Kamala Harris Is a Terrible Pick and Here's Why

[Surrealistik]

So who would have been your pick

Of the people actually in contention? Warren easily.

 

[Jean-s]

I can not say conservatives support her at all, law and order works both ways, prosecuting criminals as well as controlling and prosecuting police as well, nowhere does the constitution give exemptions for law and order, it is just law and order.

HArris tried to keep innocent men locked up, cover up evidence, and protect corrupt police from prosecution, no sane conservative would back that, nor would a sane liberal, the only ones who would back that are party shills who would defend hitler or stalin of nominated.

There is a reason her campaign tanked from gabbard just bringing up her record.

Conservatives are people who call themselves conservative. You have only to hear the blind support of police, right and wrong, by conservatives to know what they are like.

 

[jnug]

Of the people actually in contention? Warren easily.

I had problems with Harris simply because I thought Biden could have been helped more by Rice. But it is clear that Harris must realize how badly she performed in her run at the nomination and she must have been immediately receptive to the "suggestions" from the Biden camp. You could see it in the Wednesday rollout.

Her campaign people could not find their own asses with two hands and a hunting dog and it really showed in the nominating process.

One of the biggest problems with campaign staff these days is that there is not a drop of Carvelle's blood in them. They treat their candidates as if they were unassailable Gods and Goddesses and do their candidates a disservice in the process. This is true for both major parties. Quite possibly Biden and his campaign staff are refreshing throwbacks in that regard.

 

[VySky]

The Bernie bro's are not impressed with VP Pick. Doesn't matter anyway, we could roll out a heap of dung and those who are voting in a referendum against Trump will pull the blue handle. I hope voting day is colder than a well diggers a$$ as that will keep many Biden supporters at home.

 

[jnug]

The Bernie bro's are not impressed with VP Pick. Doesn't matter anyway, we could roll out a heap of dung and those who are voting in a referendum against Trump will pull the blue handle. I hope voting day is colder than a well diggers a$$ as that will keep many Biden supporters at home.

Good luck with that! A blizzard won't keep them home.

Then again I fully expect Trimpets to claim that driving voters to the polls is ILLEGAL, un-American, unsafe and unfair...just like mail-in voting.

 

[Dorftirol]

The Democrats choice a liar and false Vice President l.

Terrifiant choice and future with Obama Kamaran Biden.

 

[Bullseye]

As long as Trump is no where in sight I could care less who is there. I do expect Biden to complete his term though and Harris will be far better than Trump regardless. It is high time we had a women President and Trump was the sign that we have reached the very bottom of the male barrel.

"yada, yada, Trump!:twisted:" seems to be your go-to post for every topic - why do you bother?

 

[iguanaman]

"yada, yada, Trump!:twisted:" seems to be your go-to post for every topic - why do you bother?

Why do you bother to get out of bed in the morning? We certainly don't need another cultist to fawn over the psychopath in the Whitehouse. There are plenty of them on this board already. We get it. You hate America and want it to die.

 

[Surrealistik]

I had problems with Harris simply because I thought Biden could have been helped more by Rice. But it is clear that Harris must realize how badly she performed in her run at the nomination and she must have been immediately receptive to the "suggestions" from the Biden camp. You could see it in the Wednesday rollout.

Her campaign people could not find their own asses with two hands and a hunting dog and it really showed in the nominating process.

One of the biggest problems with campaign staff these days is that there is not a drop of Carvelle's blood in them. They treat their candidates as if they were unassailable Gods and Goddesses and do their candidates a disservice in the process. This is true for both major parties. Quite possibly Biden and his campaign staff are refreshing throwbacks in that regard.

I had problems with Harris for the many reasons stated in the OP.

I mean, I don't think a better campaign would have helped her; her primary bid was fatally flawed from the outset in light of her history as AG; I'd predicted from the very beginning it would eventually be her undoing and it was when Gabbard delivered the death blow.

 

[Craig234]

Vice President Elect Harris sheds no tears over the loss of your vote.

How does coming Vice President Harris feel about your inability to read?

 

[Craig234]

The Bernie bro's

Stopped reading.

 

[Craig234]

Of the people actually in contention? Warren easily.

You know why I'm not so sure about that? Because the VP is mostly expected to do nothing but be the president's loyal political operative, supporting his policies, not pushing any they have, and attacking his enemies. It could put Warren in a cage. As Senator or cabinet member she might be able to do a lot more. If it were simply 'whose policies do I like', I'd agree with you.

 

[Lursa]

I'm not sure what you're trying to assert. I mean, I'm certainly no Trump supporter; I think other than Dubya, he's the worst president of the modern era. I'm a progressive, FDR democrat that plans to vote for Biden regardless of his disastrous VP pick who simply doesn't much care for the corrupt former AG that is Kamala Harris.

As to 'getting it out of my system' and 'BS sorted thru and facts being revealed', I want to be clear that I've never been a Kamala supporter, that these same issues are what sunk her candidacy in the Dem primaries, and further, that not a single one of the misdeeds mentioned in the OP is 'BS'; they are all entirely factual as you will see per the sources provided, virtually none of which lean to the political right.

Uh huh. And this is really going to help :roll: :

In a nutshell, Kamala Harris has proven herself a psychopathic career climber more concerned with getting ahead than getting justice, representation or any other such petty inconveniences. She is an appalling and utterly tone-deaf pick in this era of BLM and mass protests and unrest driven by police brutality, militarization, systemic racism, and injustice, the latter of which she is unfortunately exceedingly well versed in, featuring a laundry list of such egrigious offenses as:

In summary, Kamala was a patently idiotic choice that is diametrically opposite and opposed to the current and well-justified zeitgeist. Should Biden win, he will do so in spite, and not because of, Harris as VP.

You're sure doing a nice job of enabling the 'blue' text in my response.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[grip]

In a nutshell, Kamala Harris has proven herself a psychopathic career climber more concerned with getting ahead than getting justice, representation or any other such petty inconveniences. She is an appalling and utterly tone-deaf pick in this era of BLM and mass protests and unrest driven by police brutality, militarization, systemic racism, and injustice, the latter of which she is unfortunately exceedingly well versed in, featuring a laundry list of such egrigious offenses as:

#1: Repeatedly refusing the admission of potentially exonerary DNA evidence which was later court ordered by a judge to be submitted. Kamala Harris Refused DNA Test in Murder Case of Kevin Cooper

#2: Repeatedly refusing to release an innocent man from prison, then refused to compensate him for a decade wrongly served in prison.

#3: Repeatedly and systemically violated defendants’ rights by hiding damaging information about a compromised police drug lab technician getting high off evidence and resisted initial court orders by Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo to disclose such information, Kamala incredibly arguing that she was 'unfairly biased' because her husband was a defense attorney in an futile and ridiculous attempt to avoid doing so; this eventually resulted in the dismissal of approximately a thousand cases: 1,000 San Francisco drug cases to be dismissed in lab scandal – The Mercury News | https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...5df094-392b-11e9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html

#4: Largely ignored bombshell evidence exposing widespread deputy misconduct, perjury and evidence tampering/destruction until much later where she then dragged her feet in starting an ineffectual sham of a probe that found no one guilty or accountable, and resulted in 0 charges filed.

#5: Related to #4: appealed the dismissal of an indictment when a state prosecutor appended two fabricated statements to a confession in an attempt to maximize sentencing.

#6: Set up and oversaw a grossly ineffective Mortgage Fraud Strike Force meant to deal with foreclosure fraud; despite receiving hundreds of complaints, it prosecuted only 10 cases in a period of three years. Less equipped county district attorneys and AGs in other states incredibly filed many more California-based cases despite inferior resources.

#7: Failed to prosecute OneWestBank despite it repeatedly breaking California foreclosure laws ( Mnuchin's Bank Accused of "Widespread Misconduct" ) , and despite the presentation of uncovered evidence of widespread misconduct; Kamala Harris dismissed a year long investigation recommending civil enforcement action against the company, refusing to prosecute or act on those recommendations while offering no explanation for this at all.

It is to be noted that this list is by no means exhaustive.

Supporting/source articles:

When Kamala Was a Top Cop - The Atlantic

Kamala Harris Offers No New Hope - Paste

The Two Faces of Kamala Harris

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article233375207.html

In summary, Kamala was a patently idiotic choice that is diametrically opposite and opposed to the current and well-justified zeitgeist. Should Biden win, he will do so in spite, and not because of, Harris as VP.

I don't personally like Biden and Harris that much, they're- meh. But they are perfect for a party and movements who want 'bobbleheads' in office to follow social justice causes for popularity. She's also a good counter insulter for Trump's derogatory labels.

 

[Surrealistik]

You know why I'm not so sure about that? Because the VP is mostly expected to do nothing but be the president's loyal political operative, supporting his policies, not pushing any they have, and attacking his enemies. It could put Warren in a cage. As Senator or cabinet member she might be able to do a lot more. If it were simply 'whose policies do I like', I'd agree with you.

Here's the thing:

#1: I don't really imagine Biden will complete his first term, and he almost certainly won't be serving two terms.

#2: It perfectly sets her up for a run in the next presidential election, as Kamala fans have pointed out of her appointment to VP.

Also, I do feel that the VP can have substantial influence on the president for better or worse; after all, look no further than Darth Cheney.

 

[Surrealistik]

I don't personally like Biden and Harris that much, they're- meh. But they are perfect for a party and movements who want 'bobbleheads' in office to follow social justice causes for popularity. She's also a good counter insulter for Trump's derogatory labels.

Biden is meh, Kamala is actively awful, and she wouldn't know social justice if it hit her with a court order as it so often has.

 

[Surrealistik]

Uh huh. And this is really going to help :roll: :

You're sure doing a nice job of enabling the 'blue' text in my response.

Sorry, I just can't do the whole 'wear the jersey, drink the koolaide and abandon all conscience and principle for the sake of winning at any cost'. I'll vote for the Biden ticket to be sure, but I'm not going to be silent on Kamala's heinous record; the same one that rightfully destroyed her nomination bid.

 

[grip]

Biden is meh, Kamala is actively awful, and she wouldn't know social justice if it hit her with a court order as it so often has.

I kind of agree, she is awful on her own, but she's being used as a block and tackle against Trump. Though I doubt she'd win the 2024 election for the presidency.

 

[Mustachio]

In a nutshell, Kamala Harris has proven herself a psychopathic career climber more concerned with getting ahead than getting justice, representation or any other such petty inconveniences. She is an appalling and utterly tone-deaf pick in this era of BLM and mass protests and unrest driven by police brutality, militarization, systemic racism, and injustice, the latter of which she is unfortunately exceedingly well versed in, featuring a laundry list of such egrigious offenses as:

It is to be noted that this list is by no means exhaustive.

Supporting/source articles:

When Kamala Was a Top Cop - The Atlantic

Kamala Harris Offers No New Hope - Paste

The Two Faces of Kamala Harris

Access Denied

In summary, Kamala was a patently idiotic choice that is diametrically opposite and opposed to the current and well-justified zeitgeist. Should Biden win, he will do so in spite, and not because of, Harris as VP.

This is right on point. It's a purely political play. It demolishes any talking points about dismantling police departments or being "puppets of the radical left." This is a centrist ticket through and through. It's more of the same. The same meaning before we elected the worst President ever - or at least in the last 100 years. Worse than Hoover. Harsh but true.

I loathe the DNC's tactics, for instance backing Hillary over Obama because "black people don't vote." Now it's Biden over Sanders because "young people don't vote." They won't vote now because young people don't like weird old white dudes who touch your hair. They would vote, and carry, Sanders on a platform of housing, education and healthcare. But policy is secondary, the people in charge simply don't understand what drives Americans. I am very lucky as I don't have to vote for Biden because I live in Minnesota and I don't have to worry about Trump winning my state. Thanks to him and Mike Lindell, I can sleep well at night (that's a mypillow joke)

 

[Craig234]

Surrealistik is doing something appropriate here: truth above party.

Now, this is a touchy subject. The temptation is to want everything about the other party to be bad (and in this case, it pretty much is), and everything about your party to be good.

If your party is a thousand times better than the other party, there can still be flaws. The temptation is to say, 'don't talk about any flaws, do you want the other side to win?'

There's some point to that. It should be in the context of wanting the better people to win. But there should be a way to both want someone to win, and to be able to be honest about their good and bad points.

It's one thing to say, 'Kamala Harris did bad things as Attorney General, so I won't vote for her'. That opens up the whole comparison and why she is a thousand times better.

It's a second thing to say, 'here are bad things about Harris', and not add a context that she is the much better choice. That can be overly negative in the sense that, the reasons to vote for her are awfully important, and just pointing out her flaws like it was a vacuum can implicitly weaken support for her wrongly.

But it's a third thing to say, 'there are thousand reasons why she is the better choice than the other party that are most important, but here are some flaws it's good to know about' is better than a lie that 'she is flawless'.

Someone should be thanked, not attacked, for that last thing. If they get it wrong, that's fair to criticize. People need to be able to accept the truth, and both plan to strongly support someone, while understanding both good and bad points they have.

 

[Surrealistik]

Surrealistik is doing something appropriate here: truth above party.

Now, this is a touchy subject. The temptation is to want everything about the other party to be bad (and in this case, it pretty much is), and everything about your party to be good.

If your party is a thousand times better than the other party, there can still be flaws. The temptation is to say, 'don't talk about any flaws, do you want the other side to win?'

There's some point to that. It should be in the context of wanting the better people to win. But there should be a way to both want someone to win, and to be able to be honest about their good and bad points.

It's one thing to say, 'Kamala Harris did bad things as Attorney General, so I won't vote for her'. That opens up the whole comparison and why she is a thousand times better.

It's a second thing to say, 'here are bad things about Harris', and not add a context that she is the much better choice. That can be overly negative in the sense that, the reasons to vote for her are awfully important, and just pointing out her flaws like it was a vacuum can implicitly weaken support for her wrongly.

But it's a third thing to say, 'there are thousand reasons why she is the better choice than the other party that are most important, but here are some flaws it's good to know about' is better than a lie that 'she is flawless'.

Someone should be thanked, not attacked, for that last thing. If they get it wrong, that's fair to criticize. People need to be able to accept the truth, and both plan to strongly support someone, while understanding both good and bad points they have.

I want to be clear that pretty much the only thing I do like about Kamala is she's on the right side of the aisle, and I feel there's precious little about her that redeems her horrid failings overall; she's a no-good heinous bastard and a terrible human being in my estimation, but she's our bastard, she's on our ticket, and my personal feelings about her or Biden are irrelevant next to defeating Trump, and above all I hate that things have come down to this terrible choice between puke pile and turd sandwich (once again).

 

[Craig234]

This is right on point. It's a purely political play. It demolishes any talking points about dismantling police departments or being "puppets of the radical left." This is a centrist ticket through and through. It's more of the same. The same meaning before we elected the worst President ever - or at least in the last 100 years. Worse than Hoover. Harsh but true.

I loathe the DNC's tactics, for instance backing Hillary over Obama because "black people don't vote." Now it's Biden over Sanders because "young people don't vote." They won't vote now because young people don't like weird old white dudes who touch your hair. They would vote, and carry, Sanders on a platform of housing, education and healthcare. But policy is secondary, the people in charge simply don't understand what drives Americans.

That's not why the party supported Hillary (the reasons are worse). As a Bernie supporter, I have to say, if young people would do so great for Bernie in the general, they should have done it in the primary, and they didn't. Youth turnout was not high IIUC. Those Americans the people in charge don't understand should have turned out and elected Bernie.

