December 3, 2024

12 thoughts on “Asses&Villains: Kamala’s Path to the White House

  1. How I love this thread on a Sunday morning with a cup of good dark roast coffee in hand to make the experience that much more pleasurable and enjoyable as I sit here contemplating the fact that we are living inside some kind of hallucination or a National Lampoon parody or spoof:

    April 4, 2013:

    President Obama assessed the beauty of California’s attorney general Kamala Harris, calling her “the best looking attorney general,” during remarks at a fundraiser in Atherton, California.

    (He liked her “booty”)

    ***********************************************

    THE NEW YORK POST

    “Jill Biden said Harris should ‘go f–k’ herself for debate attack on Joe”

    By Steven Nelson

    May 19, 2021

    Jill Biden said Kamala Harris should “go f–k” herself after famously questioning her husband’s record on race during a Democratic primary debate, according to a new report.

    The future first lady fumed to supporters after Harris, who is now President Biden’s vice president, slammed his record opposing federally mandated interracial busing to desegregate schools.

    “That little girl was me!” Harris told Biden in one of the most cutting moments of the Democratic primary.

    Jill Biden vented one week later on a group phone call with supporters, according to an account published by Politico.

    “With what he cares about, what he fights for, what he’s committed to, you get up there and call him a racist without basis?”

    “Go f–k yourself,” Jill Biden allegedly said.

    Joe Biden also was furious about the attack.

    While still on stage during the debate, Biden allegedly turned to fellow candidate Pete Buttigieg and said of Harris’ attack: “That was some f–king bullshit.”

    ***********************************************

    BUSINESS INSIDER

    “AOC slammed Kamala Harris for telling Guatemalan migrants ‘do not come,’ saying the US helped destabilize the country in the first place”

    wbostock@businessinsider.com (Bill Bostock)

    8 June 2021

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York has criticized Vice President Kamala Harris’ rejection of Guatemalan migrants, saying the US was in part responsible for destabilizing the country in the first place.

    At a press conference in Guatemala City on Monday, Harris told Guatemalans thinking of trying to enter the US to stay home, saying: “Do not come.”

    Later Monday, Ocasio-Cortez said of Harris’ speech: “This is disappointing to see.”

    “First, seeking asylum at any US border is a 100% legal method of arrival,” she said.

    “Second, the US spent decades contributing to regime change and destabilization in Latin America.”

    “We can’t help set someone’s house on fire and then blame them for fleeing.”

    The US recorded more than 178,000 migrants – many of which were Guatemalan – trying to enter the US-Mexico border in April, the US Customs and Border Patrol said.

    It was the highest one-month total in 20 years, CNN reported.

    On March 24, Biden said that he was putting Harris in charge of all affairs concerning the southern US border.

    At her Monday speech, Harris said: “I want to emphasize that the goal of our work is to help Guatemalans find hope at home.”

    “At the same time, I want to be clear to folks in this region who are thinking about making that dangerous trek to the United States-Mexico border: Do not come.”

    “Do not come.”

    “We, as one of our priorities, will discourage illegal migration.”

    “And I believe if you come to our border, you will be turned back,” she added.

    Guatemala was Harris’ first foreign trip as vice president.

    ***********************************************

    The Daily Caller

    “‘Don’t Think She Has Any’: Several Swing-State Voters Can’t Name Single Kamala Harris Accomplishment

    Story by Jason Cohen

    31 July 2024

    Several Georgia voters told Newsmax they could not name any of Vice President Kamala Harris’ accomplishments during a segment that aired on Tuesday.

    Some of the voters on “National Report” named Harris’ accomplishments before assuming the role of vice president without citing policy wins, while others could not name any successes throughout her entire career.

    One male voter said he “can’t” name a few of Harris’ accomplishments.

    Another female voter remained silent when Newsmax asked her what the vice president’s accomplishments are.

    Two other female voters said they don’t think Harris has any accomplishments.

    “I honestly just don’t think she has any,” one of them said.

    “The four years that she was in office as vice president, I didn’t hear her speak once until, like, last week.”

    “So that’s kind of my take on it.”

    Four male voters noted Harris was a district attorney in San Francisco as an example of the vice president’s accomplishments.

    None of the voters mentioned Harris’ time in the Senate, where she pushed several left-wing pieces of legislation, including government workforce diversity, environmental justice, eviction pauses and work authorization for some unlawfully present migrants.

    She also previously endorsed a fracking ban, compared Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to the Ku Klux Klan and praised the “Defund the Police” movement.

    ***********************************************

    Vox.com

    “Analysis: Kamala Harris’s controversial record on criminal justice, explained”

    German Lopez

    26 January 2019

    Harris argues that her views align with the new progressive movement.

    But her record in California, where she was a prosecutor, district attorney, and state attorney general before representing the state in the US Senate, is likely to come in for harsh scrutiny and debate in the coming months.

    Harris argues that she’s fought to reverse incarceration, scale back the war on drugs, and address racial disparities in the criminal justice system.

    But as her star has risen nationally — she’s had several viral moments questioning President Donald Trump’s nominees in the Senate — those more familiar with her criminal justice record, particularly on the left, have increasingly voiced their skepticism.

    “In her career, Ms. Harris did not barter or trade to get the support of more conservative law-and-order types; she gave it all away,” wrote Lara Bazelon, a law professor and former director for the Loyola Law School Project for the Innocent in Los Angeles, in a recent New York Times op-ed.

    “Kamala Harris has spent her career fighting for reforms in the criminal justice system and pushing the envelope to keep everyone safer by bringing fairness and accountability,” Lily Adams, a spokesperson for Harris, told me.

    A close examination of Harris’s record shows it’s filled with contradictions.

    She pushed for programs that helped people find jobs instead of putting them in prison, but also fought to keep people in prison even after they were proved innocent.

    She refused to pursue the death penalty against a man who killed a police officer, but also defended California’s death penalty system in court.

    She implemented training programs to address police officers’ racial biases, but also resisted calls to get her office to investigate certain police shootings.

    But what seem like contradictions may reflect a balancing act.

    Now critics have labeled her a “cop” — a sellout for a broken criminal justice system.

  2. And it’s interesting that in an article in The Hill titled “Meghan McCain presses Harris to address policy: Insults ‘not going to cut it’” by Eden Teshome on 4 August 2024, it was stated that allies of the Harris campaign have called for Harris to drop her “prosecutor vs. criminal” line, in which she leverages her background as a career prosecutor against Trump’s legal battles.

    That would be because they DO NOT want that “prosecutor” record coming under scrutiny, which takes us back to the Vox.com article titled “Analysis: Kamala Harris’s controversial record on criminal justice, explained” by German Lopez on 26 January 2019, t0 wit:

    Harris’s troubling record as attorney general

    Based on Harris’s record, supporters easily could have expected her to come into the California Department of Justice as attorney general and really shake things up.

    But that didn’t happen: Her office’s handling of over-incarceration, the death penalty, and wrongly incarcerated people were among the several issues in which Harris by and large maintained the status quo.

    ****

    But Harris also allowed many parts of the Justice Department to essentially operate as they long had, which at times led to what many now see as major injustices.

    In many cases, this led to her office making decisions that Harris, under scrutiny, tried to distance herself from.

    For example, Harris’s office fought to release fewer prisoners, even after the US Supreme Court found that overcrowding in California prisons was so bad that it amounted to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.

    At one point, her lawyers argued that the state couldn’t release some prisoners because it would deplete its pool for prison labor — but Harris quickly clarified that she was not aware her office was going with that argument until it was reported by media.

    Or consider Harris’s handling of appeals for release by innocent people in prison.

    In one case, her office argued against Daniel Larsen, who was proven innocent by the Innocence Project, because, Harris’s office claimed, he filed his petition for release far too late after a legal deadline.

