It's so obvious that trump's people fear Harris and have sicced Gabbard on her with...

[brush]

Last edited Wed Aug 7, 2019, 01:15 AM - Edit history (1)

false right wing spin on her AG tenure (debunked) but many here have fallen for it. They go after the ones they fear—Sleepy Joe, Pocahantas, etc.

[mcar]

1. It is obvious

I sure hope Democrats don't fall for it.

[EffieBlack]

6. Judging by the reaction by some here, it's too late

They already fell for it.

Or at least some of them want us to think they did.

[mcar]

11. Yep.

Like some didn't learn a damn thing from 2016 - or maybe they did.

[EffieBlack]

13. They learned plenty in 2016

Among other things, how gullible some Democrats are if the right buttons are pushed. And now they have a better handle on just what buttons to press ...

[hlthe2b]

2. Well, she's shown she'll do most anything to set herself apart.

Fortunately, I don't think that many Dems are going to go into their primaries as "low information" voters--albeit not as informed as DUers.

[brush]

20. See post 19.

[hlthe2b]

23. My comment was in reference to Gabbard

Though I don't like the Harris exchange with Biden, it fell into the realm of "politics" and Biden had to defend himself, which he was initially ill-prepared to do. I think there is considerable understanding--especially by older black supporters that times have changed and Biden with it and that is why Harris' punches failed to land a lasting blow, but they were fair in the first debate, I think. In debate 2, not so much and in fact seemed to backfire on Harris a bit.

Gabbard's continued defense of the murderous Bashar al-Assad and by extension, Putin, is what I am specifically referring. She has also given considerable cover to Trump with her twitter declaration that the Mueller investigation was "over" and "we need to move on"--this immediately after the Barr letter and before the Mueller report had even been released. So, far, what I've seen her level at Harris has been seemingly insinuations alone, some of which were clearly disproven or readily explained. What will continue to haunt Gabbard, however, is the former issues and I think most voters will both learn about them and consider them fully--just as her Hawaiian constituency has.

Politics is rough and tumble. But, if you try to take down your opponent with accusations of prior acts, I think you really need to have done one's homework and made sure of the facts. Gabbard's seem to be more of the "flailing" type.

[brush]

24. Agreed on just about all of your points. Gabbard seems to be a mole to me.

In the second debate I don't remember much of the exchanges between Biden and Harris. Politics is not tiddly winks that's for sure and actually a Biden/Harris ticket could beat trump.

It's early yet but I wonder if too much water is already under the bridge for that?

[walkingman]

3. I don't worry too much about the name calling between Dems. I understand that

if we have a chance to live in a world that has clear air, clean water, enough food, sustainable energy it is imperative that we join together in defeating the GOP and that means everyone that represents that ideoogy. Embrace our diversity, make a choice, and begin the revolution that is necessary for a decent world to live.

[pnwmom]

4. That does seem to be the tactic. n/t

[EffieBlack]

5. Yup

Clear as day.

Kamala’s obviously scaring some folk to death.

[H2O Man]

7. Recommended.

I'd love to see her debate Trump.

[StarfishSaver]

8. I don't think that will happen

If she's the nominee, Trump will refuse to debate her.

[H2O Man]

32. Probably.

There's probably no more chance he'd debate her than he would sit down with Mr. Mueller. But if he did debate her, it would be outstanding.

[betsuni]

9. These debunked CTs are like stains, hard to get out.

[LAS14]

76. What's a CT? nt

[PunkinPi]

78. Conspiracy theories. nt

[JI7]

10. she will go after Warren also. Deblasio is targeting the men

[MBS]

22. Agreed.

I do not trust her agenda, her goals, or her driving motivation. She’s definitely interested in knocking down her Democratic rivals, but why? If it were “only” about her personal (and, sorry, also preposterous) career goal of being president, I wouldn’t find her MO so disturbing. But there seems to be something stranger and more complex going on. We can’t afford side-shows like this right now, at this crucial moment in our history. Please go away Tulsi.

[democratisphere]

12. Conspiracy theories.

What next?!

