to confront Trump on this level during their debate in June that led to the existential crisis among Democrats. Biden failed in multiple ways in that debate, but the biggest letdown was his failure to stand up to Trump in a convincing fashion and instead let Trump run all over him.

In contrast, Harris confronted Trump repeatedly. She referred to him as a "disgrace" twice, as "dangerous and unfit," as "confused," and as lacking the right "temperament" to be president. She derided him to his face as someone dictators know "they can manipulate ... with flattery and favors." She often referred to him in the second person, a more charged and direct way of punching the bully in the nose. She called him out for warring against the rule of law and the Constitution and for his own criminally-charged conduct.

Of course, decisively winning a single debate brings a candidate not a single Electoral College vote, with those being the sole way of winning the presidency of the United States.

Having said that, my gosh, Tuesday night was a bolt of joyous lightening that immolated Donald Trump in front of a global audience that now echoes one of the scathing accusations leveled by Harris: The German government actually released a statement openly mocking Trump's idiotic and racist assertion of immigrants eating other people's pet cats and dogs. World leaders are laughing at Trump's idiocy and no amount of denial from him or supporters can negate that truth.

But even after this most heart-affirming, cathartic event of murder-by-verbal daggers, Trump still can and might win the presidency yet again. So this momentary relief will be again subsumed by the biting anxiety that even after his complete evisceration before God and man, the work of getting enough voters in the right states to the polls for the defeat of Trump is by no means a fait accompli. Time to get back to work.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-09-12 08:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm glad that Harris studied Trump's mental pathology and used it against him. You can be damned sure that Putin and Xi have already done this countless times.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2024-09-12 09:07 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

BREAKING, BREAKING!

Video leaks from backstage after the debate when Harris rejoined her team!

#3 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-09-12 09:18 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

I only saw the last 20 minutes or so of the debate live. Good to know that she did much better earlier on. I thought she was blowing it when she kept repeating "I have a plan" like John Kerry, but then Trump came back with the even lamer "I have concepts of a plan (after 9 years)".

She did appear kind of nervous during the closing argument, like she was starting to get worn down.

#4 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-09-12 10:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Yeah, sure. Nobody saw that. Nice try, Nazi bitch.

Fat Donnie Felon is what he's always been.

A FRAUD.

Only now he's a demented psycho with dozens of stupid -------- ready to buy another pair of crap sneakers.

Anyone that takes this idiot as a serious contender for the presidency is either a rube or a stooge.

#5 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-09-13 12:26 AM | Reply

I thought she was blowing it when she kept repeating "I have a plan" like John Kerry, but then Trump came back with the even lamer "I have concepts of a plan (after 9 years)".

#4 | Posted by sentinel

A hilarious snark (remember Rudy Colludy's ill fated news conference in 2020 at what was supposed to be the Four Seasons hotel?

We'd like to announce that while we are not a hotel, we are a concept of a hotel.
- Four Seasons Total Landscaping (@TotalSeasons)
September 11, 2024

#6 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2024-09-13 12:54 AM | Reply

Yes, she stood up to him, slugged him in his fat gut, and knocked him out with uppercut after uppercut to his many fat chins, and then kicked him in his overflowing diaper. But eat his lunch? I doubt she could polish off two filet of fish, a Big Mack, a Quarter Pounder with cheese, a large fries, and a milkshake. Hell, Im a big guy, and I couldn't eat all that without purging.

#7 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2024-09-13 05:53 AM | Reply

#7

The complete metaphor in my mind was that Kamala snatched the bully Trump's lunch right from his stubby fingers, stood right there and looked him in the eye while he sheepishly looked away, refusing to even make eye contact. Then she took single bites out of each item in his lunchbox, took a couple chews and then vigorously spit out each bite straight into the ground at his feet, before throwing the rest of his uneaten food into a trash can. Then she confidently turns on her 4 inch heels and triumphantly walked away with her strength, dignity, and dominance - along with his crushed masculinity - firmly in her grasp.

Is that better for you Gunny?

#8 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-09-13 07:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And next on the stage...Walz and Vance debate Oct 1. Should be more than a couple of childless cat ladies watching, goodness knows I will be tuned in.thehill.com

#9 | Posted by Hughmass at 2024-09-13 07:07 AM | Reply

"Say it to my face!"

He never did. He just looked straight ahead and pouted. He used to be a big tough guy, then he became a whipping boy. I almost felt sorry for him.

#10 | Posted by anton at 2024-09-13 07:19 AM | Reply | Funny: 3 | Newsworthy 1

"Say it to my face!"

Complete alpha dominant statement, and she delivered on her challenge in spades on Tuesday night. Trump's weakness and cognitive decline couldn't have been more devastatingly exposed.

She not only took and ate his lunch on Tuesday, she made him hand over his lunch money for the rest of the week.

#11 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-09-13 07:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#11

Yessir.

#12 | Posted by anton at 2024-09-13 09:03 AM | Reply

I'll wager that there were a few residents at San Quentin, Vacaville or Susanville who watched the debate and said to themselves and each other "Yep--I know that lady..."

#13 | Posted by catdog at 2024-09-13 09:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why are we acting like this was some great feat? Do most of the adults here (I'm assuming we're all adults...) have trouble dealing with people like Trump IRL?

Really, all she did was have pre-rehearsed, canned answers to predictable "insults" and jabs from Trump. Which, at this point, given his dementia, wasn't a terribly hard thing to do.

It's pretty sad how far we have to lower the bar to make her seem like a good candidate. It's a reflection of how far we've fallen that this is where we find ourselves.

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2024-09-13 09:32 AM | Reply

Do most of the adults here (I'm assuming we're all adults...) have trouble dealing with people like Trump IRL?

You surprise me with such a naive take on Trump. Of course, every single Republican presidential candidate along with both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden - who combined have a century's worth of elected political experience - weren't able to do what Kamala Harris did on Tuesday night.

Gal posted a thread about how Kamala achieved what you deem as a "low bar." If it was so low, how come dozens of seasoned politicians before couldn't get over it?

Harris used psychological tactics learned through her prosecutorial work which her detractors and Trump chose to ignore, instead believing that she was "stupid" and "couldn't speak in public" as though that isn't precisely what a career prosecutor does as matter of her job. Let me repost two very illustrative paragraphs from her post:

I have continually stated that Kamala Harris has the "secret" ingredient that is quintessential for this presidential race: a profound understanding of criminal psychology. As a former prosecutor, she exemplifies someone who has dealt with many psychologists and psychiatrists and has received their advice. Forensic mental health experts are constantly helping prosecutors, judges, and juries distinguish dangerous personalities, who are also the most deceptive and most likely to escape detection. These personalities are convincing communicators, because no truth or reality hinges them; their con is complete. First, one must recognize the type, which is not an easy task.

Then, one must manage them. Studies show that they are 2.5 times more likely to escape prosecution and 2.5 times more likely to get out of prison than others who commit the same crimes, even though they are more dangerous and more likely to repeat their crimes. They charm, manipulate, dominate, and mobilize their own symptoms to bulldoze their opponents. They sometimes seem formidable, but it is actually only a faade. They are in truth fragile, rigid, and predictable, and thus if one understands them, one can easily slay the paper tiger.

drudge.com

So no, what Kamala achieved and everyone else couldn't didn't happen by chance. It happened because she was experienced and prepared to counter the very tactics Trump successfully used to dominant all his other opponents.

#15 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-09-13 09:45 AM | Reply

"We see things not as they are, but as we are." Immanuel Kant

To wit:

But for a lot of people, the impact of Harris' debate performance has landed very differently. One Georgia swing-state voter told Sarah Longwell for a piece she wrote in The Atlantic, "I was actually pleasantly surprised at Harris. She addressed most of the issues pretty well, and she gave Donald Trump what other candidates couldn't. She was a little bit sarcastic, talking back with him, which I appreciated."

www.msnbc.com

How Swing Voters Reacted to the Trump-Harris Debate

"I think she was the clear winner," said one voter. "She was more presidential."

Before last night's debate, I got a text from a friend who summed up Kamala Harris's predicament: She has to appear feminine but not dainty. She has to be firm but not nasty. She has to call out Donald Trump's lies but not be naggy. She has to dress presidentially but not be blah.

Evidently, women candidates face challenges that men don't"voters question their toughness and are often ambivalent about how they should discuss identity. But at the debate, Harris showed that these hurdles aren't insurmountable.

www.theatlantic.com

#16 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-09-13 09:50 AM | Reply

Kamala won by being all the things

Last night Vice President Kamala Harris faced the impossible, contradictory demands women face in politics and in all of public life, and she said, "Yes-and-and-and-and."

She had to thread the smallest of needles, starting with that mix of aggressive and mannered, then being joyful and tough, gracious and angry, and contemptuous and hopeful, and incredulous and credible, pugnacious and nurturing, pitying and alarmed.

In one sense, there are very few women in the world who will have had the precise experience the vice president did last night. But I doubt there are many women who have not felt themselves forced to thread that needle and win by being all the things.

Last night Kamala Harris was all the things.

the.ink

#17 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-09-13 09:56 AM | Reply

weren't able to do what Kamala Harris did on Tuesday night.

LOL she didn't do anything more than not taking his predictable bait.

It's hilarious how low y'all have allowed your standards to drop to because you feel the need to jump onboard.

#18 | Posted by jpw at 2024-09-13 10:00 AM | Reply

For the period I watched, all it was was one candidate being his usual classless, childish self, spewing his usual false bravado, hollow promises and laughable bombast.

While the other not playing the game and being like every other participant in a POTUS debate I've seen prior to 2016-rehearsed answers that kinda answered the question but kinda didn't and were geared more towards saying the right things to the desired target populations than actually giving in depth, real policy info.

There was absolutely nothing special or impressive about her performance.

#19 | Posted by jpw at 2024-09-13 10:03 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Like everyone else, you are entitled to your opinion, JPW.

#20 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-09-13 10:05 AM | Reply

IMO, she did pretty well for a dumb as a rock, DEI hire. Well, enough that he knows better than to debate her again.

#21 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-09-13 10:15 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

*Well enough

#22 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-09-13 10:15 AM | Reply

IMO, she did pretty well for a dumb as a rock, DEI hire. Well, enough that he knows better than to debate her again.

#21 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

You have, unintentionally I think, allowed them to frame your assessment.

Not only with the "DEI hire" nonsense, but also in accepting a previous norm as remarkable.

#23 | Posted by jpw at 2024-09-13 10:23 AM | Reply

MO, she did pretty well for a dumb as a rock, DEI hire. Well, enough that he knows better than to debate her again.
#21 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

In case I need to state the obvious: I was being sarcastic.

#24 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-09-13 10:26 AM | Reply

accepting a previous norm as remarkable.

What was the norm in your opinion?

I don't ever recall any other presidential candidate being a sociopathic, narcissistic criminal grifter trying to keep himself out of prison should he lose the election.

When did that happen before, and what nominee acted just like Trump does?

#25 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-09-13 10:28 AM | Reply

"While the other not playing the game and being like every other participant in a POTUS debate I've seen prior to 2016-rehearsed answers that kinda answered the question but kinda didn't and were geared more towards saying the right things to the desired target populations than actually giving in depth, real policy info."

You realize, of course, that this was not a real debate.

It was a staged press interview of both candidates simultaneously.

Participants are not required to answer questions directly and rarely do.

But having said that Harris did actually try to give some real info as to her policy intentions. I don't remember Trumpy giving anything but more lies and hate. But there is no way under these conditions with a narcissistic liar continuing to promote vicious hateful lies were they able to get into into any depth policies wonk.

Also something to remember ... this was Trumpy's 7th presidential "debate" and Kamala's first.

I actually think she could have slammed him harder, I thought of a lot things I would have said, but I wasn't on stage under the bright lights next to a convicted felon trying to respond to his outrageous lies but overall seems to me she still took what was handed to her and knocked it out of the park several times.

#26 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-09-13 11:01 AM | Reply

Clinically proven facts:

Forensic mental health experts are constantly helping prosecutors, judges, and juries distinguish dangerous personalities, who are also the most deceptive and most likely to escape detection. These personalities are convincing communicators, because no truth or reality hinges them; their con is complete. First, one must recognize the type, which is not an easy task.

Then, one must manage them. Studies show that they are 2.5 times more likely to escape prosecution and 2.5 times more likely to get out of prison than others who commit the same crimes, even though they are more dangerous and more likely to repeat their crimes. They charm, manipulate, dominate, and mobilize their own symptoms to bulldoze their opponents. They sometimes seem formidable, but it is actually only a facade.

bandyxlee.substack.com

Opinion:
Really, all she did was have pre-rehearsed, canned answers to predictable "insults" and jabs from Trump. Which, at this point, given his dementia, wasn't a terribly hard thing to do.

It's pretty sad how far we have to lower the bar to make her seem like a good candidate. It's a reflection of how far we've fallen that this is where we find ourselves.

LOL she didn't do anything more than not taking his predictable bait.
It's hilarious how low y'all have allowed your standards to drop to because you feel the need to jump onboard.

I report, you decide.

#27 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-09-13 11:10 AM | Reply

When did that happen before, and what nominee acted just like Trump does?

#25 | Posted by tonyroma

This isn't a serious question, is it?

I report, you decide.
#27 | Posted by tonyroma

I watched it. Y'all are drinking the kool aid.

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2024-09-13 11:22 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

I watched it. Y'all are drinking the kool aid.

This isn't about what you watched, it's about your ignorance and dismissal of the psychological science underpinning what you saw.

Criminal psychology is a long established field of study into the minds of people just like Trump. That's precisely why I asked you to quantify your opinion with something other than dismissal of the question.

I admire your expertise in the field you so obviously are quite educated and experienced in. In this case, there is an equally valid scientifically-based field of study dedicated to defining and overcoming the steamrolling psychological and verbal dominance exhibited in those like Trump.

So emphatically no, there has not been any other president nor presidential candidate capable of using a lifetime's learned technique of successfully dominating any and all who dare come before him in the way Trump has personally humiliated and mocked Fiorina, Rubio, Cruz, McCain, Jeb Bush, Clinton, Biden and all the other opponents he's faced on debate stages.

There simply is no analog to Trump in modern presidential politics no matter what the opinion - you're completely entitled to give - is.

#29 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-09-13 11:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I watched it. Y'all are drinking the kool aid."

I watched it too. And like I said I can find plenty to criticize. In a perfect world.

But we don't live there. In the world we are currently in she stood up to the Bully kicked sand in his face and ate his lunch. Which is why he will never debate her again. He can't afford to. He is already in enough trouble.

#30 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-09-13 11:44 AM | Reply

There simply is no analog to Trump in modern presidential politics no matter what the opinion - you're completely entitled to give - is.

#29 | Posted by tonyroma at

I never claimed otherwise.

The only thing I'm claiming is that y'all are seeing more there than is actually there. Almost as a defensive measure to convince yourself she isn't the weak, poor candidate she was in 2020 who barely got a candidacy off the ground. She will benefit massively from a perfect storm of conditions if she wins and, I suspect, the quality of her administration will reflect that.

#31 | Posted by jpw at 2024-09-13 06:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

- she isn't the weak, poor candidate she was in 2020

Record amounts of Contributions would seem to belie that, as would any fair judgement of her performance as a Candidate since Biden quit the Race.

She's not as good as she will be when she runs for her second term, or even as good as some people think she is now, but she's pretty good, and that's good enough for now.

She showed swing voters, who vote on vibes more than policy, that she can look and sound Presidential, and as swing voters was all this Debate should have been about... although Herr Drumpf spent a lot of time making the Crazies happy... ...

... swing voters saw a decent, viable alternative, and hopefully that's enough, depending on all the October Surprises each side has for the other.

Those may start early, because Trump REALLY needs to change the Media Narrative now that he's been put on the defensive.

#32 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-13 06:13 PM | Reply

@#19 ... There was absolutely nothing special or impressive about her performance. ...

I would not go that far.

Yes, she did well, but a candidate for president should be able to debate.

What impressed me was how she was able to detect and exploit the weaknesses of fmr Pres Trump, that she was on the offense. She did not cower in the presence of fmr Pres Trump.

In a room with Pres Putin and the US President having a conversation, I determined that I'd rather have VP Harris in that room. Especially we have seen the results of having fmr Pres trump in that room ( media.vanityfair.com ). Gee, wasn't that facial expression similar to the one fmr Pres Trump had during the debate?

Fmr Pres Trump? Well see my next comment on this thread.

#33 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-09-13 06:23 PM | Reply

Karl Rove Taunts Trump for Losing Catastrophic Debate' to Woman He Called Dumb as a Rock': What Does That Make Him?'
www.mediaite.com

... Republican strategist, Fox News contributor, and Wall Street Journal columnist Karl Rove kicked off his review of this week's presidential debate in the Journal with the following declaration: "Tuesday's debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump was a train wreck for him, far worse than anything Team Trump could have imagined."

Rove argued that Harris kept Trump on the defensive and successfully tried "to get him to lose his cool."

"As is frequently the case with Mr. Trump, he let his emotions get the better of him. He took the bait almost every time she put it on the hook, offering a pained smile as she did. Rather than dismissing her attacks and launching his strongest counterarguments against her, Mr. Trump got furious," he wrote. "As her attacks continued, his voice rose. He gripped the podium more often and more firmly. He grimaced and shook his head, at times responding with wild and fanciful rhetoric. Short, deft replies and counterpunches would have been effective. He didn't deliver them."

According to the former advisor to George W. Bush, "Mr. Trump did a terrible job at his most important task -- tying her to President Biden's failed policies" and "an even worse job prosecuting the argument that she's a far-left politician out of sync with America's values."

He also submitted that there was "no contest" between how the two candidates carried themselves, writing that "Ms. Harris came across as calm, confident, strong and focused on the future. Mr. Trump came across as hot, angry, and fixated on the past, especially his own." ...