    The court disagreed, allowing Larsen’s release in 2014.

    (In the New York Times, Bazelon lists several more such cases.)

    As Harris said at a campaign event, “There are cases … where there were folks that made a decision in my office and they had not consulted me, and I wish they had.”

    But Harris could have changed department policy and become more hands-on in pushing reform, if she was willing to risk a potential backlash from the people under her.

    Then there’s the death penalty.

    Harris remains personally opposed to the death penalty, and earlier in her career, she’d been willing to incur political backlash by refusing to seek it in 2004.

    But as attorney general, she told voters she would enforce capital punishment.

    And she did: In 2014, she appealed a judge’s decision that deemed California’s death penalty system unconstitutional.

    Harris didn’t have to do this.

    But in office, she seemed to avoid antagonizing the rank and file — which opposition to the death penalty and other “tough on crime” policies could do.

    She often described herself as one of them, calling herself California’s “top cop” and writing in her 2009 book that liberals need to move beyond “biases against law enforcement.”

    Harris also overlooked and defended law enforcement officials accused of misconduct.

    In one such case, a state prosecutor, Robert Murray, falsified a confession, using it to threaten the defendant with life in prison.

    After a court threw out the indictment, Harris’s office appealed it, dismissing the misconduct because it did not involve physical violence.

    Harris also resisted some attempts to hold police accountable for shootings, including a bill that would have required the attorney general’s office to investigate killings by police and efforts to create statewide standards for police-worn body cameras.

    She also defied calls to have her office quickly investigate certain police shootings in California.

    And acting differently in these situations could have upset the rank and file — after Harris narrowly won her election in 2010 by less than 1 percentage point, without the support of most law enforcement groups.

    But her inaction angered activists.

    “How many more people need to die before she steps in?” an activist and former supporter, Phelicia Jones, told the San Francisco Chronicle in 2016, regarding police shootings.

    Jones went on, directing her comments to Harris: “We don’t even know that you care.”

    “You have turned your back on the people who got you to where you are.”

    Since her Senate campaign in 2016, Harris has tried to avoid the faulty parts of her record, and instead emphasized the reforms she’s supported and implemented over the years.

    Her presidential campaign website characterizes her as “for the people,” “speaking truth, demanding justice,” and “fighting to fix our broken criminal justice system.”

    Consider one of Harris’s common lines: She’s described her support for criminal justice reform as pushing for a better return on investment, pointing out that US prisons see recidivism rates as high as 70 percent or more.

    As Harris told the New York Times Magazine in 2016, “If we were talking about any other system where you have a failure rate of about 70 percent, the investors would say, at the very least, do a wholesale reconstruction, if not shut it down.”

    This is strong rhetoric — which suggests that Harris’s ultimate aim isn’t to merely tinker with the criminal justice system, but to seriously transform it.

    This aligns Harris far more with where Democrats are today, as Black Lives Matter, ACLU types, and criminal justice reformers push the party to the left on this issue.

    1. Trump also aligns closely with many Democrats! Like him, plenty are liars, thieves, and conmen and women. No one understands the criminal justice system like Trump!

      1. Trump actually was a Democrat and Bill and Hillary were quests at Trump and Melania Trump’s wedding reception back in January 2005.

  3. The Wall Street Journal had an interesting article titled “Opinion | Harris and the First Amendment” by The Editorial Board on 5 August 2024, that makes it clear that if elected Karmela Harris is going to be another DANGEROUS DEMOCRAT DICTATOR like Joe Biden, to wit:

    We keep looking for an issue, any issue, on which Kamala Harris differs with the Democratic left, but we keep coming up empty.

    end quote

    And they come up empty precisely because Karmela is a LEFTY, although her campaign and her media enablers and cheerleaders in the main stream and legacy media want us to believe otherwise, as if we were all stupid members of the Democrat “SACRED DEMOCRACY” CULT who think what we are told to think, because we are too stupid to be able to think for ourselves, which takes us back to that article, to wit:

    That includes her party’s use of lawfare against political opponents, as an episode while she was California Attorney General reminds us.

    Ms. Harris made headlines a decade ago by threatening to punish nonprofit groups that refused to turn over unredacted donor information.

    end quotes

    And threats are the tools DICTATORS use to govern with, so who can be surprised by that which takes us back for more, to wit:

    She demanded they hand to the state their federal IRS Form 990 Schedule B in the name of discovering “self dealing” or “improper loans.”

    The real purpose was to learn the names of conservative donors and chill future political giving — that is, political speech.

    Her bullying came amid the Internal Revenue Service’s notorious targeting of conservative nonprofits; Wisconsin’s probe of GOP donors; Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin’s intimidation of donors to the American Legislative Exchange Council; and a campaign of harassment against donors who supported California’s Prop 8 (which banned same-sex marriage).

    end quotes

    And yes, people, BULLYING, using the “law” as a knout or cudgel, which is another character flaw that marks out a DICTATOR, which again takes us back for more of the Karmela Harris story her campaign and media enablers and cheerleaders would rather remain covered up, to wit:

    Free-market nonprofits challenged the Harris dragnet, suing the AG’s office in a case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    In Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta in 2021, the High Court ruled 6-3 that the AG’s disclosure demand broke the law.

    end quote

    Except for incipient DICTATOR Karmela Harris, the law is what she wants it to be, in the mold of Soviet dictator Joe Stalin, who used his “laws” to rid him of his political opponents, which is what Karmela was trying to do, and anyone interested in that case can find it at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf which again takes us back to for as follows:

    The Court pointed out that a lower court had found not “a single, concrete instance in which pre-investigation collection of a Schedule B did anything to advance the Attorney General’s investigative, regulatory or enforcement efforts.”

    The Court said California’s claim that it would protect donor information lacked credibility, since during the litigation plaintiffs discovered nearly 2,000 Schedule B forms “inadvertently posted to the Attorney General’s website.”

    It noted that the petitioners and donors faced “threats” and “retaliation.”

    end quotes

    And of course they faced “threats” and “retaliation” and if Karmela wins the white house, that is the future those of us who aren’t DEMOCRAT “SACRED NDEMOCRACY” CULT members will face, which takes us back to this, to wit:

    The Supreme Court said Ms. Harris’s policy posed a risk of chilling free-speech rights, and it cited its 1958 NAACP v. Alabama precedent, which protected First Amendment “associational” rights.

    Ms. Harris is citing her experience as state AG as a political asset, but the Bonta case is a warning to voters that she’s willing to use the law as a weapon against political opponents.

    Lawfare has failed as a political strategy against Donald Trump while undermining public confidence in impartial justice.

    Ms. Harris’s record suggests she’ll continue down this abusive road.

  4. She will never be the President of The United States, even if they cheat. She is the most disgusting excuse for a woman that I have ever seen.

  5. Everything you all are saying, plus the fact she went after Pot smokers and laughs about how she was smoking pot is reason enough to not vote for her.
    However Trump can cancel that out in a heartbeat by not being in control of himself again and insulting twenty or thirty million moderates here and there and losing the election because of Stupid remarks.
    Otherwise he’d be a shoe-in.

    1. Can’t argue with that remark about Stupid remarks by Trump.

      As for me, I am damn sick and tired of STOOPID POLITICS by both gangs that call themselves “political parties.”

      Not a true statesman in the bunch of them, just jeering idiots on both sides of the aisle.

      I think the average IQ of the whole US Congress is hovering somewhere in the low thirties.

  6. After Biden, Trump is by far the most cognitively impaired person to ever run for president of the USA. God bless him and his family as they go through these trying times. God Bless America!

    1. As an older American who remembers America before it turned to ****, I got to wonder if God hasn’t turned his or her back on the America of today.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *