Democrat Joe Biden chooses U.S. Senator Kamala Harris for White House running mate

[utalkin2me]

She is basically the status quo politician. That is obviously what people like. Say what people want to hear, change your opinion when it suits you politically. I can't stand the sight of these people, but I am only one vote. They are the winners in American politics though so the American people need to come to grips with the fact that they actually prefer candidates who lie and deceive.

 

To me, what this choice represents is a giant <deleted> you to progressive voters. It is the reason to not even consider a Biden. He could have easily done some things to make a vote for him easier, but it is obvious he is content with being status quo joe. Content with being what Americans love and what his donors pay him to be. 

[Orton Rd]

29 minutes ago, gazza4 said:

Caring Americans ! Please put pressure on those with influence to organize an immediate 24/7 security coverage for Ms Harris, and use a private company; not the cops! for obvious reasons.

There can be no doubt that some of Trump's armed white supremacists will have put their hands up already to take her out. These racists would stop at nothing to kowtow to Trump.

where is the evidence that anyone has threatened her life? 'no doubt' you say so lets see why

[Tagged]

23 minutes ago, 248900_1469958220 said:

Yes, stands up for what she says believes in one minute...then changes her tune to benefit herself. You to gettem girl!! Her and ole Joe gonna set the world straight!

Where have we seen that before ????

 

 

[stevenl]

16 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

She is basically the status quo politician. That is obviously what people like. Say what people want to hear, change your opinion when it suits you politically. I can't stand the sight of these people, but I am only one vote. They are the winners in American politics though so the American people need to come to grips with the fact that they actually prefer candidates who lie and deceive.

 

To me, what this choice represents is a giant <deleted> you to progressive voters. It is the reason to not even consider a Biden. He could have easily done some things to make a vote for him easier, but it is obvious he is content with being status quo joe. Content with being what Americans love and what his donors pay him to be. 

So why does Trump label her as far left etc?

[earlinclaifornia]

6 hours ago, rabas said:

What is more pitiful is the lack of concern about skills required to run one of the most complex and important countries on Earth. Nary a thought.

 

You trying to avoid she was AG for the most important sate of America? Or you are also ignoring she rose next to Senator again for the most important sate of America? But maybe I assume your trolling.

[gazza4]

4 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

where is the evidence that anyone has threatened her life? 'no doubt' you say so lets see why

Sorry Orton Rd, You obviously missed the opening two words of my post   "caring americans"

[earlinclaifornia]

6 hours ago, cmarshall said:

You could pick anyone out of the phonebook and get a candidate with more skills than Trump.  But the main point is to win.  It's possible that the Harris pick will motivate Black voters to turn out in greater numbers than otherwise.  Since Black voters are crucial to the Dems, the Harris pick could make sense.  My only reservation is that Black voters did not vote for her in great numbers during the primaries, so her choice may not end up helping that much.  

That is true but it is also true they solidly were backing Biden. Probably, also thought Harris would be his VP. 

[earlinclaifornia]

6 hours ago, DoctorG said:

You do not know what color I am and it is very unPC of you to assume. I get my view from the many black YTers I watch.

We read your posts, so Dr., sometimes we can pick up the obvious. 

[earlinclaifornia]

4 hours ago, checkered flag said:

Yah. She might not be too happy as #2, so cover your back. You'll need to pick up your pace if possible. However, her likeability is pretty low.

That is not true.

[earlinclaifornia]

4 hours ago, utalkin2me said:

People saying the attacks on Harris are not fact based are delusional. 

 

She was attacked in the debates on her record. She had NO Response! She dropped out of the race soon after being attacked, and never offered any sort of answer as to the accusations.

 

Do your own research, but it sounds to me like what happened is she wanted to quit and get out of the race before things got real bad and she actually had to answer some of these questions. Maybe she wanted to get out before she was questioned again to save her chances as a vp pick. 

 

Really think about that, a simple 30 second attack on tv and she completely drops out of the race, has no valid response... and there is no truth to the allegations? 

What in the world are you thinking? Very funny assessment.  LOL

[earlinclaifornia]

4 hours ago, stevenl said:

We're still waiting for any substantial criticism on her here from the TVF sleuths.

So feel free to post that, in stead of vague conjecture.

Trump campaign can't figure their narrative out either. This is fun times from here on to November. https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/08/13/us/politics/ap-us-election-2020-biden-harris.html?searchResultPosition=6

[NanLaew]

19 hours ago, earlinclaifornia said:

He doesn't have the gonads to switch to Haley. She actually could help him but that is not a trait of his.

Haley's smart enough not to touch DJT with a barge pole. You notice how she quit her job while she was ahead? She knows a train wreck when she see's one.

[earlinclaifornia]

3 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Kamala Harris's appointment has tied the GOP in knots and been tripping all over with contradictory statements. We have Rudy G retweeting a qoute from the National Review story on Harris's awesome and terrible powers as a former prosecutor that lend herself easily to abuse and Harris was an enthusiastic abuser. That is contradictory to Trump campaign earlier statement that she would hide her records as former prosecutors and was an anti-police radical who let crime ran rampant. No wonder Trumpers are all over with their own version of Harris's slander. Reflect poorly on the coherency of Trump's election campaign and they seem disarray. 

 

https://americanindependent.com/gop-kamala-harris-crime-joe-biden-prosecutor-police-2020-election/

Honestly, they had a ton of time and had to know she was the most likely VP choice but they have no real plan to uproot her. Sad but incompetence is the way of reality in trumps camp.

[earlinclaifornia]

1 hour ago, Tagged said:

Fox news on Bidens Kamala Harris announcement As VP

 

 

 

You can't make this kinda stuff up What a pair of dummy's! Fox, Fake as a padded bra

[Opl]

"A Republican source said, “Trump’s view was that Biden would prefer a candidate with Bass’s low national profile and one who wouldn’t outshine him. Trump was also hopeful that Bass, a California congresswoman, would join the ticket given her record of making positive comments about the late Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.”"

https://www.politicususa.com/2020/08/12/report-flatfooted-trump-campaign-expected-biden-to-pick-karen-bass.html

[DrTuner]

I've no idea about her politics, but it's obvious she's a lure for the black, female and younger voters. We'll see how it turns out.

[stevenl]

10 minutes ago, Opl said:

"A Republican source said, “Trump’s view was that Biden would prefer a candidate with Bass’s low national profile and one who wouldn’t outshine him. Trump was also hopeful that Bass, a California congresswoman, would join the ticket given her record of making positive comments about the late Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.”"

https://www.politicususa.com/2020/08/12/report-flatfooted-trump-campaign-expected-biden-to-pick-karen-bass.html

Incredible that it seems they did not have a scenario ready for Harris, Rice or any of the others getting picked.

[Sujo]

Well trump would be hypocritical to go after her considering he donated to her. 

[checkered flag]

12 minutes ago, Opl said:

"A Republican source said, “Trump’s view was that Biden would prefer a candidate with Bass’s low national profile and one who wouldn’t outshine him. Trump was also hopeful that Bass, a California congresswoman, would join the ticket given her record of making positive comments about the late Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.”"

https://www.politicususa.com/2020/08/12/report-flatfooted-trump-campaign-expected-biden-to-pick-karen-bass.html

He got it either way. California is a lefty wonderland that can't be won Harris is from California so it  doesn't help in the electrical college. Not bringing in new voters.

[Opl]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Incredible that it seems they did not have a scenario ready for Harris, Rice or any of the others getting picked.

instead they focused on helping West, against Biden, LOL

Edited August 13, 2020 by Opl

[checkered flag]

Just now, Sujo said:

Well trump would be hypocritical to go after her considering he donated to her. 

She was Miss Law and Order (Calif top Cop) now she's switched 180 degree and is for defunding the police. Anything to get on the ticket - Pamela.

[Sujo]

Just now, checkered flag said:

She was Miss Law and Order (Calif top Cop) now she's switched 180 degree and is for defunding the police. Anything to get on the ticket - Pamela.

What is the relevence to defunding police to be against law and order.

 

One has nothing to do with the other.

 

But if you want instances of ignoring laws just ask trump about refusing to comply with subpoenas and pardoning his friends.

[DoctorG]

1 hour ago, earlinclaifornia said:

We read your posts, so Dr., sometimes we can pick up the obvious. 

It's OK Earl. I am just having fun tossing back the PC stuff because it is all so silly.

[johnnybangkok]

On 8/12/2020 at 6:18 AM, TopDeadSenter said:

First I think she was the best choice out of the names I heard being floated, much better than Abrams. At least Harris has a pleasing appearance.

 

 But my concern with Harris is two pronged. First, my concern is she weakens women generally by having used her feminine charms with Willie Brown to create a career. I am being polite. But this is not exactly what female empowerment is about - and will be a constant reminder/Achilles heel.

 

 Secondly her rush to push a false narrative without a seconds thought for common sense or credibility was laid bare with her gushing over the Jussie Smollett hoax. Remember she rushed out and in an incredibly divisive (and dumb) statement called the hoax  a "modern day lynching". How totally inappropriate! Extremely difficult to find an MSM source for this - almost as if it never happened - but it did, and it throws into question her ability to judge events rationally. 

https://nypost.com/2019/01/29/kamala-harris-attack-on-jussie-smollett-was-modern-day-lynching/

 

 Trump will seize on these 2 weaknesses. Gabbard was the sensible choice. But the word sensible doesn't belong in any sentence involving the democrat party, at least during the last 4 years.

Is that the best you've got? She overreacted to a hoax situation? 

And your misogyny is showing straight away; 'At least Harris has a pleasing appearance'. Only Trump fans and misoginists feel the need to comment on her appearance. You don't talk about Pences 'pleasant appearance' (or his actaul haunted gerbal look) so why does it matter for Harris? 

Already the narrative for Harris is being shaped and as usual it is utterly predictable and very, very basic. She is going to eat Pence for breakfast and show Trump for the divisive force he is, and if Trump can get away from Twitter battles with Bill Maher (because obvioulsy there's nothing else more important going on in the country) he'll find it VERY difficult to persuade the housewives of middle America and the black/Asian/Hispanic vote that she is nothing less than a very, very good choice for VP. 

[Smigel]

20 minutes ago, Sujo said:

What is the relevence to defunding police to be against law and order.

 

One has nothing to do with the other.

 

But if you want instances of ignoring laws just ask trump about refusing to comply with subpoenas and pardoning his friends.

The police uphold, maintain and enforce, law and order. 

Ergo if you defund the police, scrap departments, cut budgets and police numbers. It stands to reason that you are impacting in a negative way, the ability of said organisation to fulfill its role, in keeping law and order. 

 Which kind of confirms what conservatives have been claiming about her, in that she is clearly a career politician, willing to jump on any bandwagon,  if it suits the career of kamala Harris. 

[Rimmer]

Flame also troll posts and replies removed

[Joe well ya know]

Come on man, she's the best choice. She tics all the boxes, and her hair smells nice.

[EVENKEEL]

2 hours ago, earlinclaifornia said:

You can't make this kinda stuff up What a pair of dummy's! Fox, Fake as a padded bra

Couldn't find the freaking out part.

[johnnybangkok]

*Deleted post edited out*

 

That's not what defunding the police means. Let me explain.

Most cities police departments are called upon for pretty much everything; dealing with the homeless, the mentally ill, people on drugs, domestic problems, traffic crimes etc etc. In many cases the police are neither equiped or experienced enough to handle these situations which are better handled by other experts. By defunding the police, you are taking some of their vast budgets (and they are vast) and reappropriating these funds to other organistaions that are better suited to handling these issues. The benfits are two-fold; one, the problem is sorted out much better and without the need for an armed response (the police are trained to handle matters in a particular way that doesn't neccessarily involve de-escalation and therefore can make matters worse) and secondly, the police can then focus their attention on matters that they are best suited to (murders, armed robberies, looters, rape etc). It ensures the best people are doing the most appropriate jobs.

It also doesn't neccessarily mean a reduction in police numbers but it can in some cases. If it does, this is usually acheived through natural attrition and the scaling down of unneccessary units. The money can also be saved by the police not investing in military style equipment such as armored personnel carriers (APCs), assault rifles, submachine guns, flashbang grenades, grenade launchers, and sniper rifles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police.

It does not mean scrapping the police. This is a different matter that is more to do with institutionalised racism and has only ever been done once in Camden, N.J., where the whole police force was disbanded and a new, better one built instead https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/police-reform-ideas-united-states-george-floyd-1.5601990

[Berkshire]

3 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

That's not what defunding the police means. Let me explain.

Most cities police departments are called upon for pretty much everything; dealing with the homeless, the mentally ill, people on drugs, domestic problems, traffic crimes etc etc. In many cases the police are neither equiped or experienced enough to handle these situations which are better handled by other experts. By defunding the police, you are taking some of their vast budgets (and they are vast) and reappropriating these funds to other organistaions that are better suited to handling these issues. The benfits are two-fold; one, the problem is sorted out much better and without the need for an armed response (the police are trained to handle matters in a particular way that doesn't neccessarily involve de-escalation and therefore can make matters worse) and secondly, the police can then focus their attention on matters that they are best suited to (murders, armed robberies, looters, rape etc). It ensures the best people are doing the most appropriate jobs.

It also doesn't neccessarily mean a reduction in police numbers but it can in some cases. If it does, this is usually acheived through natural attrition and the scaling down of unneccessary units. The money can also be saved by the police not investing in military style equipment such as armored personnel carriers (APCs), assault rifles, submachine guns, flashbang grenades, grenade launchers, and sniper rifles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police.

It does not mean scrapping the police. This is a different matter that is more to do with institutionalised racism and has only ever been done once in Camden, N.J., where the whole police force was disbanded and a new, better one built instead https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/police-reform-ideas-united-states-george-floyd-1.5601990

Makes perfect sense.  Unfortunately, it would take a major re-education effort to get the public to buy-in.  With all the misinformation going on, that would be a herculean effort.  Trump and his minions have it much easier; all they need to do is convince the gullible that the "other side" wants to abolish the police and unleash lawlessness.  Nobody in their right mind wants that, but I suppose there are still people in America dumb enough to believe Trump.