[EffieBlack]

14. Because this time, no one is targeting Democrats with shady sh!t

[emmaverybo]

15. And now you come and tell it like it is. Harris supporters floated the idea of Gabbard as a Russian

sort of agent or Neo-Nazi endorsed candidate. Now she’s conspiring with Trump.

However, when Harris attacks, well, no conspiracy, just moral rectitude.

[JI7]

16. im not a Harris supporter. i would vote for Biden over Harris

and Gabbard is being pushed by Russian trolls .

[democratisphere]

17. Some of US know better. Much better!

[brush]

19. Your bias is showing. Biden bought that on himself by seeming to fondly reminisce...

publicly about working with segregationists who called him son and black men boy.
Talk about an unforced error. He never should have said anything about that. It was another of his famous gaffes and if Harris didn't call him out Booker would've as African American voters, which no Dem candidate can win without, would've been all over Harris and Booker for not calling Biden on it.

He never should have said anything about that. Harris and Booker were obligated to call him out as African Americans are tired of being counted on for our votes but never rewarded with leadership roles.

Wake up. Biden bought that on himself.

[Demsrule86]

33. And I would say Harris brought this on herself...attacking Biden is why she will lose the primary.

That is what I think. Now, much of the stuff about Sen. Harris is not a lie...there is substance and it has been reported by credible sources...she does herself no good by attacking Gabbard instead of refuting or explaining the accusations. I liked Sen. Harris a great deal before the first debate. But after the planned attack on Biden...not so much. I would still vote for her in a general of course, but she is not my second choice in the primary. She has a record just like Biden and it is fair to call her on it...and her's isn't 50 years old...as for working with the segregationists...what choice was there when they were head of committees...all worked with them including the lion of the senate Ted Kennedy..but it was 50 years or more ago-twisting Biden's word hasn't helped Sen . Harris...she has a more recent past which needs to be considered during this or any primary, and it is perfectly fair to question her aptitude to be our nominee based on her actions in past jobs...such as DA and AG.

[emmaverybo]

36. Here you go right off the bat with misinterpreting Biden's anecdote. He did not refer to the

segregationist Senator’s use of “boy” as a racial slur. Before the word was used with racist intent, and at the same time it was used by white men to infantilize and demean black men, it existed
as used in various contexts among white people: between subordinates and bosses, fathers and sons, with peers (where good ole boys comes from),pejoratively and, contrastingly, fondly.

Biden’s examples come from the Senate and the older Senator’s use of the word between white people to connote hierarchy. This is how he used it with Ed Kennedy. No racial connotation.

I am quite sure Biden explained this all to Booker in his phone call. But Booker continued, willfully,
to milk the reference to “boy” in Biden’s anecdote as a personal, deeply hurtful affront to himself, to all black people. When asked what he and Biden had discussed, of course he claimed privacy
concerns.

Harris tried to paint Biden as a racist segregationist. That dog only hunted so far.

Now she and Booker must make an honest appeal to potential black voters based not on Biden smears, but on their own record.

According to polls, they might have to go back to using Biden as a foil.
.

[tonedevil]

37. If you were working with...

someone with seniority over you would you prefer they call you boy or son? Biden has used the same general story for quite awhile and I have seen where instead of saying He never called me boy he always called me son, he said He never called me Senator he always called me son. Which one of those sentences conveys with no danger of racial connotation that Senator Eastland was insulting then Senator Biden? Biden made a mistake when he said boy instead of Senator and if he could just admit it this would have blown over a month ago.

[emmaverybo]

49. The senator called Ed Kennedy boy. If you want to ignore context, intent, and historical or regional

use to interpret the meaning in text or speech, go ahead. As to son, given Biden’s age, that was a bit paternalistic or condescending.

Biden was not referring to the senator’s using racial slurs in either case.

[tonedevil]

55. It seem obvious...

Eastland liked Biden better than he liked Kennedy just based on which condescending word he used to call each of them. I can't imagine anyone thinking that being called boy is not a worse insult than being called son. I agree that Biden wasn't using the word boy as a racial slur or indicating that Eastland was, although I suspect Eastland did on occasion.

Using the word boy as he did was a still a faux pas on the part of Biden. Taking a trip down memory lane to revisit your relationship with some of the last of the Dixiecrat Senators is fraught with danger. It has been said they had a pretty good relationship and from some of what I have read Eastland softened and that could have been a result of working with Biden. Thing is Eastland isn't remembered very well for his softening so Biden having any affection for him is viewed in today's world with skepticism. That collided with Biden saying Eastland never called him boy, but always called him son. That doesn't convey that Eastland was condescending to him instead it is easily interpreted as Eastland having called people boy, most of us associate that with White people using language to dominate Black people even if there are exceptions, but he used the softer possibly even affectionate word, son, for Biden.

[emmaverybo]

56. Fine. Biden made a faux pas in not anticipating how his anecdote from referring to Eastland's

use of boy to even mentioning segregationists could be interpreted. I believe it was more Kennedy who became friends of sorts with Eastland, but no matter, agree telling old Dixiecrat stories is as you well say “fraught with danger.” Certainly,has been the case!

[tonedevil]

58. It seems a simple...

accident of speaking. I really think it would have served him better to correct that as soon he said it. It is hard to think the difference in message went unnoticed by every one around him.

[brush]

40. Are you purposely missing the point?

The point was that Biden seemed to reminisce fondly of his time working with the segregationists.

That was something he never should've even talked about. It was an unforced error, one of the gaffes he's know for. Lucky for him this happened early in the campaign. IMO he was rightly called out for it and he hasn't told that story anymore. He hasn't lost support from African Americans and we all know no Dem can win without that support.

He hasn't told that story anymore and should stick to the present. I will vote for him if he gets the nomination. And sadly, our strongest ticket that could beat trump is Biden/Harris but too much water may have passed now for that to happen.

[oasis]

41. "...Biden seemed to reminisce fondly of his time working with the

segregationists". Many did NOT have the same take on it that you did.

Joe made a casual comment about how he possessed the unique ability to work with those two senators.

All the bunk about Biden's "praise" for the two was total spin promoted by the rival campaigns.

[brush]

43. Fine, but that was my opinion and that of many on the cable news shows. Guess you didn't see those.

[oasis]

44. I saw the polls: Biden up, Harris down, Booker flirting with zero.

What more do I need to see?

[brush]

45. The polls are the polls. That's not what the thread is about. I'll vote blue whoever the nominee is.

[R B Garr]

42. If you are leaving Trump out of the equation, then it is you

missing the point. Trump is not civil. Biden didn’t out of the blue just start “reminiscing” about segregationists. Good lord. It’s not “lucky” that most people didn’t buy the “gaffe” being sold about Biden. People are smart enough to see that his opponents were trying to get one over but they failed. Now one of them is stuck with the deep irony she created for herself — her current record is being used against her where she was trying to do that to Biden.

[emmaverybo]

51. Another ridiculous spin on the anecdote. Biden is terribly fond of his senate years. Harris is not

the most qualified VP Biden can find if he’s elected.

[brush]

52. What does your post mean?

[emmaverybo]

53. He was not reminiscing fondly about segregationists, but rather about a time of greater civility

in the senate period.

[brush]

54. Depends on your perspective. To many African Americans it struck a sour note that was best left...

unsaid. Many whites might not understand that. I'm African American and I was appalled that he even went there, and frankly embarrassed for him that he didn't think of the potential slight it was to AAs. There was no reason for it. It was offensive to hear an ally talk about "they used to call me son but called you boy."

Not a smart thing to say when a big part of the party base is African American. He was called on it. It's in the past and Biden should leave the past where it is as he's got a much longer record to be scrutinized than any other candidate.

[emmaverybo]

57. I agree not smart. But I can not agree that "boy" has only one connotation. No one owns the various

meanings possible in language. Biden was not referring to the Senator using “boy” as a racial slur.
He should have anticipated some would think he was being cavalier about using a racially offensive term meant to demean, shame, and bully.

I think it not necessary that Biden never speak of the past. He does not need to be ashamed of his very long pro civil rights record.

He does need to be sensitive to the possibility of offending, not mainly because a “big part of the party base is African American,” but because I am sure Biden doesn’t want to cause pain and add to the atmosphere of poisonous racism in politics at this time. It’s beyond votes.

[brush]

61. You're obviously not black and don't know the history of the "boy" insult to black men.

Do some research instead of making the mistake many non-POCs make by trying to explain to us how we shouldn't be insulted by historical racist insults you know nothing about and have never experienced.

[R B Garr]

85. That poster did no such thing as you are accusing.

And Biden wasn’t “reminiscing” about working with segregationists.

[brush]

86. Please. I said it appeared that he was. Not a smart thing at all to even talk about.

It's in the past. Joe has gotten the message that that kind of public "going back in time_ remembrance is fraugnt with danger as those times were fine for white people but racism and segregation was in full flower to black people so bringing up how segregationists he worked with called him "son" but called black men "boy" was not the smartest thing to do.

Why what could go wrong? Having a fellow candidate call you on it on national TV is what could go wrong. And you can deny it all you want but he did bring up how her worked with segretationists and they called him son and called black men boy. That did happen. It was one of his famous gaffes. He learned from it. It's in the past and he doesn't tell that story any more.

[tonedevil]

88. Senator Eastland was one of the most notorious...

segregationists and as a Senator Biden worked with him. His story is a remembrance of that work. He speaks of that time fondly because of the civility. That is the definition of reminiscing. You may want it to be something else, but it is not.
That was not the first time he took that trip down Memory Lane he did change something up that time though. A key sentence to understanding what an ass Eastland was to work with was He never called me Senator he always called me son. Very clearly Eastland is disrespecting Biden even while they work together as duely elected Senators of the United Sates. Though it does make it seem like the much vaunted civility was a one way street. Unfortunately for reasons that have never been explained Bide changed that key sentence to He never called me boy he always called me son. Given the loaded history of the word boy and the well documented racism of Eastland the easiest interpretation of that sentence is that Eastland called other people boy, remember that loaded history, and had a small measure of affection for Biden.

[R B Garr]

90. If you are ignoring Trump in the equation, then your

distraction about what Biden meant is really off base.

[tonedevil]

91. Some of us are capable...

of more complex thought, but I understand not everyone is.

[R B Garr]

92. Making things up isn't complex thought.

[tonedevil]

95. OK

[brush]

97. It's not complex to understand that Biden should avoid such stories from the past with negatives...

that don't reflect well on him. Not rocket science. And all the candidates should discuss the racist in the WH not the ones from the past.

[Tarheel_Dem]

93. I didn't feel slighted in the least, and I'm as black as you are. You, nor I, speak for ALL OF US.

[tonedevil]

96. OK

[brush]

100. I'm also African American and I thought it was something that should've been left unsaid.

Last edited Fri Aug 9, 2019, 11:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Why even go there when it might offend some in the most loyal demographic of the Dem base?

"...he called me son and you boy"? I mean really? Leave that stuff in the past.

Many were offended. If that wasn't the case we wouldn't still be talking about it weeks later and the cable news talking heads wouldn't have had their go at it too.

[StarfishSaver]

104. Black people who were offended by Biden's comments are told their offense is in itself offensive,

to get over it, how dare they say anything, etc. Meanwhile people (mostly white, but not all) who were offended by Harris saying she was offended are still bitching about it more than a month later.

Another reminder that black people, especially black women, aren't supposed to express ourselves in any way that might possibly ruffle white people's feathers and, if we do, we will be obsessively punished for it and accused of being hateful, hostile, and angry while the white people with the ruffled feathers are treated as innocent, victimized snowflakes.

[brush]

106. They don't know black women very well. But they better get to know them as AA women...

and men (don't forget about us) are the ones right now who will determine who the nominee will be. If the word gets around a switch can happen overnight.

[Tarheel_Dem]

111. As I said, I don't speak for all of us, and neither do you. n/t

[Demsrule86]

79. +10000

Exactly right..they deliberately in most cases misinterpret what Biden said.

[nini]

39. I thought Gabbard was a plant long before the debates even happened

Lots of others thought the same, so your notion it was Harris supporters who started that is BS.