"Mr. Trump was crushed by a woman he previously dismissed as dumb as a rock,' he mused. "Which raises the question: What does that make him?" ...

[emphasis mine]


Mr Rove's WSJ OpEd is here: www.wsj.com


#34 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-09-13 06:29 PM | Reply

Record amounts of Contributions would seem to belie that

Part of the Trump effect.

Donations are part of everything I've said. When she wasn't running against Trump? Couldn't get off the ground.

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2024-09-13 06:48 PM | Reply

@#35 ... When she wasn't running against Trump? Couldn't get off the ground. ...

Yeah, when she wasn't running against fmr Pres Trump, she was running against other Democrats in the presidential primary.

In primaries candidates tend to move towards more extreme positions in order to get the attention in the primary.

Now, however, VP Harris is looking for the support of a wider audience that the usual audience of the Democratic primaries.

Taking a step back and looking at her candidacy....

She has the endorsement of both fmr VP Cheney and Rep Ocasio-Cortez.

In the context of the political spectrum, how much broader of a support range would a candidate want?

And speaking of Rep Ocasio-Cortez, fun article...

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Unveiled A Surprise Skill When A Hill Staffer Was In Trouble
www.yahoo.com

... They don't call them public servants for nothing.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was seen Tuesday coming to the rescue of a congressional staffer who needed help jump-starting his car's battery after it died outside the U.S. Capitol.

In a now-viral photo shared by her chief of staff, Ocasio-Cortez can be seen applying a portable charger to the car's battery as two Capitol Police officers and the staffer, identified as Evan Hollander, look on.

"Only a couple moments after I started working on it is when she came over," Hollander, a staff assistant and driver for Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), told HuffPost. "She just sort of jumped right in and got it started."

Hollander said he hadn't been there for very long, and that he was initially thrown off because his battery jumper was a portable charger and not a more traditional one that hooks up to another car's battery.

"I think I would have gotten it eventually, but it was helpful to have a second set of eyes," he said. "It was a great moment to meet her, and she was really helpful and nice." ...



#36 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-09-13 07:03 PM | Reply

She has the endorsement of both fmr VP Cheney and Rep Ocasio-Cortez.
In the context of the political spectrum, how much broader of a support range would a candidate want?

It's still because of a strong anti-Trump current.

Listen to what people say not what you want to think they're saying so you can feel like you're making a good choice.

#37 | Posted by jpw at 2024-09-13 07:06 PM | Reply

@#37 ... Listen to what people say not what you want to think they're saying ...

I do listen to what they say.

And, yes, there is a strong anti-Trump current.

But i have to ask, what's yer point?

Stated differently...

What's up?

#38 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-09-13 07:11 PM | Reply

Almost as a defensive measure to convince yourself she isn't the weak, poor candidate she was in 2020 who barely got a candidacy off the ground.

Kamala Harris is the same candidate today that she was in 2020 and the same candidate she was in 2016 when she won her US Senate campaign.

I've never been defensive on this entire thread, I've been informed in ways that you aren't. I watched Kamala from 2010 giving a speech as she ran for California Attorney General. Her presence, speaking manner, cadence and command of her facts is exactly like it is today. She radiates confidence, competence and strength. But if you didn't know this and listened to the Republican framing of her as "less than" then what you saw Tuesday night likely was surprising.

Maybe you missed the thread about Karl Rove seeing her in 2010 and getting the national Republican Committee to commit millions of dollars to defeat her in that race because he saw "the female Obama" and he feared she'd one day beat a Republican presidential candidate. Karl knows his politics and he was right. She won that race by a fraction of a percent. Had she lost, it's unlikely she'd be where she is today.

In regards to 2020, again, she didn't fail, nor was she not ready. She simply had no constituency to build from in order to win the nomination. Compared to the other candidates, Kamala was then viewed as center right mainly because she's a former prosecutor and many on the left felt that she was too hard on minorities. Politically, even in California, a prosecutor has to be a person of law and order, often with no space to work in the greys. She had Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Booker, Castro, Klobuchar and others in that race. She had no lane to win the nomination and knew it. That's why she halted her campaign in 2019, because she understands politics and knew 2020 wasn't her time. It's that simple.

But her early withdrawal ended up smoothing a glidepath to the Vice Presidency, and now she stands on the cusp of winning the ultimate prize.

So no, I'm not defensive about anything. You talk about how you feel about her and mention things unrelated to who she is, was, and has been all of her political life - having never lost an election. What she did Tuesday night was very hard and took a tremendous amount of hard work, study, patience, and most of all stamina. Trump wears people out because he has no off button when he's in steamroller mode. She showed him immediately who the alpha was on the stage when she walked into his space, shook his hand, and enunciated her name phonetically so Trump would have no excuse should he say it during the debate. Trump never uttered her first name one single time during the entire debate.

Yesterday, doing his stump routine, Trump couldn't wait to mispronounce her first name and added "comrade" in front of it. Everything you saw Kamala do on that stage was the result of a lifetime of prosecutorial experience combined with skills honed under earlier debate lights. Harris landed her biggest haymaker when she first hit the stage. Yes, like any person realizing the enormity of the moment, she was nervous at the beginning. But once she hit her groove, her dominance of that stage and debate wasn't arguable.

Lastly, I had no idea of the criminal psychology aspect of her performance until I read the article I quoted from yesterday. I read the information and found it not only credible, but completely in line with what I'd witnessed. Her performance was not one of simple debate politics. She approached Trump like she would a defendant in a courtroom, not only anticipating what he'd say, but telling her audience in advance what he would say. It only happened because of hard work and the innate ability to project both strength, warmth, and fierce determination all at the same time.

#39 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-09-13 07:17 PM | Reply

- It's still because of a strong anti-Trump current.

And she helped generate even more of that by baiting him into being himself rather than the guy his handlers prepped him to be on stage.

She's doing fine so far.

#40 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-13 09:16 PM | Reply

@#39 ... Kamala Harris is the same candidate today that she was in 2020 and the same candidate she was in 2016 when she won her US Senate campaign. ...

Yeah.

But she was also on the radar of the GOP way before then ...

National GOP group targets Calif. attorney general candidate Kamala Harris (2010)
laist.com

... A national Republican group has purchased more than one million in TV ads attacking the Democratic Party's nominee for California Attorney General, Kamala Harris. National GOP groups are flush with campaign cash this year, and are able to exert influence in more races than in the past. ...

So, it seems that back in in the ancient year of 2010 the national GOP saw VP Harris as someone they would have to contend with.


Wow.


#41 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-09-13 09:27 PM | Reply

@#41

Along those lines...

(likely an OpEd) Karl Rove Targets Attorney General Race in California (2010)
www.huffpost.com

... A shadowy Virginia-based group funded by the oil industry, tobacco companies, and health insurance industry -- and run by Karl Rove -- is trying to sway the outcome of the race for California Attorney General. ...

Yesterday, Ami Bera wrote about Karl Rove protecting Dan Lungren. Today he went statewide. A shadowy Virginia-based group funded by the oil industry, tobacco companies, and health insurance industry -- and run by Karl Rove -- is trying to sway the outcome of the race for California Attorney General. This is an unprecedented move in a down-ballot race, and the money is being used to create cynical commercials for political gain.

Rove's group, the "The Republican State Leadership Committee," has purchased $1.1 million of TV airtime to run vicious ads attacking our campaign. And who exactly is funding this group's attacks? The very polluters, cigarette manufacturers, and insurance industry giants who I will stand up to as Attorney General. ...




#42 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-09-13 09:32 PM | Reply

For those who don't know, Kamala Harris was actually in the crowd in 2007 when Barack Obama made his entrance speech announcing his 2008 presidential run from Springfield, IL.. She was inside his campaign team and knocked on doors in Iowa before their Caucuses.

In 2003 she was elected district attorney of Alameda County and re-elected in 2007. In 2008, she announced her run for state attorney general in 2010 which she won by .1 point. She was re-elected to that position in 2014 and when Barbara Boxer announced her retirement, she ran to fill that spot as US Senator in 2016 and became the first Indian and 2nd AA woman elected to that position.

In 2019 - as you already know - she announced a presidential run of her own in a crowded field of 25 Democrats from which Joe Biden eventually emerged as the nominee and tabbed Harris to be his running mate and they won. She's served as VPOTUS since 2021.

And that takes us to today, where she was thrust into the 1st seat after Biden's disastrous debate performance against Donald Trump in late June, starting her own campaign from scratch on July 21st when Biden publicly stepped aside and 30 minutes later endorsed his loyal VP to become the new nominee - something that officially happened when Democratic delegates remotely elected her as the Party's choice for POTUS.

Kamala has been elected to offices 7 times without a loss. Only those ignorant of her political history would ever have believed the negative narratives the GOP forced into the zeitgeist ignoring the political acumen she undeniably has to have risen as she did. Harris is one of the most experienced candidates for POTUS in history as it regards years of government service. In total, she has 34 years of service, from assistant DA all the way to VPOTUS.

NOTHING she's showing the world today is a surprise to those who knew her and followed her career, which has always been on an upward trajectory. Trump indeed met the very person best equipped to use his own pathological traits and tendencies against him in a way and manner that no other politician has been able to before. And the reason why wasn't just a matter of usual politics. What she achieved was extraordinary based on who she faced and how she utterly dominated him to the point he will not face her on a debate stage again.

#43 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-09-14 08:23 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Kamala has been elected to offices 7 times without a loss. Only those ignorant of her political history would ever have believed the negative narratives the GOP forced into the zeitgeist ignoring the political acumen she undeniably has to have risen as she did.

Lol yet she's only close because she's back dooring a nomination.

God damn yall step in line without a critical thought.

#44 | Posted by jpw at 2024-09-14 01:53 PM | Reply

A critical thought might be that the alternative to her is criminal traitor, so supporting her rather than ragging on her along with the Trumpers is the rational choice.

#45 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-14 02:03 PM | Reply

Lol yet she's only close because she's back dooring a nomination.

And you're ignorantly oblivious of American history not to realize that the Vice President is ALWAYS first in line for the party's next presidential nomination since like forever - unless they're unpopular, unable to build a constituency, and not worthy of being the Party's best chance to win, ala Mike Pence and Dan Quayle. Other than Dick Cheney and the aforementioned pair, every single Vice President since the Eisenhower Administration has run for or served as President.

God damn, you can't stop being a complete imbecile for not realizing how your opinion isn't based on historical reality.

You just can't help yourself in trying to imply that Harris is "less than" and quite simply it's disgusting.

If any man alive had her resume, NO ONE would question that person had earned the right to be where she currently is. Nothing was given to Harris but for every opportunity she excelled in in order to rise and succeed even further.

Trump never served a day of public service in his life until he won the presidency. JD Vance had never served a day of public service under his rich benefactors bought him his Senate seat in ruby red Ohio. Neither of them earned the right to be where they are in any way, shape or form.

You simply cannot discern the difference between being in position due to accomplishment compared to unearned privilege only provided due to wealth.

#46 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-09-14 02:21 PM | Reply

And what Harris has accomplished in regards to starting her presidential campaign with less than 100 days before the election is unprecedented. She didn't have the luxury of putting together a presidential campaign staff years before the election as is the norm.

It's simply daft to ignore how Kamala Harris has orchestrated a masterpiece of a transition from Biden to herself, and moved polling from 5-7 points behind to almost that same amount in front.

You don't back door what she's already achieved in her record-breaking run simply by being there.

#47 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-09-14 02:31 PM | Reply

A critical thought might be that the alternative to her is criminal traitor, so supporting her rather than ragging on her along with the Trumpers is the rational choice.
#45 | POSTED BY CORKY

No ----.

Doesn't mean I have to go along with the painfully forced gushing about how awesome she is.

She's awful. She only has a shot because Trump is much worse.

We're settling for garbage to avoid settling for ----.

#48 | Posted by jpw at 2024-09-14 02:49 PM | Reply

Other than Dick Cheney and the aforementioned pair, every single Vice President since the Eisenhower Administration has run for or served as President.

