• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kamala Harris--avenging goddess?!

N

nota bene

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
72,233
Reaction score
44,008
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
What I saw during the Sessions hearing was a Senator who was impossibly aggressive and rude, but what progressives saw was a Senator who was bold, brash, and shushed because she was a woman of color. From a gushing Slate article, here is the new narrative that will be developed in the build-up to 2020:

"...Harris confirmed an infuriating narrative about who wields power in Washington and how that power gets deployed to silence those who dare to speak out. While Harris may not have asked for the symbolic mantle she now wears, it has already hastened her political rise. The progressive cause needs fierce, avenging angels. Harris, outspoken and scrappy, filled the available vacancy."

Oh, and talk about over the fulsome top: "Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Kamala Harris have become the Eumenides [avenging goddesses of justice] of the U.S. Senate, summoned by the blood of Hillary Clinton, formed from liberal feminists' desire for a reckoning."
Kamala Harris got shushed and became a hero. Do liberals want to hear what she has to say?
 
nota bene said:
What I saw during the Sessions hearing was a Senator who was impossibly aggressive and rude, but what progressives saw was a Senator who was bold, brash, and shushed because she was a woman of color. From a gushing Slate article, here is the new narrative that will be developed in the build-up to 2020:

"...Harris confirmed an infuriating narrative about who wields power in Washington and how that power gets deployed to silence those who dare to speak out. While Harris may not have asked for the symbolic mantle she now wears, it has already hastened her political rise. The progressive cause needs fierce, avenging angels. Harris, outspoken and scrappy, filled the available vacancy."

Oh, and talk about over the fulsome top: "Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Kamala Harris have become the Eumenides [avenging goddesses of justice] of the U.S. Senate, summoned by the blood of Hillary Clinton, formed from liberal feminists' desire for a reckoning."
Kamala Harris got shushed and became a hero. Do liberals want to hear what she has to say?
Click to expand...

I want to hear what Kamala Harris has to say. Would you describe Trey Gowdy or Donald Trump as less aggressive and rude?

Senator Harris grilled Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein. Lots of people do not trust Jeff Sessions. Sessions, even as a former Senator, does not engender bipartisan support. Rosenstein, who does engender bipartisan support, obfuscated when asked by Senator Harris to clarify and put in writing important issues regarding Mueller.
 
Last edited:
Trippy Trekker said:
I want to hear what Kamala Harris has to say. Would you describe Trey Gowdy or Donald Trump as less aggressive and rude?

Senator Harris grilled Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein. Lots of people do not trust Jeff Sessions. Sessions, even as a former Senator, does not engender bipartisan support. Rosenstein, who does engender bipartisan support, obfuscated when asked by Senator Harris to clarify and put in writing important issues regarding Mueller.
Click to expand...

Do you think Kamala Harris "engenders bipartisan support"? Do you think she even wants to?
 
She was awesome.
 
nota bene said:
What I saw during the Sessions hearing was a Senator who was impossibly aggressive and rude, but what progressives saw was a Senator who was bold, brash, and shushed because she was a woman of color. From a gushing Slate article, here is the new narrative that will be developed in the build-up to 2020:

"...Harris confirmed an infuriating narrative about who wields power in Washington and how that power gets deployed to silence those who dare to speak out. While Harris may not have asked for the symbolic mantle she now wears, it has already hastened her political rise. The progressive cause needs fierce, avenging angels. Harris, outspoken and scrappy, filled the available vacancy."

Oh, and talk about over the fulsome top: "Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Kamala Harris have become the Eumenides [avenging goddesses of justice] of the U.S. Senate, summoned by the blood of Hillary Clinton, formed from liberal feminists' desire for a reckoning."
Kamala Harris got shushed and became a hero. Do liberals want to hear what she has to say?
Click to expand...

I like Harris. I hope she runs for President some day.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
I want to hear what Kamala Harris has to say. Would you describe Trey Gowdy or Donald Trump as less aggressive and rude?
Click to expand...

I wanted to hear Sessions's answers to Harris's questions. Anybody who interrupts another every 2-3 words so that a sentence can't even be completed is just plain rude. I have no problem with aggressiveness in questioning; my issue is with rudeness.

Trippy Trekker said:
Senator Harris grilled Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein. Lots of people do not trust Jeff Sessions. Sessions, even as a former Senator, does not engender bipartisan support. Rosenstein, who does engender bipartisan support, obfuscated when asked by Senator Harris to clarify and put in writing important issues regarding Mueller.
Click to expand...

That doesn't excuse her interrupting Sessions to the point that the became rattled and said so. Again, aggressive questioning is desirable, at least in my opinion.
 
I Love It; there's just something about a Woman, who's Black and has a won't take any Bull Crap Attitude, that just get's under the skin of the Old Crusty Establishment Men with Low Hanging Balls who can't sleep past midnight without squeezing 1 ounce piss-anger because they aren't the Boss-Hogs anymore.

This is definitely an American they ain't getting back. :lol:
 
nota bene said:
What I saw during the Sessions hearing was a Senator who was impossibly aggressive and rude, but what progressives saw was a Senator who was bold, brash, and shushed because she was a woman of color. From a gushing Slate article, here is the new narrative that will be developed in the build-up to 2020:

"...Harris confirmed an infuriating narrative about who wields power in Washington and how that power gets deployed to silence those who dare to speak out. While Harris may not have asked for the symbolic mantle she now wears, it has already hastened her political rise. The progressive cause needs fierce, avenging angels. Harris, outspoken and scrappy, filled the available vacancy."

Oh, and talk about over the fulsome top: "Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Kamala Harris have become the Eumenides [avenging goddesses of justice] of the U.S. Senate, summoned by the blood of Hillary Clinton, formed from liberal feminists' desire for a reckoning."
Kamala Harris got shushed and became a hero. Do liberals want to hear what she has to say?
Click to expand...

Uppity dark woman ain't she now.
 
I've been following Harris with interest for the past few months. She seems to have the passion, sincerity and the fight so needed in the younger ranks of the Democratic party right now.

Whether certain Republicans consider her a "rude, interrupting bitch" should be considered immaterial. More important is can she inspire Democrats to vote? My thinking is, perhaps yes.
 
nota bene said:
What I saw during the Sessions hearing was a Senator who was impossibly aggressive and rude, but what progressives saw was a Senator who was bold, brash, and shushed because she was a woman of color. From a gushing Slate article, here is the new narrative that will be developed in the build-up to 2020:

"...Harris confirmed an infuriating narrative about who wields power in Washington and how that power gets deployed to silence those who dare to speak out. While Harris may not have asked for the symbolic mantle she now wears, it has already hastened her political rise. The progressive cause needs fierce, avenging angels. Harris, outspoken and scrappy, filled the available vacancy."

Oh, and talk about over the fulsome top: "Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Kamala Harris have become the Eumenides [avenging goddesses of justice] of the U.S. Senate, summoned by the blood of Hillary Clinton, formed from liberal feminists' desire for a reckoning."
Kamala Harris got shushed and became a hero. Do liberals want to hear what she has to say?
Click to expand...

I had to chuckle watching Harris attempt to grind down Sessions.
Talk about 2 clashing personality types.
She speed talked her questions that she wanted yes-no answers to and he wouldn't give 'em to her.
He went into longer more nuanced answers but she needed to be on camera for most of her 5 minutes so she kept interrupting his answers.
Not only did she not get the heroine cred or the incriminating answers she was looking for but she got scolded for the way she did it.
But here I see that Slate had to alchemically turn her performance into a tour de force ... or was it a tour de farce?

As an aside, given what's been happening on college campuses I'd wager that the ideological irony of Slate's line about silencing those who dare speak out escaped them completely.
 
nota bene said:
I wanted to hear Sessions's answers to Harris's questions. Anybody who interrupts another every 2-3 words so that a sentence can't even be completed is just plain rude. I have no problem with aggressiveness in questioning; my issue is with rudeness.



That doesn't excuse her interrupting Sessions to the point that the became rattled and said so. Again, aggressive questioning is desirable, at least in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Well considering the support and defense you give the ***** grabber in chief, rudeness is obvioisly not a disqualifier for president for you so she should do just fine.
 
nota bene said:
What I saw during the Sessions hearing was a Senator who was impossibly aggressive and rude, but what progressives saw was a Senator who was bold, brash, and shushed because she was a woman of color. From a gushing Slate article, here is the new narrative that will be developed in the build-up to 2020:

"...Harris confirmed an infuriating narrative about who wields power in Washington and how that power gets deployed to silence those who dare to speak out. While Harris may not have asked for the symbolic mantle she now wears, it has already hastened her political rise. The progressive cause needs fierce, avenging angels. Harris, outspoken and scrappy, filled the available vacancy."

Oh, and talk about over the fulsome top: "Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Kamala Harris have become the Eumenides [avenging goddesses of justice] of the U.S. Senate, summoned by the blood of Hillary Clinton, formed from liberal feminists' desire for a reckoning."
Kamala Harris got shushed and became a hero. Do liberals want to hear what she has to say?
Click to expand...

Did you critisize Trump for interrupting Clinton during that last debate or were you a cheerleader for it? Your partisanship is showing.
 
nota bene said:
I wanted to hear Sessions's answers to Harris's questions. Anybody who interrupts another every 2-3 words so that a sentence can't even be completed is just plain rude. I have no problem with aggressiveness in questioning; my issue is with rudeness.



That doesn't excuse her interrupting Sessions to the point that the became rattled and said so. Again, aggressive questioning is desirable, at least in my opinion.
Click to expand...

No doubt, in the manner of a prosecutor, she pressed Sessions for a yes or no answer and she interrupted both Sessions and Rosenstein. The time format and televised nature of the hearings requires calculus to seize opportunity and avoid obstacles. Others, both GOP and DEMs, frequently interrupt the person under oath during the process.

You did not make any comment regarding whether Gowdy or Trump also engage in rude and aggressive behavior. IMO, during hearings, Gowdy, a former prosecutor, also has a rude and aggressive style when asking questions. Trump, in general, whether debating or addressing an audience has a rude and aggressive style.
 
lurchadams said:
Did you critisize Trump for interrupting Clinton during that last debate or were you a cheerleader for it? Your partisanship is showing.
Click to expand...

"Cause you'd be in jail" ... a classic
 
nota bene said:
What I saw during the Sessions hearing was a Senator who was impossibly aggressive and rude, but what progressives saw was a Senator who was bold, brash, and shushed because she was a woman of color. From a gushing Slate article, here is the new narrative that will be developed in the build-up to 2020:

"...Harris confirmed an infuriating narrative about who wields power in Washington and how that power gets deployed to silence those who dare to speak out. While Harris may not have asked for the symbolic mantle she now wears, it has already hastened her political rise. The progressive cause needs fierce, avenging angels. Harris, outspoken and scrappy, filled the available vacancy."

Oh, and talk about over the fulsome top: "Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Kamala Harris have become the Eumenides [avenging goddesses of justice] of the U.S. Senate, summoned by the blood of Hillary Clinton, formed from liberal feminists' desire for a reckoning."
Kamala Harris got shushed and became a hero. Do liberals want to hear what she has to say?
Click to expand...

What I saw was a typical example of a "Hero" of the SJW Alt-Left in full debate attack-mode. Ask a question, demand an answer; then interrupt to talk over the person rather than let them answer...in order to push the narrative of the questioner.

This is inevitably followed by later claims that "questions were asked but (insert target here) was unable to provide an honest answer." Then a claim of victory for truth, justice, and the Progressive way. :roll:
 
She wasn't doing anything different than what the male congressmen do when the person being questioned "filibusters". She knew he was just trying to run down the clock and she was right. When you have a lot of questions to get in, you can't let them do that. Frankly, if you want to solve this problem then I don't think the time it takes to answer should come out of the questioner's allotted time.
 
Cardinal said:
I've been following Harris with interest for the past few months. She seems to have the passion, sincerity and the fight so needed in the younger ranks of the Democratic party right now.

Whether certain Republicans consider her a "rude, interrupting bitch" should be considered immaterial. More important is can she inspire Democrats to vote? My thinking is, perhaps yes.
Click to expand...

I think you're right about inspiring the vote. I would remind you, though, that Republicans and independents are also voters and that their opinions should matter too.
 
Fenton Lum said:
Uppity dark woman ain't she now.
Click to expand...

You know, playing those cards really won't work for me. In the 20th century, definitely yes. And I think your comment is stupid, cheap, and pretty pathetic.

The only issue I've commented on since the Sessions hearing is that I thought Harris was impossibly rude. Well, I take that back-I think that she is extremely attractive physically, and I said that too.
 
nota bene said:
I think you're right about inspiring the vote. I would remind you, though, that Republicans and independents are also voters and that their opinions should matter too.
Click to expand...

Republicans have made their bed with Trump. And I don't consider the views of those whose reaction to Harris is that she is a "rude, interrupting bitch" to be relevant. Republicans want her to be meek and obsequious, and obviously she's not going to become that for them. As for independents, I believe they may perceive Harris differently. She's not only strong and brings passion to the discussion, she's also sincere and has a reputation for honesty (so far). She seems to me to have all the personality strengths that were missing in Clinton.

This is all about getting Democrats and left-leaning independents to vote. This has nothing to do with Republicans, because they're voting based on a larger conservative platform: Trump promised that if elected he would give Republicans whatever judicial nominees they placed in front of him, and that's why they made their peace with him, in spite of the fact that he was many times worse than anything they ever accused both Clintons of.

So....again...what Republicans think of Kamala Harris doesn't matter.
 
nota bene said:
You know, playing those cards really won't work for me. In the 20th century, definitely yes. And I think your comment is stupid, cheap, and pretty pathetic.

The only issue I've commented on since the Sessions hearing is that I thought Harris was impossibly rude. Well, I take that back-I think that she is extremely attractive physically, and I said that too.
Click to expand...

I was merely stating the obvious, I don't care what works for you and I have no card to play. She made the good ole boys nervous. Good for her. That should be the public's job, but we're not up to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom