Every nasty thing that harris or biden has said (or done) in the past should serve as a reminder to us. Once it's out there online or on video, it's out there forever and will be used against you in one way or another.

fpuhan wins the internet for today.
Rod

For what I read as SF DA she either dealt or dismissed to pad her conviction rate...

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:
She polled terribly in the Democratic primaries and she is very unlikable among the Dem's base. I think Senile Joe made a great choice for conservative/mainstream America.

I strongly agree with this.

My go-to commute radio for the years she was DA in San Francisco got me familiar with her activities there, and that will be a treasure trove for examples that should repel swing voters just fine. Yeah, her Senatorial antics will add to the mix, but seriously, she was one of the most politicized, least capable DAs imaginable.

One example: gang-banger killed a cop. Immediately, as DA, she took the death penalty off the table, not because it wasn't applicable, but because as I recall the radio news reports 'I don't believe in the death penalty'. SF Chronicle "How a San Francisco cop-killing case could haunt Kamala Harris

quote:

Harris’ first major decision as San Francisco’s district attorney: deciding not to seek the death penalty for a gang member who fatally shot police Officer Isaac Espinoza in 2004.

Harris’ Democratic primary opponents probably won’t bring it up, as they all oppose the death penalty, just as Harris does. But should the California Democrat survive the primary battle, you can bet President Trump’s first TV attack ad will include some version of this riff: “As San Francisco’s district attorney, Kamala Harris refused to seek the death penalty for a gang member who killed a police officer.”

She's been on my radar ever since - I always prick up my ears when something about her crosses the transom.

It says a lot about the California I left that someone like that became a Senator. But CA's electoral votes are long gone. What matters are swing voters in swing states. The radical left is going to freak out at "DA" and the middle is going to freak out about her job performance.

I think this just tied an albatross around Sleepy Joe's neck.

quote:

Originally posted by Fla. Jim:
After reading this, I am beginning to think the logic in her pick is she will appeal or get out the Republican "Never Trumpers" vote. And some Old school Dems holding the more conservative vote. Old school Dems who would then be able to hold their noses and vote for Biden knowing Kamala will be running the show.

Yes, this represents the triumph of the Hillary Clinton wing of the party....


Hillary Recrudescence? Biden's choice of Kamala Harris represents return of Democrats' Hillary wing

Not to brag, but yes, I am bragging. I weighed the odds of Joe Biden choosing Kamala Harris as his vice presidential running mate against those of her two rivals, Rep. Karen Bass and former national security adviser Susan Rice, and argued that Joe was going to go for Kamala.

Writing at AT on Aug. 2:

My money's on his picking Harris in this situation based on who he is, but it's obvious he doesn't trust Harris, who has that lean and hungry look. No wonder nobody, including Joe Biden himself, knows who Joe Biden is going to pick.

Harris, as it happens, represents one of three wings of the increasingly fractious Democratic Party. She's the creature of the Hillary Clinton wing, which is the opportunistic center of the Democrats (important point), lost the last election, and continues to seethe. Joe's picked this group over the others.

The other hydra heads on this beast are the Bernie Sanders socialist wing, which is truly crazy, modeling itself on the ideas of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez, whether it admits it or not, and the former minions of the last winning Democratic White House, the Obama wing, which I guess represents the right (of the Democrats, not the country), given its pragmatic experience in governing, with an opposition, rather than in a truly socialist one-party-state vacuum. I argued this last August 2:

Whoever Biden picks is going to represent the triumph of the represented faction over the other rivals. If Biden goes for Bass, he wants to win the Bernie-ites. If Biden goes for Rice, it's back to Obamadom and being Obama's shadow. If Biden goes for Harris, it's the Hillaryworld hog wallow, which should provide for young Hunter Biden and the rest of the family, as well as bring in the California elites.

Biden's pick represents the triumph of the Hillary wing of the party. Not surprisingly, Hillary is thrilled:

There are also statements like this, from Hillary's loyal minions:

The Bernie-ites, for whom ideas matter, are enraged, calling it "a middle finger to the base" because Harris is a political opportunist who engaged in dirty-prosecutor behavior back when it was fashionable to be "smart on crime," as she put it. The Obamatons are saying polite things and holding their fire, sounding just a tad less than enthusiastic. "Now let's go win this thing," said Obama.

Harris herself represents that smug, smarmy, pantsuited suburban-woman base that originally drew to Hillary Clinton, with a side of hypocrisy. As I noted here on Jan. 27, 2019:

Kamala Harris, that vaunted self-righteous feminist candidate who's using her 'year of the woman' chops to challenge President Trump in 2020, has a little problem: She slept her way to the top.

Harris in fact is very close to Hillary Clinton, too, on the very important money front. Here's today's American Spectator, emphasis mine:

Then this Kamala Harris decided to force herself on the American people as a presidential candidate, in an effort that was a ghastly failure. Despite raising and spending a fortune thanks to her close connections with the Clintons and their fundraising machine, she crashed and burned in the early primaries and dropped out, but not before attacking eventual nominee Biden as a racist — which she prefaced by denying she was doing so, something the Biden shills at the Washington Post now say is proof that she never did it.

Her money is Clinton money.

And Clinton was all about lining her pockets with political patronage first, even above ideology. This explains the political opportunism, seen in both Kamala and Hillary. This explains the constant scandals, which plague both.

First, she was tough on crime when it was fashionable to be tough on crime, throwing more than a thousand petty marijuana-users in jail for the political applause, just as Hillary (and Biden) were in those plummy '90s.

She's also someone who laps up the perks, sometimes inventing some and getting away with it. Kamala bullyragged the Los Angeles Police Department to serve as her personal Praetorian guard, quite illegally, in exchange for not cracking down on the LAPD for racist or whatever offenses. That has a whiff of Hillary — taking perks and becoming the entrenched establishment, no grassrooty stuff for her. And yes, Kamala, like Hillary, bombed at the grassroots level in Iowa.

She's also, like Hillary, not above dirty tricks. Her curiously well timed legislation just ahead of the Jussie Smollett hoax in Chicago suggests that something was planned among the operatives. Later still, she was reportedly planting dirty stories about her rivals in the press (and like Hillary, the media were in her tree — remember the shopping excursion?) to persuade Biden to pick her. Again, very, very Hillary.

There are quite a few other examples of this kind of opportunism and patronage perks which so characterize the Hillary wing of the party. Hillary of course, turned her State department position into a pay to play money-making operation for the Clinton Foundation, the donations of which dried up when she lost the 2016 election.

What's vivid is that Joe Biden takes comfort in this patronage and scandal model, too, and Harris is the closest follower of it.

Considering the wings of his Democratic Party that he has to choose from - the Bernie crazies, the supposedly close Obamatons who in reality held him in contempt, or the comfortable finger-to-the-wind patronage and corruption-focused, Hillary faction, just right for getting Hunter Biden his money-making gigs, it's a natural for Biden to chose Harris.

After all, Biden has no accomplishments of any kind as a politician. Peter Schweizer has observed that Biden's political career has been intensely focused on enriching family members and Kamala's isn't all that different. While Harris is said to have that lean and hungry look as Biden slips into his dotage, it's also important that she will do and say anything to get the position she wants -- and if that means play-acting for awhile, well, she's good at play-acting, just ask Willie Brown. She'll fake it till she can make a killing.

Biden understand this, and is comfortable with it. It's kind of a conventional, recognizable way of being a Democrat to him.

Kamala with all her history of sucking up, is pretty much the same.

So here we are, a scandal-plagued administration in the making, which will be a Democrat hog-wallow with no consequences, moving with the lefty wind until the wind changes direction. No wonder the Bernie-ites hate them. This is Hillary redux and all we can hope is that it ends the same way it did in 2016.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.co...g.html#ixzz6UvDH7LjE

Well, that does make a certain mathematical sense. Biden should be able to tap into the Obama machine directly, and he's cutting deals with the Bernie Bros over the platform (and, theoretically, what a Biden White House would actually do). In this perspective, Harris signals a commitment to black concerns while still bringing in the Clinton contingent. By the kind of logic that prevails in the Dems these days, that represents a broad-based coalition - and gives Biden a way to justify picking Harris to those who think she isn't black enough or "progressive" enough. Dems, of course, are so accustomed to being fractured and playing the identity politics game that the concept of "coalition" is magical enough to justify just about any enormity.

quote:

Originally posted by Z06:

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

This article is over a month old but still relevant.

An article in the Intercept last week reported that a Wikipedia editor was scrubbing the page of former Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), considered a prominent member of the shortlist to be Joe Biden’s Vice Presidental pick. The piece mentioned changes such as removing a past campaign finance scandal and Harris’ record as a hard-line prosecutor. Changes not mentioned include removals of the alleged role nepotism played in her early political career and significant favorable additions about Harris.

Other Wikipedia editors have begun working to undo the changes made to the Harris page, although many details remain missing. On Twitter, the Wikipedia editor responsible for most removals was identified as Bao Nguyen, a former volunteer organizer for the Harris campaign. Similarly, editors previously created pages for fellow Presidential candidates Pete Buttigieg and Andrew Yang without disclosing their connections to them.

The Intercept article by Aida Chavez notes that in 2016, editors had been heavily involved in contributing to the article on Tim Kaine prior to him being announced as Hillary Clinton’s Vice Presidential pick. As a result, a user on Reddit created a script to monitor for activity about prospective VP picks for Biden and noticed significant editing of the page for Kamala Harris. Other Reddit users identified a single editor by the username “Bnguyen1114” as the primary party responsible for the activity.

Chavez delved into the editor’s activity on the Harris page and how he removed content potentially unfavorable to Harris. Among the edits noted was the removal of a paragraph regarding her defense of Orange County prosecutors implicated in widespread misconduct, which Nguyen claimed was removed for “proof-reading” yet not restored until after the Intercept piece. Nguyen also removed details about a campaign finance violation involving Harris’ campaign for District Attorney, removing most criticism of defenses Harris gave for the violation. A quote from Harris stating “it is not progressive to be soft on crime” was also removed by Nguyen, but restored shortly after the Intercept article.

Not mentioned were other removals of unflattering material by Nguyen. These included details about Harris benefiting in her early political career from a relationship with future San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, then the Speaker of the California Assembly, who she dated. Also excluded were the substantial salaries she earned at positions to which Brown appointed her and a quote from Brown’s mayoral campaign manager about how the relationship benefited Harris. Another editor subsequently removed all mention of Brown, claiming “sexist” framing. Mention of Brown’s appointments was later restored, though only noting them and briefly stating she and Brown were in a relationship at the time.

One other detail removed involved how Harris handled an investigation into the death of Mitrice Richardson, a black woman who, after being detained by the Malibu sheriff’s department for not paying her bill at a diner, was released in the middle of the night without a car or phone and was later found dead in a canyon. Harris eventually closed an investigation she had opened into the death under pressure from the public, stating there was insufficient evidence for criminal charges. Mention of the Richardson case is still absent from the article.

Many edits Nguyen made to the article on Harris also added positive material. This included significantly expanding content about her securing of mortgage settlements with the major banks, citing her own memoir for some details, and addition of material lauding her questioning of Attorney General Bill Barr during his nomination, uncritically repeating her claims Barr refused to answer her for fear of perjury. Nearly all the content in both instances remains in the article. Much of the extensive positive expansion by Nguyen was reversed by administrator Michel Aaij, or “Drmies” on Wikipedia, calling it “grossly excessive and excessively detailed” and poorly-sourced. Following Aaij’s reversal, Nguyen began cutting extensively from the article instead.

Since the Intercept article, editors have attempted to reverse a number of changes Nguyen made to the article, though have so far rejected completely undoing his removals, arguing every change should be vetted carefully. This has not necessarily fixed the issues with Nguyen’s removals. While a brief mention of the campaign finance scandal when Harris ran for District Attorney has been expanded, where the material prior to being removed noted her many attempts to excuse, defend, or downplay, the campaign finance violation, the article now only states Harris accepted “full blame” for the violation.

Readers of the Intercept article began investigating Nguyen’s identity after the piece was published. An IP address apparently belonging to Nguyen was identified due to edits made right before his account’s first edits. Combined with his use of the same account name on another social media site, online sleuths identified the editor as Bao Nguyen, a Bay area lawyer listed on LinkedIn as a “Volunteer Organizing Leader” for the Harris Presidential Campaign. Katherine Maher, Executive Director of the Foundation that owns Wikipedia, criticized Nguyen’s identification as doxing in a reply to one person posting the name on Twitter and also criticized Nguyen for violating policies on conflicts of interest. On Wikipedia, Nguyen acknowledged the accuracy of the identification, though claimed he mistakenly thought his common last name made him sufficiently untraceable.

While Nguyen has denied being “employed” by the Harris campaign, he stated that he has volunteered for Democratic campaigns and met Harris. Such volunteer work could be construed as a “conflict of interest” on Wikipedia, which editors are expected to disclose on articles they edit. His failure to disclose is not unusual, as the creator of the page on 2020 Democratic Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg also volunteered in one of his campaigns, but did not disclose this fact. More egregiously, the editor who created Wikipedia’s page on Andrew Yang, another 2020 candidate, did not disclose that she was the marketing manager for Yang’s non-profit. She later served on his campaign.

Such editing by editors with conflicts of interest, including paid editing as with Yang’s page, is a common problem on Wikipedia even when going against policies and, in cases of undisclosed paid editing, the site’s Terms of Use. However, Wikipedia’s greatest source of bias on political articles remains the site’s agenda-driven editors whose editing has become so slanted even the site’s own co-founder has accused Wikipedia of becoming too left-wing.

Update — After the publication of this article, Bao Nguyen admitted his involvement with both the Harris and Biden campaigns. On a page for discussing concerns about editors with conflicts of interest, Nguyen admitted he was a volunteer on the Harris campaign. He also mentioned briefly volunteering for Biden’s presidential campaign. In response to concerns, Nguyen committed to recusing indefinitely from further edits to the Harris page. Due to this disclosure, an administrator imposed a restriction on Nguyen prohibiting him from editing articles about Harris, Biden, and other political figures for whom he has volunteered.



https://www.breitbart.com/tech...en-vp-kamala-harris/

Don't sit idly by in our grandstand and saying the other grandstand is full of losers. The Dems are smart about this and how they're going to play the game and they've been playing it the better part of this year.

They are down to the last 80 days of the game and they pushed off the convention and VP announcement as long as they could so there isn't as much time to attack Biden and Harris together.

They will get a 2 week or so bump and now we're down to 65 or so days. The media will bend over for them and that's how the dog and pony show will go until November.

They will do razzle dazzle and everything else to keep up the wave's crest until then.

They already have 45% of the vote and they hope the razzle dazzle, platitudes, attacks on Trump and everything else will sway 6% of the undecided and swing voters.

The playbook is already written and we're going to make a mistake to write them off as unviable.

45% are for Biden, 45% will be for Trump and all the Dems needs is magic and media help to sway 51% of that 10% gap to win.

Bill Kristol can he be any more obvious ?

Kristol:

Just an innocent thought: We’ve seen Biden in office for over four decades, and we’ve seen Trump nonstop for the last four years. We’ve seen enough to make up our minds about them. So let’s skip the presidential debates but have three vice-presidential debates.

"just an innocent thought"

quote:

Bill Kristol can he be any more obvious ?

Bill Kristol is the ultimate A-hole.

I just got an email from my CA teachers union. With Kamala on the ticket, this is an excellent opportunity to push for higher taxes on the "rich".

Of course, the $$ Billions would be used "for the children".

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
I just got an email from my CA teachers union. With Kamala on the ticket, this is an excellent opportunity to push for higher taxes on the "rich".

Of course, the $$ Billions would be used "for the children".

That's fantastic, especially for the "rich" in California. Because they obviously don't pay near enough.


California 13.3% Tax Rate May Be Raised To 16.8%...Retroactively
Robert W. Wood

Most Californian’s think they already pay high taxes, and they are not wrong. But a tax bill, AB 1253 (Santiago), would impose even higher taxes, and retroactively to January 1, 2020. If passed, high income Californians would pay another 1% on income over $1,181,484, 3% on income over $2,362,968, and 3.5% on income over $5,907,420. These dollar thresholds look odd, but are $1M, $2M and $5M plus inflation adjustments. They would hit only very high income Californians, hiking California’s tax rate on income over $1 million from 13.3% to 14.3%. California’s highest rate would be a whopping 16.8%. You can read Assembly Bill 1253 for yourself. If it passes, it could cause some Californians to hop in their Teslas and head for Texas, Nevada, Washington, or somewhere else. Anywhere would mean lower state taxes. The current top 13.3% rate—which it is worth noting is the same on ordinary income and capital gain—dates from 2012.

With the 2018 federal tax law changes, paying 13.3% in non-deductible state taxes (after a $10,000 cap) is even more painful....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/r...tively/#332f3b84c026

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
I just got an email from my CA teachers union. With Kamala on the ticket, this is an excellent opportunity to push for higher taxes on the "rich".

Of course, the $$ Billions would be used "for the children".

That's fantastic, especially for the "rich" in California. Because they obviously don't pay near enough.


California 13.3% Tax Rate May Be Raised To 16.8%...Retroactively
Robert W. Wood

Most Californian’s think they already pay high taxes, and they are not wrong. But a tax bill, AB 1253 (Santiago), would impose even higher taxes, and retroactively to January 1, 2020. If passed, high income Californians would pay another 1% on income over $1,181,484, 3% on income over $2,362,968, and 3.5% on income over $5,907,420. These dollar thresholds look odd, but are $1M, $2M and $5M plus inflation adjustments. They would hit only very high income Californians, hiking California’s tax rate on income over $1 million from 13.3% to 14.3%. California’s highest rate would be a whopping 16.8%. You can read Assembly Bill 1253 for yourself. If it passes, it could cause some Californians to hop in their Teslas and head for Texas, Nevada, Washington, or somewhere else. Anywhere would mean lower state taxes. The current top 13.3% rate—which it is worth noting is the same on ordinary income and capital gain—dates from 2012.

With the 2018 federal tax law changes, paying 13.3% in non-deductible state taxes (after a $10,000 cap) is even more painful....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/r...tively/#332f3b84c026

They are also talking of a "Wealth Tax", ie, in addition to state income taxes, anyone worth more than "$xxx" would have to pay something like .5% of their net worth, each year, to the state.

But not to worry, I am sure all such $$ will be used to serve the people, to make the state a better place to live, to save the planet.

California leading the charge for wealth re-distribution. Blue state solution for everything, raise them taxes!

Ps...don’t forget to tack on our annual pay raises.

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...eally-bad-decisions/

Kamala Harris: Young People Are ‘Stupid’ — ‘They Make Really Bad Decisions’

from 2014 video at link

During a speech to the Ford Foundation, the then-California Attorney General used young people as a punchline, saying they are “stupid” and that’s why they have to live with resident assistants in dormitories.

Harris was talking about drug offenders in the criminal justice system during her time as the San Francisco District Attorney and said, “What’s the other thing we know about this population? And it’s a specific phase of life. And remember, age is more than a chronological fact. What else do we know about this population, 18 through 24? They are stupid.”

The audience burst into laughter. The camera cut to one woman, though, who didn’t appear amused.

“That is why we put them in dormitories, and they have a resident assistant,” Harris continued.

“They make really bad decisions.”

quote:

Originally posted by recoatlift:
California leading the charge for wealth re-distribution. Blue state solution for everything, raise them taxes!

Ps...don’t forget to tack on our annual pay raises.

You don't understand. California is a big, wealthy state that's on the cutting edge in a number of fields. It takes a lot of the taxpayers' money to buy enough votes from the "free shit" crowd to win an election there.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

Originally posted by recoatlift:
California leading the charge for wealth re-distribution. Blue state solution for everything, raise them taxes!

Ps...don’t forget to tack on our annual pay raises.

You don't understand. California is a big, wealthy state that's on the cutting edge in a number of fields. It takes a lot of the taxpayers' money to buy enough votes from the "free shit" crowd to win an election there.

Seems the Dem strategy fits the pattern, first you provide a safety net, which then becomes a hammock, which then becomes a straight jacket. The more the gov't gives you, the more they own you.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

Originally posted by recoatlift:
California leading the charge for wealth re-distribution. Blue state solution for everything, raise them taxes!

Ps...don’t forget to tack on our annual pay raises.

You don't understand. California is a big, wealthy state that's on the cutting edge in a number of fields. It takes a lot of the taxpayers' money to buy enough votes from the "free shit" crowd to win an election there.

Seems the Dem strategy fits the pattern, first you provide a safety net, which then becomes a hammock, which then becomes a straight jacket. The more the gov't gives you, the more they own you.

Although it does beg the question, as Cali continues to turn into a cesspool for most residents, and those residents continue to vote with their feet and leave, who's going to be left to pay those insane taxes? And when silicon valley feels the pinch, they'll send an unmistakable message to Sacramento to knock it off. Then what? Cali is in a death spiral, the only question remaining is how fast they intend to spin their way down the drain.

It wouldn't bother me to see a few of those elite hollywood celebrities paying out a good % of their wealth.