Excuse me, that's in error. Mike Pence did run for President but had to drop out because he couldn't build a constituency to compete with Trump. In actuality, every President back to Herbert Hoover had a VP(s) to run for the Presidency*.

*FDR had two, not including Truman since ascended to the Presidency due to FDR's death, not through election, although he did win as President in 1948.

19 serving Vice Presidents in total went on to run for the Presidency, with 6 winning, 7 losing, and none of the others winning their party's nomination.

#49 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-09-14 02:55 PM | Reply

We're settling for garbage to avoid settling for ----.

Her record is garbage?

Kamala Harris would be among the most qualified presidents in recent U.S. history. Why is she unliked?
.... No matter what anyone thinks of Harris' race or gender, she is clearly qualified to be president. She's experienced and seasoned. You may disagree with her political positions, which is reason enough to reject her as a candidate. But to view her as unqualified for the presidency is to deny reality. And that reality is the one that some Americans with racist and sexist attitudes refuse to accept.
Well we know who you are, don't we?

#50 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-09-14 03:00 PM | Reply

And you're ignorantly oblivious of ...

Lol yall are acting like MAGA morons right now, assuming disagreement is based on ignorance of extremely common knowledge.

And by back door I meant she didn't even go through the nomination process, a process she probably wouldn't have successfully navigated if she was running against other candidates.

But I think you knew that and ignored that critical point because acknowledging it takes the shine off the very thing you're pushing fake enthusiasm for.

#51 | Posted by jpw at 2024-09-14 03:03 PM | Reply

It's gotta be embarrassing to lose a debate this badly. To a woman (who just became black).

The last time Trumpy got his butt whacked that hard it was by a porn star with a rolled up Forbes magazine.

#52 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-09-14 03:14 PM | Reply

#51

No jackleg, it's you who have no connection to reality. I've never implied that she's anything but what she is. If you don't like her policies, that's your prerogative. It you don't like her issue stances or her poise, even dislike her voice, that's your prerogative.

You continually implied that she isn't qualified to be where she is, and again you display a tremendous amount of ignorance of today's political realities. Do you know who the largest and most loyal faction in the Democratic Party is? Black women. The Kamala Harris you're seeing today - with 4 years of invaluable experience in being the VP - is, was and always would be the Democratic frontrunner. Note, I said the Kamala you're seeing today, not the one you saw briefly and superficially in 2019 when she didn't have the unified base of support to run from that she does today - and would have in 2028 should Biden and her been re-elected.

Did you ever stop to think that if all of the other potential Democratic possibles for President thought that they could have beaten her in a convention vote, they could have raised their hands and run against her? Winning elections takes the backing of donors - and no one had donors and influential groups lined up to support them like Kamala did.

Again, this isn't about what you think of her as a politician. This is about her resume and experience - the very things you continue to ignore that she has that no other Democrat does. Any of the popular Democrats could have taken her on, but none of them did.

And frankly, they would have face an even more impossible task than the one she's on the cusp of pulling off against all conventional odds. But be clear, as objectively remarkable her career has been, no one need to bend any knees. If you don't like her, vote for somebody else. Just don't dismiss how she rose to where she is based on her accomplishments and lifelong work to get there.

#53 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-09-14 03:21 PM | Reply

"she didn't even go through the nomination process, a process she probably wouldn't have successfully navigated if she was running against other candidates."

Okay.

But aren't we all dismayed by that usual process? Look at the two folks who initially were the presumptives.

It's also quite possible, had Biden announced early he wouldn't be running, she would've gained against the others due to her VP stint.

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-09-14 03:34 PM | Reply

You continually implied that she isn't qualified to be where she is

That's your canned argument, dumbass.

You've been shadowboxing it this entire time because, as I've already said, you're on the forced enthusiasm bandwagon.

She was and is an awful candidate, which is why her candidacy went nowhere in 2020 and she was the first to drop out.

She was wholly unremarkable if not poor as VP. In her one and only incomplete term as a Senator she had six sponsored pieces of legislation make it was at least one chamber, four of which were resolutions and the other two were the same bill.

She's awful. Period. If you want to say unqualified, I won't argue. She's done nothing but mediocre her way upwards.

Everything else your little screeds say is situational and is exactly why I've said she wouldn't be anywhere near a nomination were it not for the wholly non conventional way she received (she didn't win it...) and were it not for the fact she's running against the most reprehensible GOP nominee in our lifetimes.

You don't have to like her because she's a dem, you know.

#55 | Posted by jpw at 2024-09-14 03:39 PM | Reply

A critical thought might be that the alternative to her is criminal traitor, so supporting her rather than ragging on her along with the Trumpers is the rational choice.
#45 | POSTED BY CORKY

JPW seems to think critical thinking means thinking that is critical of someone/thing.

She's awful. She only has a shot because Trump is much worse.
We're settling for garbage to avoid settling for ----.
#48 | Posted by jpw

What makes her so awful, in your opinion, and garbage rather than ----? Which presidents or presidential candidates have you liked in the past and/or would you like to see in the future?

#56 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-09-14 03:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Her weird facial gyrations during the debate are a sign she is hormonally unbalanced and not Presidential.

#57 | Posted by visitor_ at 2024-09-14 03:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

It's also quite possible, had Biden announced early he wouldn't be running, she would've gained against the others due to her VP stint.

#54 | Posted by Danforth

I'm not a fan of possibles and maybes.

On what record? Sitting in the office and holding the title aren't the same as actually having achievements and policy wins.

Look at the current profile page vs January 1, 2024 version. All that changed was she slid into the nomination and they've tried to make the administrations record her record, even though it wasn't like that mere months ago and all that was noteworthy to the professional spinners and writers was her ethnicity and vagina.

web.archive.org

www.whitehouse.gov

I'm sorry, but we're seeing the ultimate fail upwards feat of a wholly mediocre politician gaining heights of office she would have never obtained on her own merit.

#58 | Posted by jpw at 2024-09-14 04:03 PM | Reply

JPW seems to think critical thinking means thinking that is critical of someone/thing.

Yawn.

No, critical thinking is looking at a candidate and ignoring the hype.

She went from city DA to CA AG. Somehow she slid into being a CA Senator but didn't even do a single term and made no notable policy initiatives or wins.

Then she was selected as VP and now she's sliding into a POTUS nomination without any semblance of a process to elect her.

Both of those last "achievements" were without a single vote being cast FOR HER and both are subject to the 'anyone but Donald Trump' effect.

The Dems put a highly polished turd in front of you, told you you couldn't say no and y'all are just like "wooooowwwww...that's the best turd ever...amaaazzzzing!"

BTW the most qualified? Pfffftt piss off with that garbage.

#59 | Posted by jpw at 2024-09-14 04:10 PM | Reply

Her weird facial gyrations during the debate are a sign she is hormonally unbalanced and not Presidential.

You stick with that, okay? See how far it gets you. Kamala got $47 million from 600,000 donors after what you claim proved her to be unbalanced. Obviously they didn't see what you thought you did.

I watched a panel of political analysts all saying that Harris' splitscreen when Trump spoke was powerful as she changed expressions based on what he was saying. And more importantly they emphasized that she DIDN'T provide any of the expressions you claim she made or if she had it would have been on the front page of the New York Post.

Can you provide a link to a still-capture showing her in a state like you claimed? We'll wait patiently for you to back up your delusional gaslighting.

#60 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-09-14 04:20 PM | Reply

The idea that people only like Harris because she is a Democrat and because Trump sucks worse is a fallacy. The fact that Harris has done so well in terms of grassroots fundraising, in part through a plethora of zoom calls which jumpstarted the process, is because she actually began building a a base of support back in 2020:

Kamala Harris is the Democrats' 2020 social media phenomenon

Sen. Kamala Harris of California is leading the field of Democratic presidential candidates in capturing the public's attention during the opening wave of the 2020 campaign.

Why it matters: That puts Harris in a strong position to help set the Democratic primary agenda, much as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is doing for the House Democratic agenda.

The numbers from the past three months (Nov. 12"Feb. 12) say it all:

www.axios.com

Yes, she didn't stand out in debates or fundraising back then, but interest in her was there. When Biden stepped down in July and endorsed her, the immediate groundswell of support for her wasn't just a matter of folks hating Trump; a lot of people genuinely like(d) her. I was/am one of them, but even I was suprised by the information in this article, which is news to me, despite the fact that I was aware of the K-Hive back then. It was a big Democratic lineup in 2020, and as the Axios article indicated, early polling favored Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. In the end, Democrats went with what I think they thought was the safe bet in that race against Trump: Joe Biden, which turned out to be a good decision at that time. But Biden did say that he wanted to be a transitional candidate and would only run for one term, so a lot of people, especially young people, who supported him then were less comfortable supporting him this time around even before the June debate. Democrats were uneasy and worried about Biden's prospects for defeating Trump in November, but once he dropped out, they saw the possibility and hope in running a new younger candidate, and that candidate was Kamala Harris. Suddenly all that previous interest in her came to the surface, and support for her has continued to grow as she has moved through the process of getting her campaign in order: selecting Tim Walz, drawing large crowds at her rallies, setting up an inspiriing Democratic National Convention, giving a good debate performance against Trump.

Is she a perfect candidate? Hell, no. No such candidate exists. Will she beat Trump in November? I don't know. Time is short, but she is doing better now than Biden was doing before he droped out of the race.

#61 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-09-14 04:27 PM | Reply

Now, I hope she wins. I will vote for her. It will be the most dirty feeling vote I've ever cast, but I will vote for her.

But mark my words-it will be a terrible administration. She'll be lucky to be middle of the pack as far as POTUS ratings go and I think it's sad that she'll be in the history books as the first woman POTUS because, frankly, she didn't earn it and wouldn't have without extremely unusual circumstances.

And that will most definitely play out in the quality of her administration.

#62 | Posted by jpw at 2024-09-14 04:29 PM | Reply

"and all that was noteworthy to the professional spinners and writers was her ethnicity and vagina."

The irony is she isn't running on that, but, hey, you do you.

#63 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-09-14 04:33 PM | Reply

The Dems put a highly polished turd in front of you, told you you couldn't say no and y'all are just like "wooooowwwww...that's the best turd ever...amaaazzzzing!"

Oh, so she is ----, just not as big a piece of ---- as Trump. Got it. I'll ask you again: Which presidents or presidential candidates have you liked in the past and/or would you like to see in the future? I'm just trying to get a feel for who you could enthusiastically support.

#64 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-09-14 04:39 PM | Reply

Lawrence O'Donnell: First D.C. Republican to fear Harris saw Trump's train wreck' debate coming

In 2010, Karl Rove, helped fund a negative advertising campaign against Kamala Harris. MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell explains that Rove was so worried about her, he attempted to prevent her from winning statewide in California's attorney general race. Because she won that race, Lawrence says, she is where she is today--polling ahead of Donald Trump in important Electoral College states.

www.msnbc.com

#65 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-09-14 04:41 PM | Reply

Debate double standard: Media 'sane-washing' Trump means Harris must be 'twice as good'

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell is joined by author and Vanderbilt University Distinguished Professor Michael Eric Dyson to discuss the double standard Vice President Kamala Harris is facing heading into her debate with Donald Trump.

www.msnbc.com

#66 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-09-14 04:43 PM | Reply

Democrats didn't even bother to polish their turd of a candidate.

#67 | Posted by visitor_ at 2024-09-14 04:49 PM | Reply

The irony is she isn't running on that, but, hey, you do you.

#63 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

That doesn't even address the point...

Y'all went instadumb in order act like the polished turd is actually good.

