• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Kamala Harris Election Campaign

The Atheist said:
I've seen that same comment made by a surprising number of people and don't get how it's even possible to suggest it.

Hillary might have a been a silly old cuckqueen but she wasn't a racist, misogynist criminal, unlike her opponent.

She wasn't Snow White, but she sure as hell wasn't Donald J Trump.
Click to expand...

"But Trump was a successful BUSINESSMAN!!!!"

Aside from the fact of, well, sorta kindof, in a "if you give someone lots of money they will find ways to use it, you win some, you lose some" sort of way, but the bigger problem was that Trump's business experience didn't really match up with the "leadership in running the country" sort of way.

Trump was always the "boss." The president is more like the CEO, who needs to work with the BoD to satisfy the stakeholders. Trump was never accountable to anyone, and that's the way he tried to run the country. It doesn't work that way. And anyone who was paying attention knew that going in.

The other thing you will hear is that "Trump isn't one of those dirty politicians." True, he wasn't. He was the dirty guy paying off the dirty politicians. He was not in the least a "Washington outsider."
 
acbytesla said:
I don't even know what that means.

Hillary wasn't more liberal than 90 percent of any Democrat on the national stage. She certainly wasn't any more liberal than than Joe Biden. She's no Joe Manchin maybe. I've heard more Democrats accuse her of being Republican light.
Click to expand...

There were many, many people who passionately disliked Hillary for literally decades before she ran for President.

Kamala faces no such thing. That's why she really might win this.

:)
 
TragicMonkey said:
The negative campaign against Hillary Clinton started long, long before. Back in the 90s even before Bill won his first election the right wing media machine was pumping out hate for Hillary. She was demonized before she even had a chance to do anything in government. It was just as vague back then, though, as to what precisely about her was so evil. Just that she was. And it stuck for thirty years.
Click to expand...

True, but they put it in high gear during those two years.
 
acbytesla said:
HRC is the perfect example of what two years of a constant negative campaign can do. She had a very high approval rating as a Senator and Secretary of State. And when it was clear to the GOP that she was probably going to be the Democratic nominee, they went after that high opinion rating. We heard about Libya and her emails non-stop.

Almost no one offers a good reason why they didn't like Hillary. They just know that they didn't.
Click to expand...

There was a time very, very long before she was running for President or even was SoS, where I asked, why all the hatred for HRC? And the answers were things like, "She said that when she was First Lady, she wasn't going to sit around making cookies all day." Boy, that pissed them off!
 
I think the fact that in 2016 either a Clinton or a Bush had been in one of the top 5 positions in the country, and mostly President or Vice President, for going on decades was at least a factor.

I think American culture has very vague, very hard to define, very VERY hard to predict but definitely there thing where after a while we get tired of anything that feels like a "dynasty" in politics.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
There were many, many people who passionately disliked Hillary for literally decades before she ran for President.

Kamala faces no such thing. That's why she really might win this.

:)
Click to expand...

That was the thing about Clinton. Despite a 20 year attack against her, she still came within an Electoral College hair of being elected President.

She scared them ******** from the beginning, and so that's why they were on the attack.
 
Hercules56 said:
There were many, many people who passionately disliked Hillary for literally decades before she ran for President.

Kamala faces no such thing. That's why she really might win this.

:)
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, yes. All of that is very true. But if you look at Hillary's history, you will see that after her time in the Senate and as SecState, she had raised her favorable ratings to above 60 percent.
 
TragicMonkey said:
The negative campaign against Hillary Clinton started long, long before. Back in the 90s even before Bill won his first election the right wing media machine was pumping out hate for Hillary. She was demonized before she even had a chance to do anything in government. It was just as vague back then, though, as to what precisely about her was so evil. Just that she was. And it stuck for thirty years.
Click to expand...

You are correct.

I remember well the '92 campaign and all the hate for "Hillary Rodham (Clinton?)" It was one of the things that put me off the Republican party for good.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
He's priming the pump* of his supporters that Democrats are cheating/faking/stealing, so that he can continue the lie should election day not be his friend.


