quote:

Originally posted by sooma:
Can you imagine with that pick, California conservatives coming out enmass and turning the state red?
Between Newsom's horrible state management and Harris being generally disliked, this could be the perfect storm to unite them. Besides, you know Harris just won't be able to control herself and go full retard.

California has a true silent majority of conservatives and they have been pushing back.

Man, that would be awesome.

Put down the pipe, go get some fresh air. Before CA turns Red, let alone purple, NV, AZ would have to return to being solidly red states.

In the meantime, the GOP has largely abandon the wealthiest top-20 counties in the state. Their best bet would be to focus on local elections by flipping the three Central Coast counties while shoring up the central valley counties. Then focusing on getting Orange County and San Diego back to Red.

quote:

Originally posted by owenbright:
Could someone explain what possible strengths they thought this VP pick would bring to the Biden campaign?

She is a WOMAN of COLOR. You know, it was a RACIST and SEXIST decision.

Hehe

^^ Trump is fearless when it comes to criticizing his enemies. No such thing as political correctness exists with him. I can only imagine what is coming for poor Kamala and Joe. I doubt Kamala's past sexual exploits will be off limits for Trump. If the Democrats manage to avoid the debates Trump will kill them through Twitter in probably harsher ways than if they held the debates. This is a no win for the dems. No debates and people will question why and see through the smoke screen. If they agree to debates Trump will have mumbling Joe speaking in tongues within minutes.

I “almost” feel sorry for Poor Joe. Except he has created his mess and he is sitting in it. And President Trump does not suffer fools well. I’m in the he will not debate club.

What does NV and AZ have to do with CA politics? CA does have a very large conservative base. If you are saying they aren't being supported by the GOP then that's on them.
All I'm saying is if there was ever a time to turn CA, this pick could potentially be that moment.

Also, I live in Montana and have spent the last 2 months chasing trout with my flyrod so am getting plenty of fresh air, thanks for the concern though.

We all know Biden had nothing to do with the decision to pick Harris. But I do kind of wonder how heavy her vetting was. I can just imagine, if they really did some digging, what they found. I've read rumors of sex tapes and swinger parties. Obviously, the MSM would never bring up such stuff. But if Biden's handlers found it, Trump's and the RNC's oppo. research folks probably can too. And then it's a two-fer when it gets exposed and Trump lambasts the MSM for refusing to cover it.

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.

"NYT LINK"

New York times

Kamala Harris Was Not a ‘Progressive Prosecutor’

The senator was often on the wrong side of history when she served as California’s attorney general.

By Lara Bazelon

Ms. Bazelon is a law professor and the former director of the Loyola Law School Project for the Innocent in Los Angeles.

Jan. 17, 2019

Before she was a senator, Kamala Harris was an attorney general and district attorney who acted in ways that could hardly be described as "progressive," Lara Bazelon writes.
Before she was a senator, Kamala Harris was an attorney general and district attorney who acted in ways that could hardly be described as "progressive," Lara Bazelon writes.Credit...Damon Winter/The New York Times

SAN FRANCISCO — With the growing recognition that prosecutors hold the keys to a fairer criminal justice system, the term “progressive prosecutor” has almost become trendy. This is how Senator Kamala Harris of California, a likely presidential candidate and a former prosecutor, describes herself.

But she’s not.

Time after time, when progressives urged her to embrace criminal justice reforms as a district attorney and then the state’s attorney general, Ms. Harris opposed them or stayed silent. Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors.

Consider her record as San Francisco’s district attorney from 2004 to 2011. Ms. Harris was criticized in 2010 for withholding information about a police laboratory technician who had been accused of “intentionally sabotaging” her work and stealing drugs from the lab. After a memo surfaced showing that Ms. Harris’s deputies knew about the technician’s wrongdoing and recent conviction, but failed to alert defense lawyers, a judge condemned Ms. Harris’s indifference to the systemic violation of the defendants’ constitutional rights.

Ms. Harris contested the ruling by arguing that the judge, whose husband was a defense attorney and had spoken publicly about the importance of disclosing evidence, had a conflict of interest. Ms. Harris lost. More than 600 cases handled by the corrupt technician were dismissed.

Ms. Harris also championed state legislation under which parents whose children were found to be habitually truant in elementary school could be prosecuted, despite concerns that it would disproportionately affect low-income people of color.

Ms. Harris was similarly regressive as the state’s attorney general. When a federal judge in Orange County ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional in 2014, Ms. Harris appealed. In a public statement, she made the bizarre argument that the decision “undermines important protections that our courts provide to defendants.” (The approximately 740 men and women awaiting execution in California might disagree).
In 2014, she declined to take a position on Proposition 47, a ballot initiative approved by voters, that reduced certain low-level felonies to misdemeanors. She laughed that year when a reporter asked if she would support the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. Ms. Harris finally reversed course in 2018, long after public opinion had shifted on the topic.

In 2015, she opposed a bill requiring her office to investigate shootings involving officers. And she refused to support statewide standards regulating the use of body-worn cameras by police officers. For this, she incurred criticism from an array of left-leaning reformers, including Democratic state senators, the A.C.L.U. and San Francisco’s elected public defender. The activist Phelicia Jones, who had supported Ms. Harris for years, asked, “How many more people need to die before she steps in?”

Worst of all, though, is Ms. Harris’s record in wrongful conviction cases. Consider George Gage, an electrician with no criminal record who was charged in 1999 with sexually abusing his stepdaughter, who reported the allegations years later. The case largely hinged on the stepdaughter’s testimony and Mr. Gage was convicted.
Editors’ Picks
When Marriage Is Just Another Overhyped Nightclub
At Europe’s Illegal Parties, the Virus Is the Last Thing on Anyone’s Mind
100 Years Later, These Activists Continue Their Ancestors’ Work

Afterward, the judge discovered that the prosecutor had unlawfully held back potentially exculpatory evidence, including medical reports indicating that the stepdaughter had been repeatedly untruthful with law enforcement. Her mother even described her as “a pathological liar” who “lives her lies.”

In 2015, when the case reached the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, Ms. Harris’s prosecutors defended the conviction. They pointed out that Mr. Gage, while forced to act as his own lawyer, had not properly raised the legal issue in the lower court, as the law required.

The appellate judges acknowledged this impediment and sent the case to mediation, a clear signal for Ms. Harris to dismiss the case. When she refused to budge, the court upheld the conviction on that technicality. Mr. Gage is still in prison serving a 70-year sentence.

That case is not an outlier. Ms. Harris also fought to keep Daniel Larsen in prison on a 28-year-to-life sentence for possession of a concealed weapon even though his trial lawyer was incompetent and there was compelling evidence of his innocence. Relying on a technicality again, Ms. Harris argued that Mr. Larsen failed to raise his legal arguments in a timely fashion. (This time, she lost.)

She also defended Johnny Baca’s conviction for murder even though judges found a prosecutor presented false testimony at the trial. She relented only after a video of the oral argument received national attention and embarrassed her office.

And then there’s Kevin Cooper, the death row inmate whose trial was infected by racism and corruption. He sought advanced DNA testing to prove his innocence, but Ms. Harris opposed it. (After The New York Times’s exposé of the case went viral, she reversed her position.)

All this is a shame because the state’s top prosecutor has the power and the imperative to seek justice. In cases of tainted convictions, that means conceding error and overturning them. Rather than fulfilling that obligation, Ms. Harris turned legal technicalities into weapons so she could cement injustices.

In “The Truths We Hold,” Ms. Harris’s recently published memoir, she writes: “America has a deep and dark history of people using the power of the prosecutor as an instrument of injustice.”

She adds, “I know this history well — of innocent men framed, of charges brought against people without sufficient evidence, of prosecutors hiding information that would exonerate defendants, of the disproportionate application of the law.”

All too often, she was on the wrong side of that history.

It is true that politicians must make concessions to get the support of key interest groups. The fierce, collective opposition of law enforcement and local district attorney associations can be hard to overcome at the ballot box. But in her career, Ms. Harris did not barter or trade to get the support of more conservative law-and-order types; she gave it all away.

Of course, the full picture is more complicated. During her tenure as district attorney, Ms. Harris refused to seek the death penalty in a case involving the murder of a police officer. And she started a successful program that offered first-time nonviolent offenders a chance to have their charges dismissed if they completed a rigorous vocational training. As attorney general, she mandated implicit bias training and was awarded for her work in correcting a backlog in the testing of rape kits.

But if Kamala Harris wants people who care about dismantling mass incarceration and correcting miscarriages of justice to vote for her, she needs to radically break with her past.

A good first step would be to apologize to the wrongfully convicted people she has fought to keep in prison and to do what she can to make sure they get justice. She should start with George Gage.

Some info on David Hill, cop killer in San Fran that Kamala Harris refused seek the death penalty for. Hill used an AK-47 to put 13 rounds into officer Isaac Espinoza from 10' away.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/ar...noza-and-2716770.php

As much as I'd like to see the 'knob polisher' angle exploited, Trump would be painted a complete hypocrite by the media if he goes down that path. The winning agenda is to continually remind black folks that Kamala jailed a whole bunch of them for long sentences not always fitting the crimes, even refused to allow DNA evidence to be introduced to prove the innocence of another black man, and had repeatedly jailed black folks for smoking pot while she brags about doing it herself. Or how about her being for open borders allowing illegals to 'steal' jobs from the black community. Or even best of all, she's fervently against school choice something the black community supports in huge numbers.

The woman is toxic on so many levels that picking what to attack her on first is likely the hardest decision to make.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
As much as I'd like to see the 'knob polisher' angle exploited, Trump would be painted a complete hypocrite by the media if he goes down that path.

I thought this exact thing yesterday when the announcement was made. Just don't even pull at that thread, because it will do nothing but unravel.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
As much as I'd like to see the 'knob polisher' angle exploited, Trump would be painted a complete hypocrite by the media if he goes down that path.

I thought this exact thing yesterday when the announcement was made. Just don't even pull at that thread, because it will do nothing but unravel.

It's not a winning point to make, anyway. Most people would land somewhere between not caring and thinking it a cheap shot.

There's a lot to dislike about Horrible Harris. Her past sexual behavior isn't one of them.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
There's a lot to dislike about Horrible Harris. Her past sexual behavior isn't one of them.

Indeed: something that should be posted in the political memes thread as a hint to the children among us.

http://thefederalist-gary.blog...ly-owned-slaves.html

Her Family admitted they owned slaves...

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
Trump will play hardball with Biden and Harris. He'll beat them like the proverbial rented mule. No John "I'm suspending my campaign during the financial crisis" - while Obama didn't - "and you can't use Obama's middle name" McCain. No Mittens Romney.

President Trump has beat the demoncrat mule for three years, I suspect he'll have a heart and put it out of misery this year.

sobering observation by Undercover Huber:

"By this point in the 2016 Presidential election, Obama had Trump’s campaign manager, top military officer & 2 foreign policy advisors under FBI investigation & was about to start physically spying on Trump himself"

well the Ho has reached new heights - she now refers to President Trump as a serial predator

I think the gloves are off - do to her what she did to Kavanaugh

^^^^ ah, maybe that’s it. Since Biden is nursing home bound, he can’t put up the fight. So, they hired the Ho to be the attack dog.

Qualifications for the next highest office position be dammed.

Joey D
8/10/20

No description provided

I don't claim to be the sharpest tack in the box so I really can't figure out who would benefit from delayed voting results via the us mail.


WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE’S NO CLEAR WINNER?

There has been a lot of loose talk from both presidential candidates about rigged or stolen elections of late, and many predict a lengthy legal battle over the presidency.

President Trump warned this week that the outcome could be in dispute for “months and months” or “for years.”

But let’s not get ourselves all knotted up in the claims of our hyper hyperbolic president or his rhetorically sloppy challenger, Joe Biden. Instead, let’s run through the realities of an inconclusive presidential election.

First, let’s remember that it’s Congress, not the courts, that certify the results of a presidential election. Each state chooses its electors and those electors’ votes are transmitted by the state elections boss – usually a secretary of state – to the Senate.

On Jan. 6 a joint session of the next Congress will meet to ratify those findings and declare the candidate that has won a majority of the vote – 270 votes or more – the president.

What the president is suggesting is that there would not be results from all the states by then or, what he and Biden have both suggested, is that the results may be rigged or disputed. And that’s where things could get very interesting.

Courts certainly do have their place in this, but that happens long before Congress acts. State elections officials have to certify their electors before the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, which is Dec. 14 this year. All of the legal jockeying that takes place will have to occur between Election Day and then.

Those who recall the drama around the 2000 election will remember that what was in legal dispute was the power of Florida’s secretary of state to certify the results despite demands from Al Gore’s campaign that recounts continue. The court deferred to state authorities and Florida certified its electors.

Given how long counting has taken in some state primaries this year it’s not unreasonable to think that we could see legal battles rage until the last minute, but one way or the other, by Dec. 14, they’re obliged to convene their electors and transmit the results by certified mail.

But what if some states don’t finish in time or what if secretaries of state certify electors with claims widely in dispute? The Constitution has an answer.

If the disputed or incomplete results don’t prevent a candidate from reaching 270 votes then it’s no big deal. Congress can ignore what’s missing and still pick a president.

But if the number of missing or disputed electors is large enough or the election close enough that the absence prevents either candidate from getting to 270, the House gets to choose. Just as would be the case in a 269-269 tie, the House would select one of the candidates who has won electoral votes.

We have some precedent here. In 1877, the results from three states were in dispute in a race close enough to call the final result in question, so Congress created a bipartisan panel to review the results. The House certified the panel’s findings and awarded the presidency to Rutherford Hayes despite his evident initial defeat. (It went along with some horse trading in which Republicans agreed to end military Reconstruction.)

But however Congress gets there, on Jan. 6 the members will either certify the results or the House will get to work making its choice. Here, the House acts differently than usual. The delegations from each of the 50 states get one vote. California and Montana would be equals.

The current Congress is pretty narrowly divided with 25 Republican-majority delegations, 24 Democrat-majority delegations and one tie, Pennsylvania. We don’t know what the next Congress will look like exactly, but we can assume it won’t be wildly different.

There are currently four states with caucus control decided by one seat: Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Michigan. One imagines there would be a great deal of deal making in such places. It would be hot stuff, indeed.

But however it goes, the House would pick a president before noon on Jan. 20 when the current president’s term expires.

Our Founders and the Constitution contemplated the possibility of contested elections and on three separate occasions it has fallen to Congress to resolve such disputes. If we end up screwing up this election beyond repair or if the participants try to wreck the republic in order to keep or obtain power, it won’t be the end of us.

Instead, it will be a heckuva lesson in civics and politics for us all.


https://www.foxnews.com/politi...eres-no-clear-winner