Kamela Harris' first rally

Its not that she can talk to children, it's that she often comes across as though she thinks she's talking not particularly bright children.

She must be champing at the bit to debate Trump, then - he is the perfect not particularly bright toddler.
 
Speaking of children (and teens), they apparently love her over at TikTok. They've co-opted a Republican campaign that tried to ridicule her with out-of-context clips and turned her into an icon of the summer 'brat' trend.

Again, I love the energy.
 
She often comes across as a pendant talking to children.

Noticed this too in the couple of speech's I have seen. My assumption is that she can moderate her tone? She has to show the American people why they should be voting for her, give a positive vision for the future. In the recent UK election Sunak was an attack dog all of the time and was punished. He is now such a chill and nice and warm seeming fellow that I think many people are asking "who is this?".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess the question (about Dump's approval rating) is understandable given how many whataboutisms there are these days.

More contrast.
*
Raised fist, screaming "FIGHT!" like a lunatic, saying that "I'm afraid that if we lose it'll take a civil war to save this country."

To be fair, he walked back the civil war part after the rally, but this is what the Democrats are up against. Bullies with a love for fighting and violence.

*EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25vv1TkpGA4 I got an error message trying to play the embedded vid

I hope everyone listening to that diatribe makes a note about what is really being said here, because it is very very different from what even the most darkly pessimistic Democrats and others are saying. He says "It'll take a civil war to save this country."

This speech is actually, literally threatening and promoting a civil war if his side loses. Whether he walked it back later or not, this is the prevailing attitude of the Trump movement, that democracy is expendable in favor of conformity to the ideals of a tyrannical minority. This should be shouted from the rooftops.

Apologies in advance to the centrists among us here, who I am sure are fine folks and all, but there is no center here.
 
...Apologies in advance to the centrists among us here, who I am sure are fine folks and all, but there is no center here.

Notice how certain "centrists" here more often than not tend to insist that "lefties and progs" curb their rhetoric while insisting "Trump is just being Trump." Also, they seem to have a lot of advise on who the Dems nominate and never seem satisfied...ultimately they will just vote Trump because they did not like the Dem candidate and they need to rehydrate with "liberal tears".
 
She often comes across as a pendant talking to children.

Noticed this too in the couple of speech's I have seen. My assumption is that she can moderate her tone? She has to show the American people why they should be voting for her, give a positive vision for the future. In the recent UK election Sunak was an attack dog all of the time and was punished. He is now such a chill and nice and warm seeming fellow that I think many people are asking "who is this?".

I thought she sounded great.

FYI: It's pedant, not pendant.

Couldn't resist, because this is the definition.

Pedant
noun
a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.
"the royal palace (some pedants would say the ex-royal palace)"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought she sounded great.

FYI: It's pedant, not pendant.

Couldn't resist, because this is the definition.

Pedant
noun
a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.
"the royal palace (some pedants would say the ex-royal palace)"

Just copied and pasted, with regards to pendant. I thought she was very good too, although not great, but she has to show some compassion and thoughtfulness. Only Trump seems to be able to get away with attack attack attack and get away with it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Should she smile more?

Pretend she's a white man. Would yo ube trying to police her tone?
 
Should she smile more?

Pretend she's a white man. Would yo ube trying to police her tone?

To me? Yes, the election we just had in the UK is a good indicator of how being respectful, sincere and honest about the challenges facing Britain wins you an election. The governing party's leader was aggressive, petulant, and came across quite unpleasantly. The Labour leader technically lost the 2nd debate but I couldn't bear Sunak and voted that night.

Tone is important, particularly when your up against someone who has only one tone, angry and aggressive, and he's really good at it. Be the calm, rational, thoughtful voice. Only attack when you have to. That's my opinion anyway, nothing to do with her gender.

This was just one speech though, long way to go.
 
Last edited:
Tories lost because they had power for 14 years and their policies were disasters. All they had was nastiness and racism.

If tone is so important, explain the Orange Weakling.

Calling a goon a goon, a racist a racist, a rapist a rapist, and a fascist a fascist are all pretty goddamned sincere and honest. And you haven't said a ******* thing about any of the men who use way harsher language than Harris.
 
Tories lost because they had power for 14 years and their policies were disasters. All they had was nastiness and racism.

If tone is so important, explain the Orange Weakling.

Calling a goon a goon, a racist a racist, a rapist a rapist, and a fascist a fascist are all pretty goddamned sincere and honest. And you haven't said a ******* thing about any of the men who use way harsher language than Harris.

Agreed that the tories lost through performative cruelty in their last few years but they continued this in their election campaign.

The orange person is an aberration in politics, I can't explain him.

Let other people call trump what he is or she risks alienating voters, Harris should stick to one or two attack lines, in my opinion (obviously I'm not a political strategist so I could be wrong).

Look at the UK, did Blair or Cameron use harsh language? Blair was the most successful politician of the modern age in the UK but he came across as a thoroughly nice chap. Same for Obama, who is the best politician I've ever seen. (yes we can).
 
Last edited:
@TragicMonkey: You have a point. I guess the counter-argument might be that, well, sadly a lot of people, many of whom vote, don't think that far. Women are still judged differently from men when it comes to these things, unfortunately.

Then again, I don't think anyone offended by a (possibly) pedantic tone from Harris is going to instead vote for ******* Drumpf, so I'm not sure how big the problem really is.
 
Let's consider:
barring an October Surprise, Trump is now at the absolute PEAK of popularity, having been boosted from the Convention and, just to remind everyone, surviving an assassination attempt. He also got a VP who is injecting energy into the campaign.
This was supposed to be the moment when Republicans reached and kept their momentum, with Biden too weak to do much about it.

Now, the tables are turned, and Trump is definitely on the defensive. Every momentum is gone.

At this moment, it looks like Harris can only go Up, and Trump can only go Down.
This was the beauty of the timing of Mr. Biden’s announcement he was withdrawing. Who knows if it was intentional; nevertheless, the Republican party had just spent the four days of their convention, with all the corresponding public and media attention, attacking a man all for naught. Four days they didn’t get to lie about and smear and belittle and denigrate the person who would in a few dozen hours be the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Planned or not, the result was the same: Joe Biden drew fire, giving Kamala Harris initial cover.

And the bonus? You just know it maddened their side to be caught with their collective dicks in their hands.
 
Last edited:
Tories lost because they had power for 14 years and their policies were disasters. All they had was nastiness and racism.

If tone is so important, explain the Orange Weakling.

Calling a goon a goon, a racist a racist, a rapist a rapist, and a fascist a fascist are all pretty goddamned sincere and honest. And you haven't said a ******* thing about any of the men who use way harsher language than Harris.
Can't explain Trump in terms that apply to other pols, none have been nearly as successful by being such an *******. How many times had he done something that the media and political class announced it was over and he some carried on through it.
That hasn't been sincere since 1944. Rapist and racist aren't either anymore, maybe goon is still used sincerely most of the time.
 
How are they not sincere? He fits the description almost perfectly. You can argue he isn't smart or disciplined to be a fascist, but he certainly does seem to supprot their tactics.

And he is a rapist. And not just of adult women. He has forced preteen girls into sex.
 
That hasn't been sincere since 1944. Rapist and racist aren't either anymore, maybe goon is still used sincerely most of the time.

Huh? I'm genuenely not even sure what you're trying to say here. Can you rephrase?
 
Huh? I'm genuenely not even sure what you're trying to say here. Can you rephrase?
He's saying that Republicans have been fascists, rapists and racists for so long that the insults don't carry any weight anymore. Of course Trump is racist. Everyone knows he's racist. Everyone supporting Trump has already factored in that they're signalling support for overt racism. It doesn't change anything to hear it repeated. No one is going to change their mind just because someone points out his calls to revive Operation Wetback are super racist. He's done it his whole career. He's as racist as a half-melted mango popsicle can possibly get. We know it. They know it. They're 100% okay with it. So what's the point of it?
 

Back
Top Bottom