*"Have you heard that expression used before? Because I haven’t heard it. I mean, I just…I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good." - Donald Trump
Click to expand...

Even if it was a really obscure idiom, believing that Trump coined it would require belief that Trump knows jack **** about pumps, and I don't think he could understand anything more mechanically complicated that a bucket of chicken.
 
acbytesla said:
I don't even know what that means.

Hillary wasn't more liberal than 90 percent of any Democrat on the national stage. She certainly wasn't any more liberal than than Joe Biden. She's no Joe Manchin maybe. I've heard more Democrats accuse her of being Republican light.
Click to expand...
Harris is soft on immigration, supports gun control, is against the death penalty, opposes the trans-pacific partnership and NAFTA. This is about choices though, I still support her over Trump.
 
Hercules56 said:
There were many, many people who passionately disliked Hillary for literally decades before she ran for President.

Kamala faces no such thing. That's why she really might win this.

:)
Click to expand...
True. Hilary was just such a bitch. Kamala just doesn't have that baggage.
 
Marcus said:
Harris is soft on immigration, supports gun control, is against the death penalty, opposes the trans-pacific partnership and NAFTA. This is about choices though, I still support her over Trump.
Click to expand...

No, she's not. Harris has already stated that she would sign the tough immigration bill the Republicans wrote and tanked for Trump. And yes, she is for additional gun control as am. I've never understood why people aren't for some limits on firearms as well as background checks. Nobody needs an AR-10.
 
acbytesla said:
No, she's not. Harris has already stated that she would sign the tough immigration bill the Republicans wrote and tanked for Trump. And yes, she is for additional gun control as am. I've never understood why people aren't for some limits on firearms as well as background checks. Nobody needs an AR-10.
Click to expand...
I would rather argue for her than against her, I am supporting her against Trump. Let someone who supports Trump argue against her.
 
Marcus said:
I would rather argue for her than against her, I am supporting her against Trump. Let someone who supports Trump argue against her.
Click to expand...

I'm just pointing out that she's not soft on Immigration. I'd say the only reason we have the immigration problems we have is because of Republicans, but that is a gross oversimplification.

I wish people would understand that a significant amount of our immigration problems is a direct result of our foreign policies. That and the Catholic Church and it's opposition to birth control.
 
arthwollipot said:
Such as?

Why?
Click to expand...

I assume because Republicans can't stand the sight of a strong Nord woman.

She represented everything religious conservatives want to take back about women's liberation in the '60s and '70s. In the '92 campaign, there was a lot of focus on her "radical" activities as a student. When people criticized her for not being more traditional, she joked that perhaps instead of political demonstrations, she should have had some bake sales instead.

Conservatives lost their **** about how she was mocking traditional female role models, when in fact what she was mocking was the suggestion that *she* was under some obligation to conform to them (which I presume is, to many of her critics, the same thing).
 
Last edited:
Reformed Offlian said:
I assume because Republicans can't stand the sight of a strong Nord woman.

She represented everything religious conservatives want to take back about women's liberation in the '60s and '70s. In the '92 campaign, there was a lot of focus on her "radical" activities as a student. When people criticized her for not being more traditional, she joked that perhaps instead of political demonstrations, she should have had some bake sales instead.

Conservatives lost their **** about how she was mocking traditional female role models, when in fact what she was mocking was the suggestion that *she* was under some obligation to conform to them (which I presume is, to many of her critics, the same thing).
Click to expand...

That's an excellent observation.
 
arthwollipot said:
Such as?

Why?
Click to expand...


Because the entire massive right wing propaganda machine had been involved in a sophisticated and coordinated effort to unfairly paint her and her husband in the worst possible light ever since her husband announced he was running for President.

The power of Fox News, right wing talk radio and talking points repeated ad naseum via a political echo chamber should not be underestimated.

Every single scandal accusation launched at Hillary was bull **** manufactured to sabotage Bill's presidential campaign, his presidency and hers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom