If they don’t admit it it is simply proof of the accusation.
Kamala Harris is soooo bad.
- Thread starter herkyhawk00
- Start date
Lol, has trad ever been right about a political take ever?
This is a plus for "DEI training." Plausible deniability.
GQP: "CRT is unAmerican race-baiting!"
DEI Incorporated: "CRT? You don't even know what it is, obvioulsy bruh. Are you even IN law school?!?!"
Also DEI Incorporated: "Check your privilege, colonizer. Any questioning, criticism, or general failure to agree with the ideas presented here obviously means you NEED this 'training'."
I’m an independent so I don’t have a horse in the race. I’m also not going to waste time talking about Pence as he could have been so much worse than he was. I think Cheney holds the title for worst VP this century because of what he did to this country.
In reference to Harris, she isn’t a good VP. It really is disappointing that she was the one picked as she doesn’t have a future in the big seat. She isn’t a very good speaker, her personality isn’t that great or likeable, and the ideas she ran on in her primary were barely consistent. On top of that, she couldn’t run a viable campaign as there was too much infighting going on which killed her chances before the primaries even happened. Biden could have picked one of the younger and more personable options like Yang, Castro, or even Pete and they would have done just as well while setting up the future of the Dem party. Or he could have picked someone highly competent like Klobuchar and given her a head start towards a top of the ticket run. Instead he gave the VP slot to the candidate that never had much of a following, that dropped out of the race even before the Iowa caucus, and that accused him of being racist on national tv.
In reference to Harris, she isn’t a good VP. It really is disappointing that she was the one picked as she doesn’t have a future in the big seat. She isn’t a very good speaker, her personality isn’t that great or likeable, and the ideas she ran on in her primary were barely consistent. On top of that, she couldn’t run a viable campaign as there was too much infighting going on which killed her chances before the primaries even happened. Biden could have picked one of the younger and more personable options like Yang, Castro, or even Pete and they would have done just as well while setting up the future of the Dem party. Or he could have picked someone highly competent like Klobuchar and given her a head start towards a top of the ticket run. Instead he gave the VP slot to the candidate that never had much of a following, that dropped out of the race even before the Iowa caucus, and that accused him of being racist on national tv.
Since when has being a competitve Presidential candidate been a requirement for VP? I dont think that was true of Pence, Cheney or even Quayle... you make a stink about all of those too?
This is all true, but naming a woman of color as his VP candidate was more important to Biden than actual qualifications. That's the problem with identity politics. We end up with someone totally unqualified who is one heartbeat away from the most powerful job in the world. As you said, there were plenty of other people far more qualified to be VP, but Biden and the Democrats virtue signaled their way into selecting a total disaster of a person.
I don't think it had anything to do with her skill as much as it was to have a person of color/woman in one of the two seats. The R's have more of a shot at landing the top seat with that combo & Dems are trying to stay ahead of that dangerous proposition for the next cycle.
Last edited:
For Dems I'd think it'd be more relevant if Joe is indeed a 1 term president. She'd definitely be the front runner for the 2024 nomination if that's the case.
Being a good candidate in 2020 isn't a pre-requisite for that but being a good VP is....
I don't think anyone would argue that Harris' selection as VP is as much about providing diversity in executive leadership as anything else. That said, can you tell me, specifically, what she has done to this point to merit a label as "terrible" relative to past VP's? This is an honest question, as I haven't really seen what she has done up to this point.
Biden has put her in charge of immigration and voting rights. Two huge issues right now. Both are high risk, high reward. If she can substantively solve one or both she looks like a genius and catapults herself into presidential talks. If she can't, she takes most of the heat. This is why she was chosen: to take on these difficult and thankless tasks.
I think "terrible" is a little unfair. She definitely needs to get better at handling the press though....if Lester Holt is throwing her for a loop with a question she had to know was coming she needs to work on her messaging skills.
I would argue that communication skills are important, so it's fair to criticize her on that point.
Could be argued it's the most important skill for a VP to have in regards to their roll in a administration.
Pence's interview skills aren't relevant to criticisms of Harris' communication abilities.
Yeah...
Some folks smell different than others too...
Do you honestly think this makes any difference to any one other than naysayers? This is just another method of dog-piling......
Well...she's...she's a WOMAN!! And...she's - you know *sideways glance* - black!
As a VP candidate, she brought nothing to the table. Biden was not going to lose California. He was also not going to lose the minority or women's vote. Past VPs, including Pence, helped the Electoral College numbers. Pence helped shore up Midwestern states.
Harris came with a boatload of baggage. Her history as a prosecutor was terrible for minorities. There were incidents of her withholding evidence from defense attorneys. She slept her way into office by having an affair with a married man 31 years her senior. She had previously called the guy at the top of the ticket a racist. The list goes on.
Her only qualifications for the job were her gender and her skin tone. She is simply not a likeable person. She's rude and condescending and doesn't know how to handle a tough question without that dismissive, nervous laugh. To this point, the media has been pretty easy on her, but they are starting to hold her feet to the fire. The Lester Holt interview could have been a shining moment, but she didn't handle it well. After her "I haven't been to Europe" comment, a real journalist would have come back with something like, "the President didn't put you in charge of the crisis in Europe," but he let her off the hook. Still, she came out of it looking flustered and ill prepared for a question that I'm sure she had in advance.
Mike pence was picked because he was a suckass to the biggest fraud ever in politics and to the suckers, idiots, and losers who are in his cult. As bad as Harris might be(any jury, that doesn't include members of the trump insurrection party, would still be out) but she is still head and taillights above the dim bulb yes man pence.
Trump and Pence left immigration a complete mess and Biden and Harris have only had 6 months to clean it up. I will give her a complete pass for not knocking a couple of interviews out of the ballpark over what is a very difficult issue. Nobody would look good after an immigration interview right now.
No he's not, you know, and affirmation from you isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.
Ummm, not sure how you could possibly say she came close to winning that debate with Pence. I’m not arguing about which person is better than another. If you think she is the bomb, so be it. Lol. I am just stating my own opinion, but even the left wing media is having a hard time not cringing at her answers.
Similar threads
