Kamala Harris

Quote: SOOPOO

I think I’ve told this story before here. In 1980 I voted for John Anderson. Solely for the reason that a friend was a big supporter of his (I was in college) and said he needed to get 5% of the vote to meet some financial threshold. (He did). I don’t think I became particularly interested in politics until the 1990’s, when I started meeting State Assemblymen and Senators about issues specific to Anesthesiology. By the late 90’s I became involved on the national level doing basically the same thing.

I do not remember voting in 1984.

Interestingly, what I did would make it ‘look’ like I was a lobbyist. Apparently I was told I was not, as I was a volunteer. So I was just a constituent.

Did you support HW Bush appointing Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall? Donny appointing Barrett to replace Ginsburg?

Quote: GenoDRPh

Did you support HW Bush appointing Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall? Donny appointing Barrett to replace Ginsburg?

I am no fan of Clarence Thomas. At the time of his appointment I don’t recall feeling one way or the other. Except that the Anita Hill pubic hair thing felt like another charge that could of course not be proved, nor disproved.

I have no problem with Barrett. But I certainly haven’t read her pre SC decisions to make a fully informed decision, if I were the one to make the appointment. But she seems like the kind of jurist you would expect a generally conservative President to make.

If you are angling towards a Roe v Wade point, I am as pro abortion rights as they come. I’m likely the only forum member who actively participated in helping women exercise their right to abort their fetus. That being said, I am not against each state deciding for itself. From what I’ve read, Roe v Wade was ‘bad law’. So if the Democrats want it legalized nationally, vote enough members in to make it so. Even without a federal guarantee, the people in more and more states are enshrining abortion rights in their state constitutions.

At least I don’t have to read terapined writing ROEVEMBER for a few years!

Quote: GenoDRPh

Did you support HW Bush appointing Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall? Donny appointing Barrett to replace Ginsburg?

What is wrong with Thomas? Did HW say he wanted a black ahead of time? Nope. He just appointed him.

You are completely missing the point said point being Biden outright said gender and color were his most important qualifications.

Yet again I will ask, "if DEI is such a great thing why do left wingers get so upset when it is pointed out Kamala was a DEI hire?"

Quote: SOOPOO

I am no fan of Clarence Thomas. At the time of his appointment I don’t recall feeling one way or the other. Except that the Anita Hill pubic hair thing felt like another charge that could of course not be proved, nor disproved.

I have no problem with Barrett. But I certainly haven’t read her pre SC decisions to make a fully informed decision, if I were the one to make the appointment. But she seems like the kind of jurist you would expect a generally conservative President to make.

If you are angling towards a Roe v Wade point, I am as pro abortion rights as they come. I’m likely the only forum member who actively participated in helping women exercise their right to abort their fetus. That being said, I am not against each state deciding for itself. From what I’ve read, Roe v Wade was ‘bad law’. So if the Democrats want it legalized nationally, vote enough members in to make it so. Even without a federal guarantee, the people in more and more states are enshrining abortion rights in their state constitutions.

At least I don’t have to read terapined writing ROEVEMBER for a few years!

I've dispensed plenty of Plan B and Hemabate, so I guess that makes me abortion-adjacent. And proudly so. But, this isn't about abortion. It's about white males getting pissed off they have to share the stage and power with people who aren't white males.

Quote: AZDuffman

What is wrong with Thomas? Did HW say he wanted a black ahead of time? Nope. He just appointed him.

You are completely missing the point said point being Biden outright said gender and color were his most important qualifications.

Yet again I will ask, "if DEI is such a great thing why do left wingers get so upset when it is pointed out Kamala was a DEI hire?"

Because she wasn't.

Edited

Quote: GenoDRPh

Because she wasn't.

Oh my dear God. Camel face was the biggest example, the most glaring obvious example of DEI ever to exist. Biden announced that he wanted a specific candidate by telling us the sex and race he wanted. And you think she wasn't one? And she wasn't even really black, ever see her DNA sample? That's because there wasn't one she refused to give it.