#68 | Posted by jpw at 2024-09-14 04:51 PM | Reply

Anyway, bottom line, Kamala did have a base of support in 2020. She got overshadowed in a crowded Democratic field by progressives like Bernie and Warren. Also, she was a prosecutor running in a Defund the Police era, which was not a good fit. Ultiimately, I think she was viewed as being too inexperienced to run against Trump back then, which, in retrospect, I think she was. Fast forward 4 years, 4 years she spent as VP. I have posted articles on what she accomplished as VP in the past, which I don't have time to do right now. Suffice it to say, she didn't spend those 4 years sitting in front of her bedroom mirror in the Naval Observatory, admiring herself. She got to work doing the kinds of things VPs can do. She travelled the country and the world, giving speeches to women's groups and on college campuses as well as meeting with world leaders around the globe. And during that time, she came into her own. She is a better speaker now. She has more confidence and seems to be more comfortable in her own skin. Don't get me wrong, I liked her before and saw her potential in those Senate hearings, but she is a stronger candidate today than she was back then. I have compared her growth to that of Nikki Haley, who also grew during that 4 year period when she was UN ambassador.

#69 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-09-14 05:06 PM | Reply

#64 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

Gore and Kerry in the Bush elections. It was a tossup between Obama and McCain until he picked Palin and I took that as too clear a sign of poor judgement.

Enthusiastically voted for Obama for a second term.

Hillary was eminently qualified but I thought she had too much baggage and had been in the crosshairs for too long.

I wasn't super plussed about about Biden because I knew the very situation that played out would be very possible. I thought Kamala was a terrible pick then for the very reason we're seeing now and for the fact that she was a lackluster VP.

#70 | Posted by jpw at 2024-09-14 05:07 PM | Reply

Y'all went instadumb in order act like the polished turd is actually good.
#68 | Posted by jpw

Nope. I've always liked Kamala, and so have many other people. I was suprised to discover how many Democratic governors, Senators and Senate candidates knew her from her days as CA AG and who think highly of her based on those interactions. Everyone from Elizabeth Warren to Josh Shapiro, Roy Cooper, Angela Alsobrooks and more.

#71 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-09-14 05:11 PM | Reply

#70 | Posted by jpw TY for your response. I appreciate it. Helps me to get a feel for your political preferences.

#72 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-09-14 05:13 PM | Reply

Not to pile on. But I've been pointing out since Harris was announced the presidential candidate that democrats are prematurely celebrating.

The election is determined by a couple of districts in a handful of states.

That's where republicans have focused their attention.

Trump still has this election in his reach.

And despite America not being racist anymore, I still have to wonder whether America is ready for a South East Asian/ Jamaican woman to be our president.

This election is far from won.

#73 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-14 05:13 PM | Reply

#73 Agreed.

#74 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-09-14 05:15 PM | Reply

she was a lackluster VP.

I've yet to see an abundance-luster VP.

Maybe Cheney. But I contend Cheney was always the president and BushJr was an empty suite.

#75 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-14 05:19 PM | Reply

I'm optimistic Harris can keep it up. She and Waltz are going full steam ahead. Trump is getting increasingly low energy, and Vance is a public-relation disaster.

Trump had an advantage with voters in 2016 which I don't think he has anymore. We know what he's about, and the business facade is pretty transparent.

Trump is really appearing old and confused.

But it won't be one thing that determines the election. It is a string of events that build up to the election. Yeah, a ways to go, but she's doing as well as or better than anyone else, and things are going her way.

#76 | Posted by horstngraben at 2024-09-14 05:27 PM | Reply

- it will be the most dirty feeling vote I've ever cast

Puritans always feel dirty first.

She's an F'n Saint compared to the Republican candidate.

But hey, talk her down to your friends and family, too, if you are going to join Jeffy, Visitor, and Robson... and the SockClowns. (sorry, Clowny!) in trashing her here.

I mean, it does give you much needed attention, but why bother when your complaints about her should disappear in comparison to her idiot evil opponent.

No one here's saying she's perfect, but she's not the incompetent you paint her to be. If she is, we'll see, but given the top Dems around her, I doubt that's going to happen.

#77 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-14 06:25 PM | Reply

I will vote for her. It will be the most dirty feeling vote I've ever cast

So dramatic.

Unless you live in a swing state your vote won't count for much.

#78 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-14 06:31 PM | Reply

I'm pleased with Harris.
She's been underestimated for years by people that aren't paying attention.
It was about 4 months ago that I started remarking how incredibly solid, brilliant her speeches were.
I'm pleased with her and Walz.
Very pleased, relieved, and a bit excited.

#79 | Posted by YAV at 2024-09-14 07:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"The man on tv said they are eating dogs and cats!" will go down in presidential debate history. And most likely the only thing remembered about the debate by most Americans by November 5th.

#80 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-09-14 07:15 PM | Reply

#57

Lay off the soy, poodle-walker.

#81 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-09-14 07:36 PM | Reply

#80

That sounds like what Trae Crowder's two small kids said when watching politics with him for the first time.

They are already past Trumpublican't Level Cognition.

#82 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-14 07:37 PM | Reply

#77 | Posted by Corky

She is pretty incompetent.

And stop stating the obvious that she's not as bad as Trump. That isn't a reason to just gloss over her obvious flaws and deficiencies.

#83 | Posted by jpw at 2024-09-14 08:08 PM | Reply

So dramatic.

Not really. She's probably the worst candidate for POTUS that I'll have to vote for in my life until this point.

Because I don't think she's a good candidate and she didn't earn it.

Unless you live in a swing state your vote won't count for much.

#78 | Posted by ClownShack

This is true. But I'll vote for her nonetheless because it's important for it to be known that even if Trump wins the EC he's not a popular POTUS and shouldn't govern as if he has a mandate to enact his minority policy preferences.

#84 | Posted by jpw at 2024-09-14 08:11 PM | Reply

- That isn't a reason to just gloss over her obvious flaws and deficiencies.

Sure it is... "Politics ain't beanbag!".

www.csmonitor.com

And swing voters vote on the vibe, not the policy.

Try to keep a positive vibe, man.

If possible.

#85 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-14 08:25 PM | Reply

"I have posted articles on what she accomplished as VP in the past, which I don't have time to do right now."

Here are two I posted before:

What has Kamala Harris accomplished as vice president? Here's a quick look.
www.usatoday.com

Kamala Harris would bring greater foreign policy experience than most new US presidents
www.chathamhouse.org

#86 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-09-14 10:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort