Reason Roundup

Harris Fans Blame Billionaires, Sexists, and Racists for Her Campaign's Collapse

Plus: Twitter terms seem to permit "shadowbanning," the case for Craigslist sex ads, and more…

|

Blaming everyone but Kamala Harris for her presidential campaign's collapse. The conversation surrounding Kamala Harris' exit from the 2020 presidential race has been reaching some ridiculous places since the California senator announced she was dropping out yesterday. Harris herself blamed billionaires, basically, while supporters and pundits expanded the blame to also include sexism, racism, biased media coverage, and other issues beyond the candidate or her campaign's control.

If you're wondering whether Democrats picked up any introspection since Hillary Clinton's 2016 loss was chalked up to sexism, racism, third parties, Bernie bros, and such…the signs aren't looking so good.

On social media and cable news, commentators keep coming back to alleged advantages enjoyed by other candidates—personal wealth, less scrutiny of their criminal justice records, etc.—to supposedly explain why Harris was forced to exit early (and to complain how unfair it is that folks like Michael Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar remain in the race).

But all of these explanations fall apart with the slightest scrutiny. Whatever setbacks Harris may have faced based on her race and sex, they pale in comparison to the challenges she and her campaign staffers brought upon themselves.

Staff and supporters have cited the senator's strategy, debate performances, and the flaws of her top advisors for why the campaign failed to sustain either popular or establishment liberal support.

The campaign certainly got its share of support from corporations and rich donors to start with, sustaining Harris through several Democratic debate cycles. So, the fact that former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg may be able to "buy his way in" to the upcoming debate by blasting the nation with a concentrated bout of self-funded campaign ads hardly seems like the stinging indictment that some want it to be.

Get back to me if Bloomberg and all his cash have any shot at getting near the White House—or even a second debate stage. But for now, Bloomberg's brief moment in the spotlight means nothing, and it's especially absurd to suggest he somehow knocked Harris out of the polls. Her numbers had been steadily declining for months before Bloomberg entered the race.

Some people have taken to blaming the "Kamala Harris is a cop" meme and any criticism of the former prosecutor and state attorney general's criminal justice record, while positioning these things as unfair gotchas, and maybe even racist. The Independent offers a particularly bad example of this, one that characterizes "Kamala is a cop" criticisms as springing forth in response to her surging popularity and not something that many leftists and libertarians had been saying for a long time.

Others complain that Harris isn't the only former drug warrior and tough-on-crime politician and yet, for instance, Amy Klobuchar, the senator from Minnesota, hasn't seen the same level of scrutiny over her prosecutor past. Former Vice President Joe Biden hasn't been hit constantly for the 1994 Crime Bill (though he has been hit some).

Most of the candidates have some bad criminal justice points on their records, of course. Klobuchar, Biden, and others should have to answer for their carceral ways (with Biden's burden bearing more recent examples than the crime bill, for what it's worth). But Harris is the only candidate who explicitly positioned her campaign around law-and-order themes, running with the tagline "Kamala Harris, For the People" (a callback to her time as a district attorney) and repeatedly emphasizing her "progressive" prosecutor past.

Harris all but wore a big sandwich board sign saying "ASK ME ABOUT MY HISTORY AS A COP" and then was completely unprepared when anyone did, with the campaign blaming bigotry for folks noticing the very things Harris herself kept harping on.

A lot of Harris fans are holding out hope that she'll find a spot on someone's ticket as a vice president. But this may be a bit delusional, considering the spectacular flaming out of her campaign and the fact that both Harris and her people seem to divide more than they unite.

Harris could have technically held on a little longeras Anna Massoglia of Open Secrets points out, she had more than $10 million in funds left. There's still time for her to qualify for the next debate. A candidate with her credentials and hype could, with the right messaging, still outlast the likes of Tom Steyer and exit respectably closer to the top of the tier.

Choosing to leave now is a strategic decision—no more need to attack potential future allies, no need to fumble around with wishy-washy messaging any longer—since all those excess campaign donations can now go to Harris' next senate race.

Biden said he had "mixed feelings" about Harris' campaign ending. "She is a first-rate intellect, a first-rate candidate and a real competitor," he told ABC News.


FREE MINDS

Twitter's new terms of service (TOS) contain some cause for worry. "The changes amount to about 10 lines scattered through the 12-page document," notes XBIZ. "While some of them are mere clarifications from the previous TOS, and one paragraph concerns the Twitter Vulnerability Reporting Program, there's one change in the terms of service that should concern those interested in the company's control over the content that one's followers see. In a nutshell: Twitter has explicitly reserved the right to shadowban, under the legalese of 'limit distribution or visibility of any Content on the service.'"

In the current TOS, Twitter reserves the right "to create limits on use and storage at our sole discretion at any time" and to "remove or refuse to distribute any Content on the Services, suspend or terminate users, and reclaim usernames without liability to you."

The new TOS adds to this the right to "limit distribution or visibility of any Content on the service."


FREE MARKETS

The economic case for sex work decriminalization. As the debate over decriminalizing prostitution becomes louder and "part of a broader rethinking of the criminal justice system," opponents still worry "that prostitution is inherently violent and decriminalization would worsen the exploitation of women." But "economic evidence—and theory" says otherwise, writes Karl Smith at Bloomberg Opinion. Smith looks at a study from economists Scott Cunningham, Gregory DeAngelo, and John Tripp:

Economists studied Craigslist, which from 2002 to 2010 gradually introduced an "erotic services" section that allowed sex workers to advertise directly and anonymously on the internet. The staggered rollout allowed the economists to measure the impact on each market as the service expanded. As expected, the market for sex workers expanded rapidly. More important, according to the 2019 paper, the expansion of Craigslist into a market "led to a 10% to 17% reduction in female homicides." To be clear, that figure is not homicides among sex workers —  which are difficult to measure in real time — but homicides among all women in the area.

This result so astounded the economists that they performed some tests to validate it. It passed them all. Moreover, effects have been demonstrated in other studies. Decriminalization in even parts of a city is associated with double-digit declines in sexual assault. A 2014 study of an inadvertent decriminalization of indoor sex work in Rhode Island from 2003 to 2009 found it resulted in a 30% drop in rapes. This isn't mere correlation: Both the Rhode Island and Craigslist studies use several methods designed to identify causation.

More here.


QUICK HITS

  • Today, the House Judiciary Committee considering President Donald Trump's impeachment "plans to hear from four constitutional scholars about the historical underpinnings of the process," according to The Washington Post.
  • The long tail of responsibility for sex trafficking continues to grow, with a new lawsuit attempting to hold the email marketing service Mailchimp legally responsible for exploitation because it sent an email about a website where an alleged trafficker would later post.
  • A Los Angeles police officer left his body camera on while fondling the breasts of a dead woman.
  • "More than two dozen correctional officers in Baltimore were charged Tuesday with using excessive force on prisoners at state-operated jails," the Associated Press reports.

NEXT: "Strongly Approve of Trump" Among My Students: Zero

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Blaming everyone but Kamala Harris for her presidential campaign’s collapse.

    She’ll make someone a terrible attorney general.

    1. “Who’s cock must I suck for the White House?” — Kamala Harris.

      Perhaps voters don’t want somebody whose main qualification for her job is the willingness to allow Willie Brown to fuck her…

      1. It says a lot when the party that eagerly nominated Hillary Clinton finds Kamala Harris too incompetent/corrupt/tiresome for their tastes.

        1. With a modicum of fairness towards the rank and file of the blue team, they didn’t really eagerly embrace Hillary during the primary, she just outmaneuvered Bernie with the superdelegates.

          1. And most likely bribed or threatened anyone else even considering running.

            1. I think everyone else knew the fix was in. So why bother.

      2. dammi – it went no further than the debate stage and an explanation for her lack of support by the Party would be that the current insiders at the DNC are indifferent to that sort of approach by Harris.

    2. Hello.

      Or maybe….just maybe….Harris, you know, sucked?

      As I mentioned in another Harris post:

      Her giggles gave me the creeps.

      Marvel wants ‘woke’ characters? How about a woman villain? The Diabolical Giggler!

      1. The Diabolical Giggler!

        She could take a big bong hit and say “Baby wants to fuck!”

    3. She sort of stumbled out of the gate as I remember when she said “of course I smoked pot! I’m Jamaican!” and then her dad came out and smacked her down.

      1. Totally not ready for prime time.

    4. It would be easier to swallow this “respect for the inherent value of democracy” claptrap is these people didn’t whine like little bitches every time it doesn’t go their way.

      Someone has to lose every election. If a lower tier candidate can’t even drop out of a party-controlled primary without it being “just wrong”, then why should I care what the people who get elected come up with? Because I really don’t.

      1. There was no system suppression of her campaign. Harris entering the race was widely covered, and she was viewed and portrayed in the media as a top contender after the first debate. Her standing in the polls declined as people got to know her and her record better.

    5. Kamala is taking a page from Hilary’s failed campaign…blame, blame, blame. Lousy candidate, lousy campaign, perfect results!

  2. Twitter has explicitly reserved the right to shadowban, under the legalese of ‘limit distribution or visibility of any Content on the service.’

    Ah-HA!

    1. The government would be worse than Dorsey…how?

      1. Let us know when you can stop using the government.

      2. If you violate Twitter’s rules, the most they can do is kick you off Twitter.
        If you violate the government’s rules, the most they can do is take your stuff, throw you in a cage, and/or execute you.
        That is how the government would be worse.

        1. If you violate Twitter’s rules, the most they can do is kick you off Twitter.

          This is repeatedly and empirically demonstrated to be untrue and to the contrary, it’s not clear that if Twitter, YouTube/Alphabet, FB, etc. collectively decide to ban you, that the collusive effort is refused more often than accepted.

    2. Private company!!!! This is just fine!!!!

      1. Yes, as a matter of fact, it is.

        1. Not when they are violating contractual norms. Which you refuse to actually acknowledge.

          1. Seems like any sane person would stop using Twitter then sue them for contract violation.

            1. You mean sane people who have developed a paying industry from using the tools? An industry built from an agreed to implication of free speech that is now violated at whims of a changing contract they have no say in? You realize how stupid your argument is right?

      2. The sooner Twitter goes tits up, the better.

      3. Let’s hear your alternative that doesn’t shit on everyone’s rights.

        1. You have heard my alternative, you’ve completely ignored it because you are a dishonest hack.

          I think Twitter should be handled under contract clauses. This includes the inability to change terms of service on a whim. In no other contractual situation can a single side declare the terms to be changed including for past actions between the two groups. Twitter has done this multiple times as they have punished people for violations of current TOS that occurred prior to the current TOS changes.

          You would know this, again, if you weren’t a dishonest hack.

          1. Believe it or not, Jesse, I don’t hang on your every word. If you mentioned this before I probably forgot it or missed it. Most of the time you are shilling for Team Red which is tiresome.

            But let’s think about your idea for a moment, which has some merit, in analogy to private property rights of real property. If I invite you onto my property, should I be bound by a specific contract with regards to your behavior that I may deem permissible or not? I think I ought to retain the right to be arbitrary with regards to what I permit on my property or not (of course, NAP violations and actual illegal behavior excluded). If you want to start playing Justin Bieber songs at my house, I think I ought to be able to retain the right to kick you off my property for wanting to play that filthy garbage at my house, even if there is nothing illegal about playing Justin Bieber songs. Would you agree? Or should it be the case, instead, that if you want to play Justin Bieber songs at my house, and in the absence of any specific contractual language between the two of us forbidding Justin Bieber songs, that I should be the one restrained from preventing you from playing those songs at my house?

            1. Gee what a surprise. The minute the conversation turns into a more serious direction, JesseAz is nowhere to be found. If he can’t get a cheap insult out of it, he’s apparently not interested.

          2. The share owners would just love it if the company unilaterally tied their own hands!

      4. It’s almost like you’re not a libertarian at all, man.

        Mastodon is right over there, you can toot instead of tweet. It even has better features. But god forbid that you act in accordance with your principles and switch to a different service when you can whine to big daddy government instead.

  3. I think you just wrote more words about Kamala than any sane person would want to read.

    1. I think it’s the sex worker angle that drew her attention.

      1. Well, Kamala is bitching about everybody focusing on her past as a prosecutor instead of all the other things she’s done and the only other thing she’s done is Willie Brown so what else is there to talk about?

  4. “If You Like Investigative Documentaries, Side-Splitting Comedy Vids, and Hard-Hitting Interviews, Donate to Reason Today!”

    Just for the record, these are Democratic deplorables she’s calling out.

    1. Goddamn, I had a from a previous thread.

      1. goddamit again ‘had a *copy/paste from a previous thread’

        1. Maybe you should learn to code?

          1. Hey, the world needs ditchdiggers too.

  5. Poor Kamela. The patriarchy strikes again. If only there were more female billionaires to rally behind her and push her over the line.

    1. Poor defenseless woman can’t possibly compete in the world full of men.

      1. Maybe Kamel and Hillary could run together. That would be quite the ticket, and show those patriarchies once and for all. Until the next time.

        1. Now I wont sleep for a week.

      2. She can’t fuck ’em all.

  6. Decriminalization in even parts of a city is associated with double-digit declines in sexual assault.

    But what of the economic gains to a certain segment of the market brought about by prohibition???

  7. Trump on U.S. tech companies: “They’re not my favorite people because they’re not exactly for me” but that’s OK, I don’t care

    The part outside the quotes is Trump’s sentiment or the quoter’s?

    1. Cutting edge journalism!

    2. The part outside the quotes is Trump’s sentiment or the quoter’s?

      Twitter’s?

  8. Today, the House Judiciary Committee considering President Donald Trump’s impeachment “plans to hear from four constitutional scholars about the historical underpinnings of the process…”

    The country’s scholarship to a man has been infected with TDS, so I question the relevance!

    1. More like ‘they could only find four mind whores?’

    2. 3 of the 4 have openly called for trumps impeachment before Ukraine. So non biased authority figures.

      1. Actually, I was amazed to Turley on the list. He’s been a harsh critic of the Democrat impeachment sham so far.

        Either they included him to provide a thin veneer of ideological balance, or they’re going to use his testimony as an excuse to not send any AoI to the House.

        1. Turley was the only witness allowed from the GOP list, precisely because he has openly criticized Trump.

      2. This bunch of butthurt, feminine professors is not a good look

    3. The country’s scholarship to a man has been infected with TDS, so I question the relevance!

      Did we go through four historical constitutional scholars about the historical underpinnings of perjuring yourself over a BJ with Clinton? I can’t recall.

      The Democrats have taken impeachment, ‘the nuclear option’, pulled the core out of it and are tossing it around like a radioactive football. I wonder if future impeachments, de jure/de rigueuer/de facto will meet the same standards.

      1. Say like if Biden won, the bribery impeachment could start just after the oath of office?

        1. Say like if Biden won, the bribery impeachment could start just after the oath of office?

          If Republicans in the FBI aren’t already spying on him and compiling dossiers based on foreign intelligence, the Trump campaign will be starting from the back foot.

  9. I take it she gets to keep the 10 mil she has left over? Sounds like a plan.

    1. and a she will probably have a book tour complaining about why she dropped out, she has learned a lot from Hillary

      1. Next she’ll blame Hillary for poisoning the electorate against cunty women candidates….. And she’ll actually be correct.

  10. Harris is a cunt. She comes across as a cunt. She has no skills to create a facade to hide her cuntiness. She’s a minor league Hillary. Really an impossible task for her. Thoughts and Prayers.

    1. Pretty much.

      She’s Queen Cuntycringe.

    2. “…the campaign failed to sustain either popular or establishment liberal support.”

      So the Democrats are the bigots and misogynists. Not even in the same room as us flyover bumpkin deplorables.

  11. …a new lawsuit attempting to hold the email marketing service Mailchimp legally responsible for exploitation because it sent an email about a website where an alleged trafficker would later post.

    Spammers get no sympathy!

  12. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch current net worth: $61.0 billion

    This totally unacceptable figure represents a YTD increase of only about $1.5 billion. Or, in Koch / Reason libertarian terms, it means the economy is in ruins.

    #DrumpfRecession
    #HowLongMustCharlesKochSuffer?

    1. Even more bad economic news.

      Car burglaries in some California cities are at crisis levels.

      This is all Drumpf’s fault for destroying the world economy and making people think they have no choice but to break into cars. This wouldn’t be happening in a strong Clinton economy.

      #StillWithHer

    2. Watching OBL post the same thing every day, I am reminded of when Ron Bailey used to post temperature data every month for years (it seemed). I wonder why he stopped doing that and I wonder if it had anything to do with a 95% “STFU” from the commentariate?

      1. I actually like this gag. Makes me laugh every time, especially when the fortune went up from the previous day and OBLs explanation on why that’s bad.

        1. Me too, but it is getting old. I guess OBL didn’t hear that deceased brother David Koch left Charles $50 billion of his fortune after hearing that Charles was seen battling racoons for pizza crusts in the dumpster at the Wichita Pizza Hut.

          1. Incorrect. Not long after David Koch passed away, his widow Julia Flesher Koch became the richest woman on the planet by inheriting his fortune. None of David’s hard-earned money went to Charles AFAIK.

            #VoteDemocratToHelpJuliaFlesherKoch

      2. I look forward to the forthcoming book-movie deal.

  13. Today, the House Judiciary Committee considering President Donald Trump’s impeachment “plans to hear from four constitutional scholars about the historical underpinnings of the process,” according to The Washington Post.

    When holding meetings is the entirety of your job…

    1. My favorites are the meetings where you discuss when to have a meeting.

      1. Then you get to have a meeting to discuss what you’re going to discuss in that upcoming meeting.

  14. A Los Angeles police officer left his body camera on while fondling the breasts of a dead woman.

    If he hadn’t shot her then he didn’t see a reason to disable it.

    1. Necro porn.

      1. Extreme Stop and Frisk.

  15. Of COURSE Harris supporters blame everybody else. She’s the victim! Never blame the victim. Always believe the victim.

  16. More than two dozen correctional officers in Baltimore were charged Tuesday with using excessive force on prisoners at state-operated jails…

    Private prisons must be shut down.

  17. I love how Harris and her campaign staff are calling the Democrat electorate, party administration, and the left of center media racist and sexist for not falling in love with Harris as a candidate. They are not only chose wrong, they are badly motivated, if not outright evil, for making that choice.

    “Of course, I blame you. If it is not your fault then it it must be mine and that cannot be right.”

  18. Some comments from leftists on Harris leaving:

    >> At this point, we have 7 Democrats qualified for the December debate stage and they are all white. This is sickening.

    >> No matter your candidate, you have to recognize that going from the most diverse field ever in January to a potentially all-white debate stage in December is catastrophic.

    The implicit racism and sexism of “electability” is deeply damaging to democracy.

    >> If Kamala Harris is dropping out today, as is being reported, that means–among other things–that no candidates of color are yet slated for the December debate. Six white candidates have qualified. Folks, that’s a huge red flag, and we need to talk about it.

    Democrats are running on the issues!

    1. They want a person of color on the stage, they just don’t want to vote for them.

    2. all-white debate stage in December is catastrophic.

      Perhaps to lighten the mood all the candidates could show up in blackface.

      1. I thought Corey Booker was still in the race. Did I miss his inevitable flameout?

        1. and Warren she’s a native of something

        2. Corey hasn’t flamed out yet, but I hear he’s doing the next debate in drag.

    3. The top candidates for the party of the KKK are all white, and they are somehow surprised?

    4. “”>> No matter your candidate, you have to recognize that going from the most diverse field ever in January to a potentially all-white debate stage in December is catastrophic. “”

      Did they not see the list of candidates for the dem primary last election? The Republicans had the most diverse field running into the primary.

  19. In all seriousness, there is an argument for some combination of racial and sex discrimination as a contributing factor in Harris’ failure–especially when you look at progressive support for other Democrats who are also pro-law enforcement boot-lickers.

    I’m not about to cry for the problems of pro-law enforcement boot-lickers, but there are plenty of other bootlicking Democrats all over the county–from the northeast, where large city politics are dominated by the interests of law enforcement, to California, where Democrat voters were perfectly happy to elect Kamala Harris as a Senator in the general election, when voters could only pick between two Democrats.

    Why is boot-licking suddenly not okay when a woman of color is involved?

    I suspect the main opposition to charges of racism and sexism in the case of Harris has to do with the people who are being accused of racism and sexism. “Because we’re talking about Democrat voters” is not a good reason why racism and sexism couldn’t be a significant contributing factor. Separate from there choices they make based on race and sex, there is nothing particular racist or sexist about Republican voters. Racism and sexism are about making judgement about people on the basis of race, and that definition doesn’t change because the racists and sexists we’re talking about are registered Democrats either.

    If a significant reason why Democrats won’t support Kamala Harris is because of her race and her sex, then they are racists. Discrimination on the basis of race and sex is the definition of racism and sexism–no matter how they like to imagine themselves in contrast to Republicans.

    1. There may be merit to that, but also – Kamala Harris has no charisma

      1. Why was she able to win statewide election in California?

        In the Senate race, we weren’t even allowed to vote for a Republican. They changed the election law so that the two top vote getters in the primaries make the ballot for the general election, so California’s voters got to choose between one Democrat or the other Democrat.

        They chose Harris over Loretta Sanchez.

        If she has enough charisma to win against all comers in California, she has enough charisma to win nationally. She ain’t Al Gore in Tennessee.

        This seems to me more about white liberals in segregated communities opining with their racist and sexist hearts. The only difference between San Franciscans, New Yorkers, and Texans is that residents of Texas are smeared as racists and sexists for mostly superficial factors–like their down home accent, the kinds of cars they like to drive, and the kind of music they like–none of which has anything to do with racism or sexism. You’ve never seen hypocrisy until you’ve listened to someone who spent $750k on a house in North County San Diego to get away from minorities decry the supposedly aesthetic marks of racism in middle America.

        1. Not saying you’re wrong, but Harris has less charisma than Klobuchar, whose face and voice make me want to throw up.
          Harris has no personality, bo identity. Don’t know how exposed that was in California, but it certainly showed with national attention

        2. The diagnosis on Heels Up Harris is actually quite simple.

          First, nobody is particularly happy about Heels Up Harris sleeping her way up the ladder. Women don’t like that. Men particularly don’t like old squeeze turning on them, like Horizontal Harris did to Uptown Willie Brown. Men especially do not like that.

          Second, Tulsi the Team D Frontrunner Slayer destroyed Heels up Harris in the debate. The media is avoiding that, but Tulsi just exposed her hypocrisy for the world to see.

          Third, Heels Up Harris just doesn’t connect to people. The nasally voice, bitchy demeanor….people got seriously turned off by that. Of course, the MSM loved her, which shows you just how fucked up and out of touch these people actually are.

          Too bad, really. I was hoping Heels Up would make it to the convention. She’d have fucked it all up for everyone.

          1. I would buy a lot of that if we were talking about the results of a general election or the results of a primary in a closed primary state.

            This is about the polling of registered Democrats. This is about the donations by partisan Democrats. Their refusal to support Harris is why she lost.

            The coverage I saw of Harris’ relationship with Willie Brown was fawning, with this piece from Silicon Valley’s hometown newspaper being entirely representative.

            “What we’re really doing when we rehash Kamala Harris’s love life”

            https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/01/30/the-unique-harm-we-cause-when-we-dissect-a-powerful-womans-love-life-2/

            The associations you’re making are generally made by Republicans. For the registered Democrat who is paying attention to the race or is a donor, their reaction to the observation that Harris must have slept with Brown to get ahead in California politics is, “You think every woman that gets ahead must have slept her way to the top? How dare you, you vile sexist!”

            1. “I would buy a lot of that if we were talking about the results of a general election or the results of a primary in a closed [open] primary state.”

              —Ken Shultz

              Wish we had a preview button!

            2. Most of my friends are Democrats and I haven’t heard a single one even talk about Harris’ path to her current position. I don’t think most people are in as deep as you are, Ken.

              Most I talked to just didn’t like her record on criminal justice issues which were exposed during the debate or found her to be flippant and annoying during the debates.

        3. Ken your pointing out that it was essentially a coin flip between two people of differing races a Latino and an African American in the state senate race. Harris assumed she was loved by the voters when in reality it was just pure chance. I didn’t not vote for either and note in California colorless white people are no longer a majority, sacramento is the most evenly racially divers city in the world now

          1. A city of 500,000 people, where the local economy is dominated by state government, is diverse because white Democrats in California aren’t racists? How much of a premium do home sellers charge not to live in a diverse part of Greater Sacramento? I’m a market oriented guy–and price signals are informative.

            Meanwhile, for some reason, donors and registered Democrats who pay attention to the primaries decided to go for other candidates.

            Are you willing to look at the national pool of progressives that created this outcome for Harris and make the claim that racism and sexism couldn’t have been a significant factor–because they’re wealthy progressives who make donations to the Democratic Party?

            I’m not.

            Those progressives are nowhere near as different from people in the rest of the country as they’d like to imagine, and to whatever extent racism informs the thinking of people elsewhere in the country, they do likewise. Compare the median home prices in North County San Diego, Irvine, and Manhattan Beach, on the one hand, to the median price of a home in more diverse areas of the state, and you’ll see how much of a premium progressives are willing to pay to avoid living in area with a lot of diversity.

            Nothing is measured by the aesthetics of what we say. Rather, racism is a function of the choices people make, and when I see a hundred million progressive racists who are willing to pay a premium to live in a lily white community–all over this country–I find the argument that couldn’t be racist because of the aesthetics of what white, wealthy progressives say to be unconvincing.

            1. I’m not saying there wasn’t racism when Harris was elected we will never know since a colorless person wasn’t allowed to run but the state is diverse enough and with there being more latinos than blacks in the state it may not have been racism or maybe pure chance and Harris assumed that that chance win was real admiration when it wasn’t.
              I would agree on the rest of your point of progressives being closet racist in the rest of the country but here may just be Harris unlikable

            2. It sounds like you’re trying to prove a negative.

              How can any of us know that racism or sexism didn’t play a role? Hmmmmmmmm?

              1. I’m am contesting the argument that we know that racism wasn’t a significant factor, yeah.

                And I’m denouncing the underlying assumptions behind this, which has a lot to do with the assumption that racism can’t have been a factor in this because Democrats can’t be racists–and I’m using real world observations to back that.

                “For neighborhoods with a larger non-white presence, white flight is instead more likely in middle-class as opposed to poorer neighborhoods. These results not only confirm the continued salience of race for white flight, but also suggest that racial white flight may be motivated to an even greater extent in middle-class, suburban neighborhoods. Theoretically, these findings point to the decoupling of economic and racial residential integration, as white flight may persist for groups even despite higher levels of socioeconomic attainment.”

                https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X17305422

                Consider the implications. If that isn’t about the financial associations, to the extent that the wealthier the neighborhood in question, the more pronounced the drop in white population as minorities move in, then what that about–if it isn’t about racism?

                1. See my comment below, I think we can wrap this into that thread.

            3. Those progressives are nowhere near as different from people in the rest of the country as they’d like to imagine

              As someone that travels a lot of the country, including the supposed “blue wall” states. I’d have to say that you’re wrong. There’s a lot of cultural variation in the U.S. Way more than you’d like to imagine.

              1. i didn’t say there wasn’t any cultural variation, certainly in terms of aesthetic tastes. If people in Irvine, CA think electric cars are cool, and people in Texas think pickup trucks are cooler, that hardly speaks to the willingness of either group to pay a premium so their children won’t go to a school with more minorities–or the likelihood that they’ll move out of a neighborhood once minorities move in.

                “Of the 27,891 Census tracts he looked at, 3,252 experienced “white flight,” which he defines as a neighborhood losing at least 25 percent of its white population between 2000 and 2010. These tracts experienced “an average magnitude loss of 40 percent of the original white population.”

                “Whites continue to leave neighborhoods with significant levels of non-white residential growth,” he reports.

                Strikingly, Kye found that, “relative to poorer neighborhoods, white flight becomes systematically more likely in middle-class neighborhoods at higher thresholds of black, Hispanic, and Asian population presence.

                “Race not only remains salient in middle-class neighborhoods,” he writes, “but motivates white flight to an even greater degree relative to those same effects in poorer neighborhoods.”

                A few specifics: “White flight eventually becomes more likely in middle-class neighborhoods when the presence of Hispanics and Asians exceeds 25 percent and 21 percent, respectively,” he writes.”

                https://psmag.com/social-justice/white-flight-remains-a-reality

                Because a progressive thinks using racial slurs is embarrassing, like picking your nose in public, that doesn’t mean they won’t move out once they feel like too many minorities have moved into the neighborhood. It also doesn’t mean they won’t vote for someone other than Kamala Harris because of her race.

                People are racist because of the choices they make based on race. Everything else is most aesthetics.

                1. So, as far as I can tell, your argument is that because we can show that some white people are racist, we can surmise that some Democrats don’t like Harris because of her race.

                  Well sure, I don’t think anyone is claiming that America is totally free of racism. Of course some people dislike Harris because of her race. I think the real thing people are saying is that she’s blaming racism and sexism for her campaign’s failure, when there isn’t really a ton of evidence to support that claim. The claim that is being made by her campaign and various media types is that race and sex are the main factors that drove her decline. If you or any of them really subscribe to that line of thinking, than the onus is on you to prove it and describe why she was up in the polls in the first place. Showing that white flight happens based on race is not enough to show that Kamala Harris had to drop out of the Presidential race because of racism.

                  If your point was that Democrats can be racist and its silly to assume that just because they’re Democrats, they aren’t racist against black people, I suppose my answer would be: gee, Ken, usually you have something more interesting and less obvious to say.

        4. Perhaps it is because the personality that people look for/vote for in an AG is different from that of a President? AG’s are expected to be tough and President’s likable.

    2. “If a significant reason why Democrats won’t support Kamala Harris is because of her race and her sex, then they are racists. ”

      Of course Democrats are racists. They were racists back in 2008 when they supported Obama (half black) because of his race. I’m not sure about sexism though. But clearly a candidate who is both female AND black is a bridge too far for all partisans, Democrat, GOP and any others.

      1. The thing about being the first to do something is that once somebody does it, no one else can ever be the first person to do it again.

  20. Trump calls Trudeau two faced after video surfaced from the summit this week

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/trudeau-johnson-macron-appear-to-be-mocking-trump-at-nato-summit-in-surfaced-video

    Of course Trump mean black and white faced.

    1. Reminds me of a Star Trek episode which absolutely could not be made today:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tfdcQspOD4

  21. Schiff and Nadler…

    It’s like the Ds are trying to lose

    1. Shhhhhh….when your enemy is about to self-immolate, don’t stop them! 🙂

  22. Biden said … “She is a first-rate intellect, a first-rate candidate and a real competitor,”

    “with great legs to boot!”

    1. He said that right before he stuck his face in her hair and took a deep breath while biting his wife’s hand.

    2. “…and she is clean and articulate which is something since they tell me she is actually black!”

    3. “And her mother’s family ran a convenience store in Delaware.”

  23. …the “Kamala Harris is a cop” meme and any criticism of the former prosecutor and state attorney general’s criminal justice record, while positioning these things as unfair gotchas, and maybe even racist.

    And legitimate attacks on Hillary were all sexist. As bad as a media mindlessly lashing out at a president is one that blindly covers for her. This woman’s presidency was going to be awful.

  24. “Twitter’s new Terms of Service contain some cause for worry.”

    If you want to stop worrying about Twitter changing their terms of service, there’s an easy way to avoid that.

    You can always choose not to use Twitter.

    On Mastodon, you can host yourself and write your own terms of service, or you can choose from a number of competing nodes with competing terms of service if you like.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastodon_(software)

    We don’t need the government to protect us from things we choose to do to ourselves, and we don’t need the government to give us options that are already available.

    1. It doesn’t mean you can’t be concerned with a company openly flaunting contractual norms and changing terms of services with vague language that allows them to be advantaged in said agreement with the user (who they make money off of).

      1. I’m more worried about things that impact me directly.

        In fact, because I don’t generally use Twitter, I’m more concerned that the attempt to regulate Twitter will impact me in ways that have nothing to do with Twitter. Maybe that’s the center of the problem right there: I don’t need to be subject to Twitter’s TOS if I don’t want to be subject to Twitter’s TOS, but I will be subject to the laws and regulation some people are pushing to address Twitter’s TOS–over my objections and against my will. You see the difference there, right?

  25. the officer allegedly flipped off his bodycam and inappropriately touched the woman. The recording devices worn by LAPD officers continue to record for two minutes after deactivation

    What an outrageous story! How can police equipment not deactivate *immediately*?!

    1. Cold Ethel hardest hit.

  26. Wow, so Jack Dorsey and the rest of the lowlife scummy gutter vermin at Twitter are slowly making their terms of service a little less dishonest and fraudulent. I guess that’s something!

    If they really want to be 100% honest they should just say “left-wing anti-American political opinions only welcome here.”

    1. If Twitter finally was honest and change their TOS to left-wing sentiments only I would agree with the sophistry of the “but private company!!!” folks like baby jeffrey. It is weird watching a certain set of sophomoric libertarians defend dishonesty in contracts and advertisement under the fortune cookie mantra of “but private company!!”

      The fact is even with these more honest changes, the language is still so vague that it would be thrown out in most contract disputes in normal matters. But because the TOS sends disputes to California, and notably San Francisco, the judges allow it to continue.


      1. It is weird watching a certain set of sophomoric libertarians defend dishonesty in contracts and advertisement under the fortune cookie mantra of “but private company!!”

        It’s probably because they forget this is literally one of the few legitimate reasons for government existing in the first place.

        I did notice that a lot of people didn’t have any problem with the government declaring Twitter a government communications outlet, though. I guess backdoor nationalization isn’t a big deal when you have critics to silence.

        I can’t say that it’s the same people offended over both issues though, generally speaking. Not sure what that says about people.

  27. So Harris is calling her Democratic Party all kinds of names.

    Sounds like one of those jokes where Groucho wouldn’t want to be a member of any club with standards so low it let him join.

    1. Hey, according to Harris, the Ds let white billionaires in!

      1. The Ds want black billionaires too, but they keep running away from the plantation

        1. No, they don’t want that.

          They don’t want any billionaires to exist.

          To the extent that they want parity, they want to bring down the top to be closer to the bottom. Thus, in essence, they want to reduce everyone’s income down to that of black laborers rather than they want to raise black laborers incomes.

  28. “Environmental groups band together to demand action on plastics, air polluion from EPA”
    […]
    “A coalition of conservation groups delivered a petition Tuesday in San Francisco demanding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stop approving petrochemical projects that produce millions of tons of plastic and waft greenhouse gases into the air…”
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/environment/article/Environmental-groups-ban-together-to-demand-14879522.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result

    I’m sure they all took selfies on their granite-encased ‘phones.

    1. “Well, if the Flintstones could have all their stuff made out of rock, why can’t we?”

  29. Harris Fans Blame Billionaires, Sexists, and Racists for Her Campaign’s Collapse

    But not Russia? I guess that’s kind of progress.

    1. She could go the Stacey Abrams route and simply declare she won the nomination.

  30. A Los Angeles police officer left his body camera on while fondling the breasts of a dead woman.

    He was looking for drugs.

    1. When the chief said, “Search her for drugs,” he thought he said “dugs.”

  31. >>while supporters and pundits expanded the blame

    shaming peeps into voting for a tyrant. solid plan.

  32. Question: What do The New Testament, the leader of the Virginia Colony in Jamestown, the USSR, and Donald Trump all have in common?

    Answer:

    “If any would not work, neither should he eat.”

    —-2 Thessalonians 3:10, KJV

    “You must obey this now for a law, that he that will not work shall not eat (except by sickness he be disabled). For the labors of thirty or forty honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintain a hundred and fifty idle loiterers.”

    —-Journals of Captain John Smith

    “In the USSR work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.”

    —-Soviet Constitution of 1936

    “The Trump administration is set to tighten work requirements for recipients of federal food aid, potentially rendering hundreds of thousands of people ineligible for the program by mid-2020.

    . . . .

    For able-bodied adults without dependents, U.S. law limits SNAP benefits to three months, unless recipients are working or in training for 20 hours a week. States can waive those limits in areas where unemployment runs 20% above the national rate, which was 3.6% in October.

    . . . .

    The new rule requires the unemployment rate to be 6% or higher for states to issue such waivers. The rule also curbs the amount of discretionary exemptions from federal work requirements that states can issue.

    Able-bodied adults without dependents in 2018 represented about 2.9 million people, or 7.3% of all SNAP recipients, according to the USDA.

    —-Wall Street Journal, December 4, 2019

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-to-curb-states-control-of-food-aid-11575455401?

    Between things like this and Trump fighting to cut $772 billion in direct spending on Medicaid, no president has fought harder to cut spending on socialist* welfare programs than President Trump.

    *Yes, SNAP is still a socialist program–even if the communists of the Soviet Union circa 1936 weren’t so stupid that they’d do what we’re doing.

    1. “No president [since World War II] has fought harder to cut spending on socialist* welfare programs than President Trump.”

      —-Ken Shultz

      That’s what I meant to type.

      1. Military spending has increased under Trump.

        1. Congress passing spending, first of all.

          But he is granted the power to do so. Now show us where the authority for SNAP resides.

          To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
          To provide and maintain a Navy;
          To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
          To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
          To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

          1. To whatever extent the military is like a welfare program, SNAP and Medicaid are actual welfare programs.

            Meanwhile, the legitimate libertarian purpose of government is to protect our rights. We have police to protect our rights from criminals. We have courts to protect our rights from the police. We have a military to protect our rights from foreign threats.

            It’s certainly possible that we’re spending too much on the military, that our military is overextended, or that our spending on the military is wasteful in various ways. However, military spending is fundamentally a legitimate libertarian function of government.

            Redistributing wealthy by way of SNAP, rent credits, and Medicaid isn’t a legitimate libertarian function of government at all. Socialism is about a number of things in practice. In principle, it’s about “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”. To whatever extent we cut the tax burden, we address the first half, and to what ever extent we slash spending on SNAP, rent credits, and Medicaid, we’re addressing the part about the redistribution of wealth.

            No president since World War II has fought to slash social spending more than Donald Trump. Newt Gingrich fought hard to cut social spending, but not as much as Trump. Newt Gingrich also wasn’t a president, and isn’t running for president against a gaggle of socialists in 2020 like President Trump.

          2. Yeah I know we get it.
            When Trump does something good, Trump gets all the credit.
            When Trump does something bad – like, say, sign a bloated spending bill – it’s always someone else’s fault.

            1. Well, most would need to admit that even if Trump vetoed a spending bill it would still pass so…essentially you’re bitching that Trump doesn’t have more power while also saying he’s a piece of shit.

              Pretty funny.

              1. chemjeff is so hilarious. He thinks people actually take what he says as anything but a joke.

              2. Like I said.
                Not his fault.
                The bar is always lower for Trump.

                1. Ah, I see now. As usual, your only point is to criticize the die hard Trump supporters. Yet nary a word on the Democrats that wrote the spending bill with a veto proof majority.

                  Yes, that seems very impartial.

          3. I thought the president signed or refused to sign spending bills from congress. And the military is the most socialist organization in the US government, by far. Do SNAP recipients play golf on tax payer funded courses? Do they attend military military schools? Visit military hospitals? Dance to the music of military bands? No is the answer.


            1. And the military is the most socialist organization in the US government, by far.

              And yet, it isn’t even the most funded.

              1. Is there a US government outfit that gets more funding than military? Is there another US government outfit that features subsidized golf?


                1. Is there another US government outfit that features subsidized golf?

                  Literally all of them.


                  Is there a US government outfit that gets more funding than military?

                  Social security.

                  1. There’s no department of Social Security. There is a department of defense which eats up a staggering amount of money yearly, which is growing thanks to in part to Trump’s efforts.

                    1. Last I checked there’s a Social Security Administration and if you’re going to include the entire military budget as one lump aggregate then it’s only fair to lump in all the beneficiaries of social security in with their administration.

                      But this, of course, assumes you’re at all interested in honesty as opposed to throwing non-sequitur molotov’s.

                    2. You still have not articulated how Trump can stop funding for the DoD via a veto-proof majority.

                      BTW: There is a Social Security Administration
                      Organizational Structure of the Social Security Administration

                2. The military is more socialist than Social Security?

                  Are you sure about that one??

                  1. “The military is more socialist than Social Security?”

                    Clearly so. Do social security bureaucrats have golf courses constructed for them? Get subsidized clothing, food, education, housing, medical care? They don’t. These socialist benefits are for the military, entirely funded by the tax payer.

                    1. Consider that the purpose of our military is to provide security for many nations around the world. Social Security only provides for a small subset of that group. Namely US citizens, with a small caveat.

                      Military funds have been used to build all sorts of things in the name of reconstruction after we bomb a country back to the stone age.

                      Also military funds go to disaster relief. Our military is one of the largest disaster relief organizations.

        2. Good thing military spending still pales in comparison to entitlements, even after increases. Only retards compare the two as even approaching the same levels of expenditure.

          But of course, that’s responding to your absurd non-sequitur. Your statement has nothing to do with anything.

          1. “Good thing military spending still pales in comparison to entitlements”

            Trump is president. It’s all good.

            1. Orange doesn’t rhyme with other words, so coconuts taste better.

            2. Trump is President and it IS ALL GOOD.

    2. Yes, in USSR one pretended to work and the government pretended to feed you.

      1. The tanks they built weren’t pretend.

        1. “The tanks they built weren’t pretend.”

          Yeah, and why is green?

      2. But even the Soviets in 1936–even the fucking communists!–wouldn’t give able bodied people free food for nothing.

        By 1989, the Soviets could scarcely provide food to people with jobs. The communists said you had a right to a job. Progressives circa 2020 want to go much further than that.

        They think you have a right to free food! They think you have a right to fruit of someone else’s labor! The communists saw that as the decadence of the leisure class–bourgeois. They weren’t about to let people sit on their asses and profit from the labor of others.

        Capitalism is only different in that it’s okay to profit from the labor of others so long as laborers are being “exploited” willingly. Capitalists also have a term for people who use the government to get free things in exchange for contributing nothing. That’s called “rent seeking”. Every president since World War II has been afraid of calling it out for fear of offending the rent seekers and the people in the media who adore them.

        Have I mentioned recently that there’s an obesity epidemic among the poor in this country, and the suggestion that it’s unrelated to SNAP benefits is absurd?

        1. grape soda is purple. purple is a fruit.

        2. Only your modern progressive leftist is so foolhardy as to ignore the past 2000+ years of evidence that shows that humans are selfish bastards (generally) and if you pay them to not work, plenty of them will never work. Probably enough of them, in fact, to crash whatever system you put in place. Socialists and communists are probably better aware of that fact than capitalists are, I’d say.

          Why do people think slavery ever existed in the first place? Because of ‘evilness’? No, it’s because it was easier for the enslavers to enslave than to do the work themselves. Same as it ever was.

        3. “But even the Soviets in 1936–even the fucking communists!–wouldn’t give able bodied people free food for nothing. ”

          Because they had full employment. There was a desperate need felt by Stalin to build the military to face the threat he saw from Europe. The free food and money doled out by the US under Trump is because of less than full employment, something that wasn’t a problem in the command economy of the Soviet Union.


          1. Because they had full employment.

            HAHAHAHAHA

            1. Laugh while you can, monkey person.

              1. We’re all monkey people, and I’ll always laugh at the notion of Soviet full employment. I don’t need your permission to do so.

                1. Laughter is the best medicine. As long as you don’t laugh at the notion of US unemployment.

                  1. I don’t know, if you consider the Soviets to have had full employment it’s obvious the United States must also have full employment today.

                    1. “if you consider the Soviets to have had full employment”

                      In 1936 it was pretty close to full employment. There is unemployment in the US today, and that is why the government under Trump continues to hand out free food and money to able-bodied Americans.

                    2. Given that we know for a literal fact that the Soviets were never even in the ballpark of full employment, your claim must then be extended to the U.S. who quite certainly has a far lower unemployment rate today than the USSR did at any point in their entire history.

                      So, you have effectively made the claim that the United States has full employment today. Just like the USSR did whenever you want to cherry pick a date or time.

                      Of course, you’ll understand that if you cite a Soviet publication regarding their ‘full employment’ that you’ll be laughed out of the room. Even modern day Russian scholars will laugh at you. No one believes that lie except you and Stalin apologists, although I probably repeat myself on that point given your view on European aggression towards Stalin’s USSR.

                      The Russians simply called the unemployed employed as a matter of rhetoric, regardless of if they worked at any particular job. That’s not measuring, that’s a joke and literal communist propaganda.

                    3. I guess he’s classifying standing in line as a job.

                    4. “”In 1936 it was pretty close to full employment. “”

                      You got a link for that which isn’t soviet propaganda?

                    5. “The Russians simply called the unemployed employed as a matter of rhetoric, regardless of if they worked at any particular job. ”

                      It was Ken Shultz who claimed the Soviets of 1936 would never give money or food to people who didn’t work. If you disagree with him, don’t hesitate to tell him directly.

    3. No one should have to choose between having enough food to eat and owning the latest smartphone and a big-screen tv.

      1. No one should have to work for food!

        When I was a kid, my 80-something year old grandmother pulled up to this guy carrying a sign that said, “Will Work for Food”.

        She said, “Hop in. My lawn needs mowing, and I’ll be happy to make you a sandwich”.

        The bum replied with expletives.

        And I say “bum” in the technical sense. As my grandmother explained to me, there’s a big difference between a bum and a hobo. In her day, back during the Great Depression, hobos would come up to your door, and they’d offer to do some work in exchange for food and the right to sleep in your barn that night. They were poor, but they were decent if not respectable.

        Bums will sneak into your barn to sleep at night and steal a chicken as they leave.

        Working for food is the most normal thing in the world. I appreciate the urge people feel to help others in need. I’ve volunteered at soup kitchens myself. The SNAP program isn’t saying you can’t have any food ever. It’s saying that if you’re single and able-bodied, then you only get it for three months. I can’t imagine that giving able bodied people free food on an indefinite basis is genuinely helpful to them in the long run. It certainly doesn’t make us a better society to provide a moral hazard incentive to stay inactive and do nothing. That’s 2.9 million people on SNAP?!

        Bless Trump for even considering this! That he wants to do this puts him head and shoulders above the progressive competition.

        1. “She said, “Hop in. My lawn needs mowing, and I’ll be happy to make you a sandwich”.

          That was a mistake. To tempt a bum, offer to fix him a cocktail. Bums are typically men who’ve been discharged from military service and not prospered. They spend their time begging, drinking and horsing around.

          “but they were decent if not respectable.”

          Hobos are more like Indians than normal people.

    4. Trump fighting to cut $772 billion in direct spending on Medicaid

      Oh good heavens. Is this what historical revisionism has come down to? It was only two years ago after all.

      Trump was at most a passive bystander in the entire Obamacare repeal drama of 2017. He said over and over that he’d sign whatever Congress sent him. He didn’t “fight” for anything. In fact one can argue that the reason why the entire effort collapsed in the end was BECAUSE Trump didn’t show much leadership on this matter.

      https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/watch-why-president-trump-couldnt-close-the-deal-on-obamacare-repeal/

      “The president was not particularly engaged in the policy details. That was pretty apparent,” Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Penn.) tells FRONTLINE. “The president seemed to defer to Congress, largely, and basically, ‘Whatever you guys pass, I’ll sign.’”

      With the Freedom Caucus holding out, the president issued an ultimatum: vote yes, or he would walk away from the bill. When the caucus refused to get on board and Ryan delivered the news to Trump, the president called Robert Costa of The Washington Post — taking his own party to task.

      “’I don’t need this broken Republican Party,’ he said, ‘if they’re not going to really help me, if they’re not going to get their stuff together,’” Costa tells FRONTLINE of the phone call. “What he really wanted was a win. He wasn’t pushing for an ideological win. He wasn’t pushing for a political win. He wanted a win for Donald Trump, and the Republican Party failed him.”

      1. LOL, your post actually underlines what Ken said so…thanks?

  33. Question; could even a Republican today win the nomination running on the type of law and order message Harris ran on? Maybe but they would have to have other issues to go with it and they could not run on just that. How Harris thought she could win the Democratic nomination with that message is beyond me.

    1. What was her “law and order message?” Such messages today are usually about illegal immigrants committing crimes, not letting Chicago style killings migrate to one’s own community, and getting tough with pedophiles and child porn purveyors. Did Harris run on any of that?

      1. Her law and order message was that she was a former prosecutor. She hasn’t been in the Senate very long. That was really her only record to run on.

    2. I don’t know if Trump really ran on “the type of law and order message Harris ran on,” but, I remember Trump saying several times in his 2016 campaign speeches that “I AM THE LAW AND ORDER CANDIDATE.”

      I have to put it in caps because everything Trump says in his speeches is in caps.

  34. Today, the House Judiciary Committee considering President Donald Trump’s impeachment “plans to hear from four constitutional scholars about the historical underpinnings of the process,” according to The Washington Post.

    Boooooooring.

    1. Of course, since Obama is considered a constitutional scholar I’m left to wonder if perhaps that label is meaningless.

      1. Judging by them… our legal system is entirely fucked

        1. I would even admit that it’s possible Obama actually is a constitutional scholar. After all, this is no requirement for someone that knows the constitution and what it means to follow it.

          Also, it’s usually considered wise to know your enemy so it shouldn’t shock anyone that those who want to destroy the constitution are able to cite it.

    2. “”“plans to hear from four constitutional scholars about the historical underpinnings of the process,” “”

      Sounds to me like they are reaching to find justification other than articles of impeachment themselves.

      When I see that, it usually means their main argument is not good.

      Could you imagine George Bush having a hearing on the historical underpinnings of war in an attempt to justify restarting the Iraq war?

  35. my friend’s sister is dropping 12 kilos each 3 weeks. She has been over weight however final month she commenced out to take those new nutritional nutritional dietary supplements and she has out of place 40 pounds so far. check the internet website on-line proper right here………. http://www.me2gold.com

    1. “”12 kilos each 3 weeks.””

      Damn dude, that’s a lot of cocaine. She should seek counseling.

  36. The neocon case for Trump.

    Now in December 2019, U.S. military forces remain in southern Syria. Fighting continues in the north between Turkish forces and various Syrian factions. But in retrospect, Trump’s withdrawal antics look more than a bit like strategic political camouflage and psychological preparation that gave the raid that killed an operational boost.

    Trump’s withdrawal bombast sent a psychological message to Islamic State terrorists: The coward Americans are going home. We don’t need to worry about Delta Force.

    I have sketched two cases where President Trump likely employed diplomatic and psychological feints to advance American security interests.

    See, Trump’s “withdrawal antics” were really just a ruse to trick al-Baghdadi into a false sense of security so that he could easily be killed. Trump really has no intention of bringing home our troops and ceasing the endless meddling in places we have no business meddling so stop worrying that somehow your MIC stocks are going to take a hit. Rejoice that Trump is a globalist as dedicated to endless war and world policemanning as we are! Just make sure you don’t accuse Trump of being all talk and no action, of lying or of breaking promises – it’s just 7-D Wizard Chess of which Trump’s a master and you’re an ignoramus.

  37. >> we should probably have a conversation about money in politics

    yeah. no money? stay out of politics.

    1. Dude is right. One thing we have never, ever, ever talked about is money in politics. About time that changed.

    2. I bet these same people also believe the statement “money is power” while also believing we should invest more power in the federal government.

      What a bunch of fucking morons.

  38. “Prof Feldman, you were an impeachment skeptic with the Mueller report, were you not?”

    Explains why he called for impeachment, regularly, starting in March 2017. Because he was a skeptic.

  39. Harris Fans Blame Billionaires, Sexists, and Racists for Her Campaign’s Collapse

    So the good reverend will need to face up to the fact that the Democratic party is full of racist, sexist, billionaires.

    1. probably should read racists and sexists and billionaires – – – – –
      It is not required that they be all three

  40. I note that the media is less than concerned about Schiff spying on journalist John Solomon. He took HIS phone records, too.

    Violating privacy to protect law seems so fucking noble.

    1. The dude has spent the last several months telling us that talking to foreign governments to dig up dirt on political opponents is treasonous…… all while having been caught on tape talking to someone that he believed was an FSB agent from Russia with dirt on Trump.

      The mind boggles.

  41. I’m happy to not see that permanent smirk on her face anymore.

    Discounted from this article is the weak and fanciful financial message most of the dem candidates have and how that will limit enthusiasm for their campaigns. Warren is having this trouble now and will probably doom her campaign. The majority on the left are not people who believe in “free everything” and at least understand high level finances and can tell that a candidate’s multi-trillion annual expansion of government/service cannot possibly come to fruition. Stossel pointed out that Harris actually have the largest proposed increase, even more than Bernie the socialist. It’s hard to take a candidate seriously that is proposing such nonsense.

  42. If you’re wondering whether Democrats picked up any introspection since Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss was chalked up to sexism, racism, third parties, Bernie bros, and such…the signs aren’t looking so good.

    …said ENB waking up from her two-year-long nap.

  43. Whatever setbacks Harris may have faced based on her race and sex

    She faced none. You see, that’s the joke.

  44. Klobuchar was also a prosecutor who hasn’t faced a fraction of that scrutiny, Biden still leading despite writing the Crime Bill and Pete is up in the polls after his police force killed a black man during the campaign.

    You might not like Buttegieg, but one of these things is not like the others.

    1. Yeah, Biden’s not like the others. You can criticize an old straight white guy, but only Democrats can criticize a woman and not be called sexist or a gay man and not be called homophobic.

      1. That’s not true – Harris called Democrats racist when she said that is the reason why shes not winning – considering the Democratic nominee is mostly determined by Democrat voters.

        Also, being a gay white man is no longer a protected class to most Democrats. Gay white men are the white men of the non-hetero crowd.

  45. Here is something else Kuntala Harris had said.

    http://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.culture.israel/k4OvsDOxGlM/gdo8uXL1BQAJ

    “Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine
    who can carry a concealed weapon,” said Kamala Harris, who was then the
    California Attorney General.

    I have always wondered how #BlackLivesMatter would view this. After all,
    according to their narrative, cops are just Klansmen with badges who
    habitually gun down unarmed black men. How could we trust such people with
    discretion to determine who may carry a concealed weapon?

    And yet, just yesterday, she tweeted this:

    Today, we remember #MikeBrown and recommit to ensuring truth,
    transparency, and trust in our criminal justice system. #BlackLivesMatter

    So I wonder if any reporter from the network broadcast and print media would
    ask her any of the following questions:

    – If the reason that “[l]ocal law enforcement must be able to use their
    discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon” is because they
    are just Klansmen with badges, why shouldn’t the Stormfront White
    Nationalist Community also get to decide who can carry a concealed weapon?

    – If the reason that “[l]ocal law enforcement must be able to use their
    discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon” is because they
    habitually gun down unarmed black men, why shouldn’t the Crips also get to
    decide who can carry a concealed weapon?

    – Is more black men dead or in prison a worthy price to pay to make lawful
    gun ownership more difficult?

    – Is making lawful gun ownership more difficult a worthy price to pay to put
    more black men in prison?

    – Does some magical guardian fairy turn these Klansmen with badges into
    freedom riders whenever they exercise their “discretion to determine who can
    carry a concealed weapon”?

  46. Harris is a billionaire sexist racist? Who knew?

  47. I’m not sure why we need the digested version of a Trump quote from a blue checkmark, and her quote formatting was weird. She put part of his literal words in quotes, the rest out of quotes, even though the whole statement was literally what he said. Here’s the whole quote:

    But the techs — you know, they’re American companies — the tech companies that you’re talking about. They’re not my favorite people because they’re not exactly for me, but that’s okay. I don’t care. They’re American companies. And we want to tax American companies, Phil. That’s important. We want to tax them. That’s not for somebody else to tax them.

    What he said here may not be considered particularly… politic in regards to a subset of American corporations, but for the most part, I would judge that comment as “mostly true”. I don’t really care about what he thinks about the Tech companies– in fact, the tech companies are suffering a bit of an image problem with the Democrats too. But the rest of his quote is telling– he’s essentially taking a progressive position on corporate taxation, wouldn’t you? agree?

    Can we please please please stop using Twitter as a news source?


    1. But the rest of his quote is telling– he’s essentially taking a progressive position on corporate taxation, wouldn’t you? agree?

      Is he? He seems to be saying that foreign entities shouldn’t be receiving tax revenue off U.S. companies…as absurd as that might be. His comment about wanting to tax U.S. companies appears to be subservient to this comment about foreign taxation. It’s word salad, but it seems clear enough.


      And we want to tax American companies, Phil. That’s important. We want to tax them. That’s not for somebody else to tax them.

      I could easily be wrong, but then I don’t disagree that Twitter is shit for reporting.

    2. Can we please please please stop using Twitter as a news source?

      Whenever I see a journalist’s articles filled with loads of embedded twitter posts or content consisting entirely of what he-said-she-said on twitter, I stop giving a shit about the article. I also lose what little respect I had for the journalist that wrote the article.

    3. Can we please please please stop using Twitter as a news source?

      But if we did that then mindless cunts like ENB would have to go fuck old men for money instead of trawling social media all day like a middle school adolescent and calling it ”””””journalism”””””

  48. Money, sexism, and racism are at the core of the democrat party.
    What’s her complaint?

  49. If you’re wondering whether Democrats picked up any introspection since Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss was chalked up to sexism, racism, third parties, Bernie bros, and such…the signs aren’t looking so good.

    Yeah I mean everybody knows the real reason Hillary lost was because of Russian Facebook ads, right mindless cunt?

  50. Horizontal Harris fans need to blame themselves for hitching their cart to the wrong corrupt donkey.

  51. So Democrats run for President to have more money to spend on elections where they have a chance. Except Bernie. He likes to buy vacation houses.

    1. That’s all?

      At least Hillary could write a book with all the people she blamed.

  52. “Harris Fans Blame Billionaires, Sexists, and Racists for Her Campaign’s Collapse.”

    …and don’t forget whitey.
    He’s the root of all evil.

  53. Maybe Harris quit because most democrats don’t like her.

  54. Yep, had nothing to do with her being a lying bitch, right?

  55. She is a shrill, angry, bitter, condescending and childless career technocrat. Added to that she has the emotional empathy and self awareness of a rock.

    That’s why her campaign tanked. It’s also why Hillary, Romney, McCain, Kerry, Dukakis, and just about every other second banana in the presidential races lost in the last 30 years.

    All successful presidential candidates pass why I call the bus ride test. If for some reason you ran into one of them and struck up a conversation on a bus after a few hours you would end up liking them. You might not agree on much, but you’d come out of there thinking they’re okay as people. That is not true of any of the losers.

  56. Harris Fans Blame Billionaires, Sexists, and Racists for Her Campaign’s Collapse

    I didn’t know Harris was a billionaire too!

  57. Maybe she can sleep with one of the other candidates for a VP spot. Hey, it’s worked for her before.

Please to post comments