The Kamala Harris conundrum.

[Coyote]

Coming from someone who himself has used suspect sources, you will pardon me if I take your claim of “biased sources” with a grain of salt. You have your own BIAS against fact-checkers. You have told me, on multiple occasions, not to attack the sources, yet look at yourself here. Hypocrisy much?

Fact checkers are NOT sources.. Not primary, not secondary.. They are tools for people who can't do the work themselves and the JUDGEMENT of these fact checkers is loaded with bias.. In THIS CASE, either one could have Harris's dad's statement and ran the genealogy back 2 or 3 generations.. My wife could do that in 6 minutes on Ancestry.. NEITHER OF THEM had the interest to verify.. Why IS THAT coyote?? The fact that Hamilton Brown (or whoever) WAS a plantation farmer with slaves and unlike the SPIN on Snopes, the slave censuses I saw from the Jamaican govt were for RETAINED slaves that were grandfathered in for a transistion period when Britain had halted the slave trade. So that BullSHIT in Snopes about him ditching slaves was just bullshit..

Strongly disagree here dude. Fact checking CAN be a source, just like news articles, wiki, bloggers, etc. How GOOD a source it is depends on the SAME factors that determine whether these OTHER sources are good. Fact check sources are as good or as bad as ANY OTHER SOURCE. If they provide links to back up what they say, you can follow them, and make your own opinion - how good they are depends on how much support they provide from primary sources but you discount them out of hand. Not sure why, but whatever.

What Snopes stated was "unproven" - not "false". For some reason that sets people off.

The reason was "uncertain links":

However, we have been unable to verify that a line of descent exists between the modern-day Harris family and the 19th-century slave owner. As such, the claim that an ancestor of Sen. Harris owned slaves in Jamaica remains unproven. If evidence emerges that verifies that line of descent, we will update this fact check accordingly.​

As far as I know, there aren't any genetic tests surrounding the claims - if there are, provide them.

It looks as if Snopes did due diligence here, and unless there is supporting documentation (perhaps I missed in the flurry of posting) BEYOND what her father's story - then it remains unproven because that is the ONLY source.

Note that in the Snopes article is this statement: Stanford University agreed to send Donald Harris our request for any evidence that might corroborate his claim that his grandmother was a descendant of the planter Hamilton Brown. Unfortunately, we did not receive a response of any kind

Usually, there are records and such surrounding those claims. It isn't uncommon for "family lore" to be wrong. I know this. You know this. Confirmation can be made by birth records, marriage records, census records - not sure any exist to support this and from what Snopes said there are a lot of discrepancies and nothing you posted addresses that.

Even the freebeacom.com article you posted does not offer any direct proof but instead seeks to nibble around the edges. It's primary sources seem to be 1) the father's biography and 2) records showing that Hamilton Brown owned slaves (a statement that is NOT in dispute). The article then goes on to discuss Harris' positions on reparations and a diversion into the unjust pairing of McConnell's position, and the fact his ancestors owned slaves (a righteous grievance since I fully agree he is in no way responsible for his ancestors). But attempting to lay that on Harris in this way, with pretty weakly supported claims is equally wrong. It also ignores one pretty potent point: if she is related to this slaver, it is very likely it was through ownership and rape of a female slave. Jamaica...like the Barbados and other areas were particularly brutal to slaves. Yet...I have not heard her use that in any way in any of her political positions. So we have the Republicans here, attacking her ancestry...and getting a free pass because the Dems do the same. Sheesh.

That said, biographies are not necessarily TRUTH. They are what one person thinks or wishes is the truth. Autobiographies are likely more factually accurate. You should know this.

I sure KNOW the diff.. Apparently you don't.. When I say her father WROTE the bio -- that would be AUTObiographical wouldn't it?

You are right - I have them reversed (I always forget which is which). However that doesn't change the point - biographies written by others who research the backgrounds, look for records and primary sources, are often going to be more accurate than autobiographies that are subjective by definition, and may depend to heavily on unsubstantiated or unsubstiable "family lore".

Fact is, we aren’t responsible for our parents sins or the behavior of grown children. I don’t see the relevance of a multi-great ancestry of dubious authenticity, to people standing for a
election today.

Tell that to Kamala Harris and her Reparations plan... Or the people picking on Southerners and the Confederacy.. Dont be a hypocrite..

As for Fred Trump -- it's relevant when its relevant to the title\OPost.. Otherwise it's not.. Same with Bush 43's grandpappy...

Actually, I'm seeing the hypocrisy coming from you here.

I've often stated that descendants are not responsible for the actions of their ancestors (unless they choose to take on such a responsibility in atonement).

Children brought over here illegally by their parents as minors are not responsible for the actions of their parents and should not be punished.

Reparations - look at it this way. Our government is responsible for IT'S POLICIES AND LAWS that supported slavery, that brought about Jim Crowe, etc. Just like it was with reparations to Japanese Americans who were interned. Reparations would have to come from the government and of course taxpayer money, but that is money coming from all Americans, not just whites. If that is how reparations are proposed I don't see a problem with it (more problematic are the details).

People picking on southerners? Hell, people pick on the northern "elite", on leftists, on this, on that, on blacks as thugs. So what? If it's about confederate memorials then you ought to yourself be a tad less hypocritical and explain why there are confederate memorials in states like California or at least acknowledge the racist history behind their proliferation. If people blame southerners today for the actions of their ancestors - I am right there with you in saying it's wrong. But rethinking these memorials and their history is something else entirely.

AND EXTREMELY likely that her dad KNOWS a bit about his OWN FREAKIN great grandpa.... You think he's bluffing? It aint like going back SIX generations to find Elizabeth Warrens 1/512th Indian heritage..

Uh maybe. Or, maybe not. It has nothing to do with "bluffing", that isn't the only explanation you know. It's a matter of what one believes to be true. Hamilton Brown died in 1843. That is 177 years ago. There are no records without discrepancies supporting the claims. Now you're just throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks.

 

[Coyote]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

a better question, is, is it possible for the modern left to defend anything without using the wace card.

let's look at your op. if we remove everything wace related, what are we left with?

..
does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate.
...

wow. if you remove all you wacism shit, nothing is left but admitting that discussing her resume is legitimate.
you literally have nothing to say in defense of her, other than crying "Wacism" like a retarded child.

He has a point you know.

Why is Kamala's blackness being attacked?

I hear the most ridiculous arguments like - uhhh "she's half Jamaican and half Indian, she's not black!".

Jamaican isn't a race...it's a nationality. If you were half Senagalese would you be black?

And MOST IRONIC - if she were born just a few years earlier, she would have been black enough for Jim Crowe.

Why did Biden make it an issue that he was going to select a female African American? Why say anything at all? Why interject race and sex at all? Maybe Biden believes he found the first mainstream African-American woman who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking gal, I mean, that's a storybook, woman.

Why not? There were a number of African American women being considered. Most candidates tend to talk about their pick and make picks for strategic reasons and decisions are made in group strategizing. Things like playing to the base, shoring up support among weaker demographics, bringing voters from other demographics, PersonaL Characteristics that might compliment weaknesses and strengths in the top of the ticket. For some odd reason you seem to think none of this applies to Biden.

Pence= white strongly religious, midwestern evangelical male, traits the party base strongly wanted. Hit a lot of groups with that particular bit, but especially to convince evangelicals because Trump was not reliably religious enough.

Palin = an appeal to women, family values combined with career as governor. She has experience as governor of Alaska. Plus she is a tough but personable attack dog and can keep McCain above the fray.

Kain = has a broad appeal, speaks Spanish fluently, has deep ties to the African American community through his work as a civil rights lawyer and his time as mayor of Richmond, is the son of a welder, working class family, and from a swing state.

Harris = She female and she is black (both aspects the party base strongly wanted) she has already been vetted on the national stage. She has government experience as CA AG and US senator. At 55 she is coming from the party’s younger generation of leadership, another big plus.

There are a lot of personal choices that go into it as well, not just cold political calculation. The pick has to be able to work well with the president. Trump is a notoriously “by the gut” man and Biden, a close family man, took in what is son Beau had said about Harris.

More in depth if interested:

How Pence’s Camp Persuaded Trump to Pick Their Guy as VP

Trump had already told Pence he was the pick, but at the last minute, the nominee was wavering. Two aides took matters into their own hands.

www.politico.com

Here's why Joe Biden chose Kamala Harris as his VP

Joe Biden thinks he is going to win the White House in 84 days' time. That's the unmistakeable message he sent when, via text, his campaign announced that he had picked Sen. Kamala Harris of California as his vice presidential nominee.

www.cnn.com

Three Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Chose Tim Kaine

The senator from Virginia isn't the most exciting pick as the Democratic running mate, but Clinton had good reasons to go with him.

www.newyorker.com

McCain picks Palin as vice president in U.S. election

U.S. Republican presidential candidate John McCain has chosen Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate, a senior McCain campaign official said on Friday.

www.reuters.com

He could have made his pick like everyone else, yet he claimed early on he was looking for a black woman. He, no one else mentioned the race of his pick and the sex. McCain never said he was picking a woman.

So, had Biden made his pick without letting us all know he was picking a black woman, then you would have something. He interjected race before the pick. Harris is fine for a pick, if you want a lefty, not sure why he needed to make a big deal about her sex and race, same as when he praised Obama for being an articulate African American, it was like he needed to show us he is behind a token black. That is message I have gotten from Biden.

He did make his pick like everyone else based on political priorities. The only difference is he stated it up front.

So she is now a "token" black instead of a fully qualified woman despite the fact that the group of people he considered included white women.

 

[Coyote]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

a better question, is, is it possible for the modern left to defend anything without using the wace card.

let's look at your op. if we remove everything wace related, what are we left with?

..
does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate.



...

wow. if you remove all you wacism shit, nothing is left but admitting that discussing her resume is legitimate.


you literally have nothing to say in defense of her, other than crying "Wacism" like a retarded child.

He has a point you know.

Why is Kamala's blackness being attacked?

I hear the most ridiculous arguments like - uhhh "she's half Jamaican and half Indian, she's not black!".

Jamaican isn't a race...it's a nationality. If you were half Senagalese would you be black?

And MOST IRONIC - if she were born just a few years earlier, she would have been black enough for Jim Crowe.

Why does your party fawn over her sex/race? Aint that a bit condescending and a bit racist and sexist? EVERYONE SEES IT.. But that's not why she should get votes really is it?

Why does your party fawn over a white businessman?

Why all this energy insisting she isn't "black"?

Why does she keep insisting that she is? Fact. Biden was locked into putting a black woman in that slot. Someone named Kamala Harris. Is she authentically black enough to satisfy?

That brings up an interesting question.

Candidates previously were "locked in" to bringing in picks who could carry certain regions of the country with them. Why is a candidate who can bring in the black vote a BAD thing but a candidate who can bring in the Midwestern vote...or Evangelical vote....a GOOD thing?

If biden looked at what he needed from a vp candidate politically, and it turned out that what he needed was a black candidate to bring in the black vote, that would be a political choice and it would be a matter of debate what it means.


but, instead, before he even did that, he decided to discriminate against men and likely whites.

And no different than other candidates, talking about strategic choices ahead of the actual pick. You impose a unique standard on Biden in order to try and portray him as racist, at least that is what it seems like.

Race and gender are two of many demographics that go into choices. Each candidate starts of with a long list of political and demographic boxes to be checked. The Democratic base values diversity and want to see a woman or person of color selected. That is their base. Just like the Republican base prefers a person who is strongly religious and a white male. It is all about demographics and the party and getting votes. And there can be personal aspects as well. Biden has, despite his past, made efforts to support women’s issues and minority issues. Picking a black woman would tick both those boxes.

that is the difference. in the first hypothetical scenario, whites were considered based on what they could offer or not. they were immediately rejected on political grounds.

in the second, the real world example, they were never considered. they were rejected based on gender and race.

The “real world example”?