VP's are almost always political plays. Ask JFK's supporters about LBJ; hell, ask Robert Kennedy who managed JFK's campaign to victory and then watched as JFK overrode him to pick LBJ. Two things to note. One is that this is a reminder progressives need to win; the other is that it could be a lot worse, and we aren't sure how they'll turn out yet, despite good reason for concern. And of course, we should still vote for them.

 

[Surrealistik]

This is right on point. It's a purely political play. It demolishes any talking points about dismantling police departments or being "puppets of the radical left." This is a centrist ticket through and through. It's more of the same. The same meaning before we elected the worst President ever - or at least in the last 100 years. Worse than Hoover. Harsh but true.

I loathe the DNC's tactics, for instance backing Hillary over Obama because "black people don't vote." Now it's Biden over Sanders because "young people don't vote." They won't vote now because young people don't like weird old white dudes who touch your hair. They would vote, and carry, Sanders on a platform of housing, education and healthcare. But policy is secondary, the people in charge simply don't understand what drives Americans. I am very lucky as I don't have to vote for Biden because I live in Minnesota and I don't have to worry about Trump winning my state. Thanks to him and Mike Lindell, I can sleep well at night (that's a mypillow joke)

I think it was far more cynical than that, being more a matter of needing to assert ideological supremacy in the context of the greater fight for the soul of the Democratic party between the neoliberals and FDR tradition. As I've said elsewhere, Sanders was slated to win Super Tuesday by pretty much all accounts/polls before the Biden campaign and DNC got together out of desperation to circle the wagons and consolidate the moderates in having Klob and Pete end their campaigns to endorse Biden, and from there on in, Joe's once very tenuous claim of electoral inevitably/electability, by far his greatest asset, was shored up, and he was able to coast on building momentum.

 

[TheParser]

I have heard that all fair-minded people are laughing at the Dem media and the Dem politicians who are now calling Ms. Harris a "moderate" although she was previously hailed as the most liberal member of the Senate.

The bigwigs know that many voters for Mr. Biden do NOT want a wild liberal.

But, to be fair, Dems are so eager to oust President Trump that it does NOT matter who the VP is.

I acknowledge that my candidate is toast.

 

[Craig234]

I want to be clear that pretty much the only thing I do like about Kamala is she's on the right side of the aisle, and I feel there's precious little about her that redeems her horrid failings overall; she's a no-good heinous bastard and a terrible human being in my estimation, but she's our bastard

I have some of that sense about her, and it worries me. I always have, since I watched her in the news rising in San Francisco. Even while I'm careful to distinguish between the accusations of title-chasing with her, and the wrong double standard for women and pursuing power.

I have some more hope though. Even if she is a complete sociopathic politician, and I'm not ruling that out, such people can do good things, and an important thing is that she is not a sociopathic politician owned by the plutocrat Republicans, but rather a Democrat, and as such she can cynically use issues like inequality and racial justice for her own benefit and power - while doing good doing so.

Most people don't realize how much of politics is really that, if not sociopathic, still politicians who are 'playing a role', caring about what there are political reasons to care about. Personal morals tend to be a luxury that come at a price for them.

If you get a chance to listen to politicians being candid in smaller settings, you can see more of how much this is the case.

A quote I like is that we think of FDR as single-mindedly dedicated to democratic principles and the good of the American people, and however much he was, he told Errol Flynn that he, FDR, was the greatest actor in the US.

Think about how stirring JFK's speeches were. He spent long hours listening to records of Churchill, trying to mimic him, to get the skills to sound that way. When he was more candid, more privately, there's a lot more cynicism than people think - even though he was an exception in also following principle more than most presidents, if not all of them.

Even if Harris IS those things, she can still turn out to be effective for good policies - or she might not. It's not yet clear.

She does have a real 'House of Cards' feel to her. And like she will very much exploit the 'woman of color' politics for all it's worth. But that doesn't mean she won't be 'good' in office. The bad side to political animals is how they are sort of amoral, but than can be a good side as well, when it's in their interest to do the right thing. Think about LBJ and his reasons for fighting for the civil rights bills, were they all principle?