"When Joe Biden announced he'd pick a woman of color as his running mate, he thought he was being progressive. Instead, he walked right into a DEI trap, gift-wrapping ammunition for every critic ready to dismiss Kamala Harris as a "diversity hire.” . When we continually highlight race in hiring decisions, we're not moving towards a post-racial society; we are regressing on progress and we're cementing racial categories as the most important aspect of a person's identity." Forbes Magazine

Quote: SOOPOO

At least I don’t have to read terapined writing ROEVEMBER for a few years!

One does have to wonder if the Democrat Party is going to go wall-to-wall with a "we love abortion!" campaign in the next few elections. I love to laugh at the video of the "political analyst" who was buying champagne to "toast madame president!" upon the election being called for her. Along with all the others who said women were going to vote for the pro-abortion candidate as if that was the only issue women care about.

While Kamala was her own kind of disaster it is clear that this was not the issue to make front-and-center. It keeps going back to the dating site algo:

1. Are you pro-life or pro-choice?
2. How important is it to you?

On the dating sites it is a valid thing. People with opposites on the first part and say "very" to the second part are going to be a bad match as it is probably one of many things they will clash on.

But Kamala missed the second part. People who are both pro-abortion and it is "very important" probably vote for her over 90% of the time. As she kept telling us how much she loved abortion it was not going to get more of those people to vote for her. Flipside she would never get pro-life and very important at more than 10% or so. However, the people to whom it is not very important how will they react? They probably were waiting to hear what else she had to say. Other than "I HATE TRUMP" she said nothing else.

Thus I hope that Democrats run on "ROEVEMBER!" in 2026, 28, and 30. I figure they probably will. More and more people will get tired of hearing about it.

Quote: AZDuffman

One does have to wonder if the Democrat Party is going to go wall-to-wall with a "we love abortion!" campaign in the next few elections. I love to laugh at the video of the "political analyst" who was buying champagne to "toast madame president!" upon the election being called for her. Along with all the others who said women were going to vote for the pro-abortion candidate as if that was the only issue women care about.

While Kamala was her own kind of disaster it is clear that this was not the issue to make front-and-center. It keeps going back to the dating site algo:

1. Are you pro-life or pro-choice?
2. How important is it to you?

On the dating sites it is a valid thing. People with opposites on the first part and say "very" to the second part are going to be a bad match as it is probably one of many things they will clash on.

But Kamala missed the second part. People who are both pro-abortion and it is "very important" probably vote for her over 90% of the time. As she kept telling us how much she loved abortion it was not going to get more of those people to vote for her. Flipside she would never get pro-life and very important at more than 10% or so. However, the people to whom it is not very important how will they react? They probably were waiting to hear what else she had to say. Other than "I HATE TRUMP" she said nothing else.

Thus I hope that Democrats run on "ROEVEMBER!" in 2026, 28, and 30. I figure they probably will. More and more people will get tired of hearing about it.

About Kamala bashing Donald in her Political Campaign, that's a typical thing that Candidates do to their opponents. They mudsling their opponents but don't talk about how they will make life better for the voters. "Donald Trump is a Buffoon!" Uh, a HUGE majority of Americans are living below the poverty line and are starving, what are your plans as President to help out the poor and hungry Majority?" Donald Trump is an Idiot!" Uh....😵‍💫

Quote: Riverjordan

About Kamala bashing Donald in her Political Campaign, that's a typical thing that Candidates do to their opponents. They mudsling their opponents but don't talk about how they will make life better for the voters. "Donald Trump is a Buffoon!" Uh, a HUGE majority of Americans are living below the poverty line and are starving, what are your plans as President to help out the poor and hungry Majority?" Donald Trump is an Idiot?" Uh....😵‍💫

“You’ve been border tsar for four years.”
“And Donald Trump has been running to president for 10! Giggle giggle giggle”

At some point you have to actually answer the hard questions.