[JI7]

50. going back to the last presidential election

[democratisphere]

94. A plant?

That has conspiracy theory written all over it!

[Aaron Pereira]

89. Seems like it.

I saw an opportunistic politician launching an over the top attack on Harris just the way Harris did to Biden.

[ucrdem]

18. I don't think Lara Bazelon's NYT piece has been debunked.

Someone posted a couple of negative tweets she's sent about other Democrats, so she's not a fan, but her claims about Harris's DA and AG terms haven't been debunked anywhere that I'm aware of. Not that they're disqualifying or even damaging, depending on how you view them, but they appear to be factually accurate.

[lapucelle]

46. Bazelon's embedded links don't support her version of the facts.

There's a reason that this piece is on the op-ed page. Personally, I don't trust op-ed writers who need to resort to distortion and equivocation to make their case.

Funny how her twitter feed includes nothing concerning the 2016 election.

Ms Bazelon's twitter account dates to 2013, but it appears that she tweeted nothing whatsoever before July 20, 2016, nothing whatsoever about either convention, nothing whatsoever about the general election campaign, and nothing whatsoever immediately before or after the election.

She finally broke her silence November 21, 2016 with a tweet linking to her Salon story:

Will John Roberts Save the Supreme Court From Donald Trump?

I wonder if Ms Bazelon has her answer yet.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/will-john-roberts-save-the-supreme-court-from-donald-trump.html

Ms Bazelon detailed her support of Betsy DeVoss's Title IX reforms n this NYT piece:

Opinion
I’m a Democrat and a Feminist. And I Support Betsy DeVos’s Title IX Reforms.
There is an uncomfortable truth in the current system. No one wants to talk about it.
By Lara Bazelon

The revisions are in line with court decisions that have characterized the current system as unfair. In August, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, ruling in a case from Michigan, declared that if a public university adjudicates what is essentially a “he said, she said” case, “the university must give the accused student or his agent an opportunity to cross-examine the accuser and adverse witnesses in the presence of a neutral fact-finder.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/04/opinion/-title-ix-devos-democrat-feminist.html

[ucrdem]

47. Possibly but where?

[lapucelle]

48. The NYT opinion piece.

You can find the links here.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1287214500#post33

[ucrdem]

62. Okay. I trust the NYT to fact-check links they publish in articles criticizing US senators. nt

[lapucelle]

71. I trust the NYT to fact check news articles too. This is not an news story. It's an op-ed.

That's why it's labeled OPINION in 32 font print. The NYT does not fact check opinions, nor does it's editorial board necessarily agree with or endorse the opinion.

The New York Times accepts opinion essays on any topic for both the daily print page and online section as well as the Sunday Review, the International edition (which is edited out of London and Hong Kong), and other themed series. Published pieces typically run from 400 to 1,200 words, but drafts of any length within bounds of reason will be considered.

snip==================================================================================

What, exactly, is an Op-Ed?

As Trish Hall, the former Op-Ed and Sunday Review editor has written, "Anything can be an Op-Ed.”Personal or explanatory essays, commentary on news events, reflections on cultural trends and more are all welcome. We're interested in anything well-written with a fact-based viewpoint we believe readers will find worthwhile.

https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014809107-How-to-submit-an-Op-Ed-essay

Because the NYT times requires a "fact based viewpoint", op-ed writers often include links. It is up to the reader to look at the facts and determine whether or not those facts support the the opinion. A responsible reader will do just that.

"This opinion is expressed on the pages of the NYT; therefore this opinion represents fact-checked news," is probably not the best way to approach an opinion piece, especially in an age where many people seek bias confirmation rather than genuine news.

When an opinion writer mischaracterizes legal strategies and conflates individuals with organizations, it is quite clear that the writer is not disseminating news, but advancing an agenda.

Caveat lector.

[lapucelle]

72. Why would anyone think the NYT fact checks opinions? That's the job of the responsible reader.

I chose to be a responsible reader. I encourage others to do the same.

[ucrdem]

73. For obvious reasons. Anyway I just checked the first 5 links, inc. 2 of yours, and they are fine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

[lapucelle]

74. Yes, the links work. The opinion writer skews the facts to support a position and an agenda.

I recommend that you read some other recent opinion pieces by Ms Bazelon to get a better perspective on her tactics. Argument from an atypical sample seems to be her go-to strategy. These arguments may be effective, but they are also dangerously flawed.

Here's news story about Betsy DeVoss's Title IX changes:

The proposed rules, obtained by The New York Times, narrow the definition of sexual harassment, holding schools accountable only for formal complaints filed through proper authorities and for conduct said to have occurred on their campuses. They would also establish a higher legal standard to determine whether schools improperly addressed complaints.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/29/us/politics/devos-campus-sexual-assault.html

Here's Lara Bazelon's NYT op-ed celebration of the "reforms".

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, ruling in a case from Michigan, declared that if a public university adjudicates what is essentially a “he said, she said” case, “the university must give the accused student or his agent an opportunity to cross-examine the accuser and adverse witnesses in the presence of a neutral fact-finder.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/04/opinion/-title-ix-devos-democrat-feminist.html

How very progressive of the progressive champion Ms Bazelon!

[ucrdem]

77. Nevertheless the piece is factually accurate and the links I checked support it. nt

[lapucelle]

81. The op-ed is not factually accurate. iIt presents a skewed and selective rendition of facts

in order to support an agenda.

[lapucelle]

83. For what obvious reasons? N/T

[madville]

21. Tulsi is angling for a position in the Biden Administration

It's obvious. Trump and company want anyone except Biden at this point. Trump would gladly want to face Harris over Biden.

[crazytown]

25. It's not Trump - he does not fear her

it is the alt-right/Russians reacting to Harris comments after the debate about Gabbard being an apologist for Assad.

[Kahuna7]

26. "Sleepy Joe, Pocahantas," ?????? I'm glad you can get away with

using derogatory names, because people would alert on me if I did it.

[BlueTsunami2018]

27. I think the OP was just pointing out Тяцмр's tactics.

Not using those terms personally to refer to Biden and Warren.

[Kahuna7]

28. I get it, but still....

WTAF. I don't even get the benefit of the doubt.

[brush]

34. Re-read the post. I said repugs use those names for the ones who they fear most. Got it?

[Kahuna7]

35. Did you not see where I said, I get....

What did you think that meant?

[BeyondGeography]

29. Harris was already having a bad debate on her own

before the attack. Her health care answers were hard to listen to. And then her post-debate response to Gabbard was alternatively tone deaf (“I’m a top-tier candidate.” Yeah, so?) and disproportionate. Gabbard’s a relative non-entity, no need to get in the mud with her on Syria/Assad ffs, just say she had her facts wrong, correct the record and move on.

[obamanut2012]

30. 100% agree

Very obvious.

[duforsure]

31. Red donnie and Putin

Because she's a threat to them both, but I think if she doesn't get the top spot she'd make an excellent AG. Gabbard can't be trusted. Is she a plant by these two?

[SouthernProgressive]

38. Biden and Warren have the POTUS going after them.

Gabbard, while being accomplished in her own right, is small potato’s. Harris will be ok.

[radius777]

59. Gabbard is from the Glen Greenwald alt-left philosophy,

that is economically far left and socially libertarian/conservative, that sees no Russian interference, that is sympathetic to Assad, that is resentful about 'identity politics', that goes on Fox news and complains about Dems, that strongly dislikes Hillary/Obama .. and now Kamala, who they view as the 'new Hillary' and thus targeted in the same way.

Gabbard seems to defend Biden - yet his past positions on crime/welfare reform are no different than Kamala's or any other Dem of the past generation, as crime during the 80/90s was historically high - and well intended leaders struggled for solutions. Even Bernie (reluctantly) voted for the Crime Bill.

Kamala is from a huge diverse state, and as AG her first duty was to keep people safe.

If she had been 'weak on crime' in a time of high crime, she would now be attacked as the black woman who was soft on crime.

[brush]

101. Well said. Apparently many even on this board don't know much about Gabbard and her stances/history.

[comradebillyboy]

60. I don't think it was Trump who sicced Gabbard on Harris.

I think it was one of the candidates for the Dem nomination who did that.

[Demsrule86]

80. Nasty thing to say...and absolutely no evidence of this.

[R B Garr]

84. Dem nomination? Or Dem. There is a difference. nt

[ucrdem]

63. This theory is very unlikely and anti-Democratic. nt

[brush]

64. Please. Gabbard has a long history of appearing on FOX and bashing Dems. She's also a Breitbart...

favorite and was on trump's short list for a cabinet position. And do I even have to mention her cozing up to Assad and the Russians?

Catch up.

[ucrdem]

65. She's a Democrat and entitled to as much respect here as any other Democratic candidate. nt

[brush]

66. She's a DINO.

[ucrdem]

67. Even so that's as much or more than other candidates who are not even that. nt

[brush]

68. Do you even know what DINO means?

[ucrdem]

69. Good night to you and your silly thread.

[Demsrule86]

82. And? We sure as hell need more 'dinos' especially in the Senate or we will never confirm a judge

again...this is the big tent party. Gabbard is being attacked because she went after Harris who for some reason is unable or unwilling to address the accusations concerning her record. The over the top hatred of Gabbard just makes Harris and some supporters seem like they are bullying Gabbard...not a good look.

[brush]

87. Please. She attacked Obama multiple times on FOX. She's a Breitbart favorite. She cozied up to Assad

a Putin ally. She was on the short list for trump's cabinet.

What's not to like . And the Russian bots and trolls hype her candidacy.

Give us a break. We know a spoiler candidate when we see one, like Jill Stein last presidential cycle.

[Andy823]

112. Actually

What is "not" a good look, is all of the Biden crowd that now seems to love Gabbard because she is basing Harris. It's much better to post positive things about your candidate than to side with someone with a questionable agenda like Gabbard !

[mcar]

99. David Duke is also a fan

[tritsofme]

70. One thing is obvious, you have a very active imagination.

[brush]

75. Do some research.

[tritsofme]

107. Please, don't implore me to research while spreading conspiracy theory nonsense.

At worst Gabbard is a useful idiot.

[brush]

108. Why are you messaging me and calling her a useful idiot yourself?

[tritsofme]

109. There's quite a difference between being a useful idiot, and being Trump's agent.

As your OP implies.

[brush]

110. So who would you say is using the idiot?

[StarfishSaver]

98. It also seems that they have sicced some other people on her as well

I'm just amazed at the amount of Kamala Harris trashing occurring on this board. I don't believe that it's all innocent. There's a distinct pattern. I think some elements are really afraid of her and are pulling out all the stops to take her down or weaken her, just like they did to Hillary in 2015-16. Unfortunately, it looks like people are falling for it. Fortunately, plenty of other people can see it and are pushing back on it.

[brush]

102. Makes you wonder is it because she's black or a woman...probably both. It's as if they forgot...

already how strongly she performed in the Kavanaugh hearings and other hearings.

IMO she rightly called out Joe Biden on the "...he called me son and you boy" story but many of his supporters won't admit that the telling of the story was an unfortunate, unforced error on Joe's part.

[StarfishSaver]

103. One tell occurred yesterday when some people went after Harris for not answering the question

whether Trump is a white supremacist. And when they were told that Biden, too, had refused to answer the same question, it was very entertaining watching the furious dancing that ensued as they tried to differentiate between the two refusals. Harris was "brittle," "defensive" and dismissive of the press (as if obeisance to the press is now a requirement) while Biden was "eloquent" and "nuanced."

[brush]

105. Oh, that's telling all right. I hadn't heard about the "furious dancing." I do like that description

I'm looking forward to the fall debates as the field will be winnowed down by then and the candidates with a chance wiil be able to appear together on one stage. And I hope everyone finally understands that politics is not tiddly winks. It can get serious.

BTW, what do you think of Wang and his guaranteed income proposal? I kinda like it as most of that money will be spent quickly which will spur the economy. I know he has littel chance of getting the nomination but further exposure mya help him get a cabinet post at Commerce or Labor even.