I would contest that. It would be political suicide for the Dems to run an all white all male ticket. This isn’t about “feewings”, it is political calculation. The same as ANY political party.

Among the choices:
Elizabeth Warren, white female, rejected for political reasons (too far to the left).
Amy Klobuchar, White, female.

the political discrimination, is a very specific and unique situation, one that is not a matter of greater concern for society at large.

the way that the left celebrates anti-male and anti-white discrimination? that does have much large implications for the rest of society.


that is the point.

It is no different than the political discrimination that goes into every other ticket, such as choosing a white male evangelical.

1. the republican base does not prefer a candidate that is "strongly religious and a white male".

Yes. They do. This is evident by the composition of their electoral winners.

2. the dems had no problem electing clinton/biden just a few years ago. so, that's not true.

Minor detail here...she lost. But other than that, they checked one important box - female.

We have yet to elect a woman. Why is that? I don't buy the argument that it's all based on "qualifications" since that implies there are no qualified women to elect.

3. saying "Diversity" does not make sexist and racist discrimination, not discrimination.

Is the opposite true....you have yet to elect a woman or a non-Christian or a black person as either president or vice president.

In fact...the Republican composition in the Senate and House are glaringly white and male.

Is there a discriminatory process going on?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

There are no qualified women.

 

[Correll]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

a better question, is, is it possible for the modern left to defend anything without using the wace card.

let's look at your op. if we remove everything wace related, what are we left with?

..
does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate.



...

wow. if you remove all you wacism shit, nothing is left but admitting that discussing her resume is legitimate.


you literally have nothing to say in defense of her, other than crying "Wacism" like a retarded child.

He has a point you know.

Why is Kamala's blackness being attacked?

I hear the most ridiculous arguments like - uhhh "she's half Jamaican and half Indian, she's not black!".

Jamaican isn't a race...it's a nationality. If you were half Senagalese would you be black?

And MOST IRONIC - if she were born just a few years earlier, she would have been black enough for Jim Crowe.

Why does your party fawn over her sex/race? Aint that a bit condescending and a bit racist and sexist? EVERYONE SEES IT.. But that's not why she should get votes really is it?

Why does your party fawn over a white businessman?

Why all this energy insisting she isn't "black"?

Why does she keep insisting that she is? Fact. Biden was locked into putting a black woman in that slot. Someone named Kamala Harris. Is she authentically black enough to satisfy?

That brings up an interesting question.

Candidates previously were "locked in" to bringing in picks who could carry certain regions of the country with them. Why is a candidate who can bring in the black vote a BAD thing but a candidate who can bring in the Midwestern vote...or Evangelical vote....a GOOD thing?

If biden looked at what he needed from a vp candidate politically, and it turned out that what he needed was a black candidate to bring in the black vote, that would be a political choice and it would be a matter of debate what it means.


but, instead, before he even did that, he decided to discriminate against men and likely whites.

And no different than other candidates, talking about strategic choices ahead of the actual pick. You impose a unique standard on Biden in order to try and portray him as racist, at least that is what it seems like.

Race and gender are two of many demographics that go into choices. Each candidate starts of with a long list of political and demographic boxes to be checked. The Democratic base values diversity and want to see a woman or person of color selected. That is their base. Just like the Republican base prefers a person who is strongly religious and a white male. It is all about demographics and the party and getting votes. And there can be personal aspects as well. Biden has, despite his past, made efforts to support women’s issues and minority issues. Picking a black woman would tick both those boxes.

that is the difference. in the first hypothetical scenario, whites were considered based on what they could offer or not. they were immediately rejected on political grounds.

in the second, the real world example, they were never considered. they were rejected based on gender and race.

The “real world example”?

I would contest that. It would be political suicide for the Dems to run an all white all male ticket. This isn’t about “feewings”, it is political calculation. The same as ANY political party.

Among the choices:
Elizabeth Warren, white female, rejected for political reasons (too far to the left).
Amy Klobuchar, White, female.

the political discrimination, is a very specific and unique situation, one that is not a matter of greater concern for society at large.

the way that the left celebrates anti-male and anti-white discrimination? that does have much large implications for the rest of society.


that is the point.

It is no different than the political discrimination that goes into every other ticket, such as choosing a white male evangelical.

1. the republican base does not prefer a candidate that is "strongly religious and a white male".

Yes. They do. This is evident by the composition of their electoral winners.

2. the dems had no problem electing clinton/biden just a few years ago. so, that's not true.

Minor detail here...she lost. But other than that, they checked one important box - female.

We have yet to elect a woman. Why is that? I don't buy the argument that it's all based on "qualifications" since that implies there are no qualified women to elect.

3. saying "Diversity" does not make sexist and racist discrimination, not discrimination.

Is the opposite true....you have yet to elect a woman or a non-Christian or a black person as either president or vice president.

In fact...the Republican composition in the Senate and House are glaringly white and male.

Is there a discriminatory process going on?

1. or does it reveal the party choice of minorities and career choices of women? leaving the field held by white men?


2. i think the vast majority of women, do not want to go into politics, especially high level politics. my point stands. clinton/biden was two white males and the dems elected them not long ago. so, "diversity" is not required.

3. nope. my point stands. saying "diversity" does not make biden's behavior not discrimination.

 

[Coyote]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

I could care less about her pigmentation, Tommy! She's a sleazy, conniving, uber ambitious, back stabbing bitch who will do just about anything to come out on top.
So the Democrats have a fossil, Joe Biden...and a two faced whore as their ticket. Nice job...

Biden/Harris is a massive step up on trump/pence. A chance for the US to recover.

Agree.

 

[Oldestyle]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

I could care less about her pigmentation, Tommy! She's a sleazy, conniving, uber ambitious, back stabbing bitch who will do just about anything to come out on top.
So the Democrats have a fossil, Joe Biden...and a two faced whore as their ticket. Nice job...

Biden/Harris is a massive step up on trump/pence. A chance for the US to recover.

With all due respect, Tommy...are you kidding? Joe Biden has been running for President since Richard Nixon was in office! He's a life long politician who has been part and parcel of the problems that the US finds itself in. He's never been an especially intelligent man and now by all appearances he's in the early stages of declining mental acuity. He's got some serious baggage with the Ukrainian scandal involving payoffs to his drug addict son and even larger payoffs from companies backed by the Chinese government! Look at any of his campaign ads and tell me what you see for SPECIFIC policies? Have you ever seen anything as vague as what they're putting out? He says he'll "fix" things but gives zero examples of what he'll be doing to get that done. He simply asks the voters to trust him!
As for Kamala Harris? What foreign policy experience does she have? What background in economics? What exactly is it that she brings to the table other than the fact she's black?

 

[IM2]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

I don't know that it's necessarily fueled by racism per se. She's on the ticket, so that makes her a target. And a pinko commie 'n stuff.

I have to admit I was a little surprised to see them go right at the birther thing, but that's my own fault for assuming they wouldn't try that again. I gave them too much credit.

The funniest part is that they also appear to be going after her on moral grounds, which is just hilarious coming from the people who sold their soul to Trump.

Ugly stuff. As usual.

The attack on her citizenship is pure racism. And that racism will play into other criticisms.

 

[IM2]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

Yeah theres no hate on white people in the democrat party and theres no partisanship when it comes to attacking trump and anyone that supports him. Theres no lying by the press either about Trumps Accomplishments..

Your Post Represents that twofacedness of the left and why there is such a huge divide in this country.
Before you criticize or take issue with ANYTHING Biden or Harris, take a look at what your side has done for 4 full years...they started a coup before trump was even elected that was ALL LIES, theyve non stop abused him and his Wife and his entire family, they have attacked pence and anyone that works in trumps whitehouse.

They left has created this huge divide we have, they own it

There was no coup. The nation has been divided since 7-4-1776 and trump has continued to push the divide.

 

[Coyote]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

I don't know that it's necessarily fueled by racism per se. She's on the ticket, so that makes her a target. And a pinko commie 'n stuff.

I have to admit I was a little surprised to see them go right at the birther thing, but that's my own fault for assuming they wouldn't try that again. I gave them too much credit.

The funniest part is that they also appear to be going after her on moral grounds, which is just hilarious coming from the people who sold their soul to Trump.

Ugly stuff. As usual.

The attack on her citizenship is pure racism. And that racism will play into other criticisms.

When it just happens to occur disproportionately to black candidates you have to wonder.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

I don't know that it's necessarily fueled by racism per se. She's on the ticket, so that makes her a target. And a pinko commie 'n stuff.

I have to admit I was a little surprised to see them go right at the birther thing, but that's my own fault for assuming they wouldn't try that again. I gave them too much credit.

The funniest part is that they also appear to be going after her on moral grounds, which is just hilarious coming from the people who sold their soul to Trump.

Ugly stuff. As usual.

The attack on her citizenship is pure racism. And that racism will play into other criticisms.

When it just happens to occur disproportionately to black candidates you have to wonder.

You mean black candidates with at least one parent born outside the US.

 

[Correll]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

I don't know that it's necessarily fueled by racism per se. She's on the ticket, so that makes her a target. And a pinko commie 'n stuff.

I have to admit I was a little surprised to see them go right at the birther thing, but that's my own fault for assuming they wouldn't try that again. I gave them too much credit.

The funniest part is that they also appear to be going after her on moral grounds, which is just hilarious coming from the people who sold their soul to Trump.

Ugly stuff. As usual.

The attack on her citizenship is pure racism. And that racism will play into other criticisms.

When it just happens to occur disproportionately to black candidates you have to wonder.

no, you don't. you could decide to, instead of focusing on possible divisive wacism, to focus on the issues.


but, it works for you, to divide the country up, to wace bait. to tell conservative blacks that the gop is the party of wacism.


over and over again. until people believe it, even though there is no real evidence to support that poisonous claim.

 

[IM2]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

I could care less about her pigmentation, Tommy! She's a sleazy, conniving, uber ambitious, back stabbing bitch who will do just about anything to come out on top.
So the Democrats have a fossil, Joe Biden...and a two faced whore as their ticket. Nice job...

Biden/Harris is a massive step up on trump/pence. A chance for the US to recover.

With all due respect, Tommy...are you kidding? Joe Biden has been running for President since Richard Nixon was in office! He's a life long politician who has been part and parcel of the problems that the US finds itself in. He's never been an especially intelligent man and now by all appearances he's in the early stages of declining mental acuity. He's got some serious baggage with the Ukrainian scandal involving payoffs to his drug addict son and even larger payoffs from companies backed by the Chinese government! Look at any of his campaign ads and tell me what you see for SPECIFIC policies? Have you ever seen anything as vague as what they're putting out? He says he'll "fix" things but gives zero examples of what he'll be doing to get that done. He simply asks the voters to trust him!
As for Kamala Harris? What foreign policy experience does she have? What background in economics? What exactly is it that she brings to the table other than the fact she's black?

Reagan ran multiple times for president. trump is an example of our national problem. Rich pampered white men who feel they are above the law. Biden has stated what he will fix, his plan is on the internet. trump has been without a plan and doesn't have one now. He just promises you the freedom to be racists. That's why you support him. Biden/Harris both are better than trump and Pence. Hopefully trump can't cheat his way to a second term.

 

[IM2]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

I don't know that it's necessarily fueled by racism per se. She's on the ticket, so that makes her a target. And a pinko commie 'n stuff.

I have to admit I was a little surprised to see them go right at the birther thing, but that's my own fault for assuming they wouldn't try that again. I gave them too much credit.

The funniest part is that they also appear to be going after her on moral grounds, which is just hilarious coming from the people who sold their soul to Trump.

Ugly stuff. As usual.

The attack on her citizenship is pure racism. And that racism will play into other criticisms.

When it just happens to occur disproportionately to black candidates you have to wonder.

Yes you do.

 

[Correll]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

I don't know that it's necessarily fueled by racism per se. She's on the ticket, so that makes her a target. And a pinko commie 'n stuff.

I have to admit I was a little surprised to see them go right at the birther thing, but that's my own fault for assuming they wouldn't try that again. I gave them too much credit.

The funniest part is that they also appear to be going after her on moral grounds, which is just hilarious coming from the people who sold their soul to Trump.

Ugly stuff. As usual.

The attack on her citizenship is pure racism. And that racism will play into other criticisms.

When it just happens to occur disproportionately to black candidates you have to wonder.

You mean black candidates with at least one parent born outside the US.

no, no, no. that fact that the one of the parents is a foreign national, or that the mother spent a lot of time traveling overseas,

is not important to the question of whether someone was born in the us.


because,


wacism.

 

[IM2]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

I don't know that it's necessarily fueled by racism per se. She's on the ticket, so that makes her a target. And a pinko commie 'n stuff.

I have to admit I was a little surprised to see them go right at the birther thing, but that's my own fault for assuming they wouldn't try that again. I gave them too much credit.

The funniest part is that they also appear to be going after her on moral grounds, which is just hilarious coming from the people who sold their soul to Trump.

Ugly stuff. As usual.

The attack on her citizenship is pure racism. And that racism will play into other criticisms.

When it just happens to occur disproportionately to black candidates you have to wonder.

You mean black candidates with at least one parent born outside the US.

Black candidates. Harris was born in the US. She is a citizen. This birther shit is pure racism.

 

[IM2]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

The Democrats could have put anyone in the VP nomination slot and they would be treated poorly by the GOP; and vice versa. Racist? I don't think so in general. Individual comments may be but the opposition trashes the other party's ticket. Just the way it is.

You are right, but it still doesn't mean that racism is not part of the attacks.

 

[IM2]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

I'm a liberal. She has a track record and there is a legitimate argument. In fact, that argument is so powerful that it is reflective on that party.

Did she use race? Yes. Not only did she use race, she did so in a way that was so out of touch that it indicated it didn't impact her at all.

She is biracial. Just like the last president. There is not one thing wrong with that.

America uses race. There really is no legitimate argument but some will pretend so.

 

[Correll]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

I could care less about her pigmentation, Tommy! She's a sleazy, conniving, uber ambitious, back stabbing bitch who will do just about anything to come out on top.
So the Democrats have a fossil, Joe Biden...and a two faced whore as their ticket. Nice job...

Biden/Harris is a massive step up on trump/pence. A chance for the US to recover.

With all due respect, Tommy...are you kidding? Joe Biden has been running for President since Richard Nixon was in office! He's a life long politician who has been part and parcel of the problems that the US finds itself in. He's never been an especially intelligent man and now by all appearances he's in the early stages of declining mental acuity. He's got some serious baggage with the Ukrainian scandal involving payoffs to his drug addict son and even larger payoffs from companies backed by the Chinese government! Look at any of his campaign ads and tell me what you see for SPECIFIC policies? Have you ever seen anything as vague as what they're putting out? He says he'll "fix" things but gives zero examples of what he'll be doing to get that done. He simply asks the voters to trust him!
As for Kamala Harris? What foreign policy experience does she have? What background in economics? What exactly is it that she brings to the table other than the fact she's black?

Reagan ran multiple times for president. trump is an example of our national problem. Rich pampered white men who feel they are above the law. Biden has stated what he will fix, his plan is on the internet. trump has been without a plan and doesn't have one now. He just promises you the freedom to be racists. That's why you support him. Biden/Harris both are better than trump and Pence. Hopefully trump can't cheat his way to a second term.

delusional ravings.

 

[IM2]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

I know you cannot see the orange tamarack of the fall yet, my dear Mr. Tainant, but the conservatives of your neighbors to the south are right in more ways than can be counted by unsympathetic savants of the left, whoever they might be.

We believe that God will carry us through the years of angst our fellows on the left aisle would have us suffer if we allowed their fickle selective and injurious whims to destroy God's loving gift of freedom delivered to such men as Washington, Franklin and Jefferson to share with the rest of the world"s people through love that grew from suffering, and answered prayers.

You support satan. This pandemic and unrest are the punishment for that support of satan by those like you.