But in the very next sentence, he said, “The idea that an 8-year-old child, 10-year-old child, decides, you know, ‘I want to be transgender, that’s what I think I’d like to be, it’d make my life a lot easier’– there should be zero discrimination.”
In other words: Go for it, kid.
Because 8-year-old kids have it all figured out, right? They would never make permanent decision they’d regret at the ripe old age of 8, right?
Because there’s no way 8-year-old kids wouldn’t be convinced to become trans solely due to the fact that our degenerate mainstream culture now glorifies and glamorizes transgenderism, right?
According to CBS News, President Trump has already narrowed down his short list of potential nominees to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg to two names: Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa.
The CBS article is basically concerned only with whether each candidate would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, because abortion is a most holy sacrament in the church of liberalism. Seriously, go read the article. With Lagoa it mentions that she represented the family of Elian Gonzalez in that famous case 20 years ago, but then it quickly circles back to the topic of ABORTION, which again as we all know is literally the most important political issue in history.
No doubt the Democrats plan on shrieking nonstop about a Woman’s Sacred Right To Choose for the entirety of the hearings, and no matter how many times the nominee says she won’t overturn Roe v. Wade, the Democrats will never move away from that topic.
So prepare to hear nothing but ABORTION ABORTION ABORTION for the next few weeks, and prepare for all the 20-something social media thots who know everything there is to know about politics and type in all lowercase letters to be like so totally outraged omg literally wtf.
Rush Limbaugh thinks Republicans should just skip the hearings altogether, and I mostly agree with him on that. I mean, it’s not like any Democrats are open to changing their vote on the nominee. There is nothing the nominee can say that will make a single Democrat vote for her, unless she says that once appointed to the court she’s going to indict Donald Trump.
The only thing the nomination hearings can do is allow the Democrats to turn it into a circus and slander the nominee, and potentially gin up enough hysterical negative media coverage that weak-link Republicans get cold feet and change their votes.
So why even bother? Sure, the Democrats will scream bloody murder about “breaking with tradition” and not holding a televised hearing, because apparently televised media circus hearings which only became a thing in the late 80s/early 90s are mandated by the Constitution.
But the Democrats shrieking over the lack of hearings is actually preferable to allowing them to lie 24/7 during the hearings themselves. After all, as Limbaugh points out, Kamala Harris is on the Judiciary Committee, and she is going to be positively unbearable the whole time. “Miss Barrett/Lagoa, let me tell you a story. In 1972 a young girl wanted to get an ABORTION but she couldn’t because this evil, racist and oppressive country made it illegal and punishable by death. Well, that little girl was me. What is your position on Donald Trump’s evil plan to violently murder every last woman in this country by depriving them of their Sacred and Holy Right to Choose? Please explain to me why you reject the wonderful and beautiful and totally natural ritual of ABORTION? Why do you want to overturn Roe Vs. Wade, the most holy court ruling which is more sacred and important than the Ten Commandments? ABORTION 4EVER! I yield the balance of my time.”
Yeah, it’s going to be awful.
BUT: I think it’s going to backfire on the Democrats and actually work out to Trump’s favor. The Senate GOP should go through with the hearings and just let the Democrats be their insane, hateful and hysterical selves and let the country see how rotten they are. Give America one last good look at these truly despicable people before election day.
It’ll really drive the point home for a lot of voters.
I can promise you that whichever woman Trump nominates, she will be calm, cool, composed, respectful, reasonable and ultimately the country will sympathize with her over the hysterical Democrats attacking her nonstop.
If you’ve never seen Amy Coney Barrett speak, here’s a brief clip of her hearing before the Senate Committee when she was nominated to the federal court a few years ago:
She’s got her husband and her kids with her. She comes off as a typical suburban soccer mom. And Democrats are going to demonize her to no end. They’ve already started:
OMG SHE’S A CATHOLIC! THE HORROR! And would they please stop with this “Handmaid’s Tale” nonsense? Nobody outside of far left blue check Twitter has even heard of that show.
During her nomination to the federal courts, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) let her raging anti-Catholic bigotry show when she said to Barrett, “When I read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the [Catholic] Dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s a concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.”
“Big issues” meaning…. you guessed it, ABORTION, the be-all, end-all of the Democratic Party.
If the nominee is Barrett, Catholics who watch the hearings will no doubt sympathize with her as she weathers sustained slanders and attacks from Feinstein and company.
I have no doubt in my mind that Republicans will benefit from the optics of the Democrats taking turns verbally assaulting a sweet, reasonable soccer mom.
And if the nominee is Lagoa, that’s even better. The Democrats and the media will proceed to bombard a Hispanic woman with vicious and merciless attacks just weeks before the Presidential election.
No matter who the nominee is, trust me: the Democrats will not be able to contain their hatred. They will come off as unhinged, unreasonable and, most of all, unelectable.
Rush is 100% correct in his arguments for scrapping the hearings. I would not be upset at all if McConnell decides not to give Democrats an opportunity to lie and grandstand.
But I also think Republicans can win over lots of moderate/undecided and middle of the road voters by simply allowing the Democrats to open their big mouths and dig themselves into a hole.
Republicans want to define this election as the reasonable right vs. the insane radical left, and what better way of doing that than by putting forward a reasonable Supreme Court nominee and watching as the insane, radical Democrats spew their vicious bile at her?
The article’s headline was ridiculous enough, but it also includes this interesting tidbit that these leftwing groups have discussed in their “war games” scenarios over a disputed 2020 election: they would “encourage Western states, particularly California but also Oregon and Washington, to secede from the Union” if Trump wins the election but loses the popular vote:
First of all, just because the “progressive groups” are idiots and can’t understand that the popular vote doesn’t matter does not mean they are entitled to remedy if they continually lose the electoral college while winning the popular vote. The President is elected by the states. What part of that is so hard to understand?
Zero chance we should grant any of their demands. They have no leverage. What are they going to do if Trump doesn’t give them what they want, riot more? They’re doing that now and it’s completely backfiring on them. The riots are turning more and more people into Trump voters.
Puerto Rico and DC getting statehood would just guarantee the Democrats at least 6 more electoral votes every election, along with at least 2 more Democratic representatives and four more Democratic Senators. Splitting California into five states would give the Democrats 8 more Senators for a total of 12 new Democratic Senators. Keep dreaming.
Finally, if they really want the West coast to secede from the Union, that would be wonderful. That would solve so many of this country’s problems. Can you imagine if Hollywood was a different country and we didn’t have to deal with them anymore? And Portland and Seattle, too. That would be a dream come true.
If those three states did secede, then all the red counties within them would immediately secede and rejoin the US:
Portland and Seattle would be little more than City States within a sea of red. California will lose the Inland Empire and the coast will be basically all blue. But we can make do without it.
Democrats, however, could not.
Hillary’s popular vote margin in the 2016 election was 2,868,519 million votes nationwide.
She won California by 4,269,978 votes that year.
Without California, she would have lost the popular vote by 1,401,459 votes. And subtract California’s 55 electoral votes from her 232, giving her a paltry 177, which would have made the 242 electoral votes you’d need to win the presidency in a California-less US even further out of reach.
Democrats are screwed if California secedes. It’s an empty threat. In fact, Republicans would probably welcome it.
All of these mainstream media stories with #Concerned titles like “OMG What Are We Going to DO if Trump Refuses to Admit He Lost the Election?” are complete BS.
What they’re really saying is, “How Are We Going to Gaslight The Nation When Trump Calls us Out For Trying to Steal the Election?” That’s what they’re really wondering. They are trying to establish the narrative that any Trump win will be illegitimate.
The real question is, “How bad of a meltdown will the left have when Trump wins again?”
The police union that represents the Kenosha Police Department said that police responded to the scene where Jacob Blake was ultimately shot because he violated a restraining order related to a sexual assault.
The cops involved in Blake’s shooting were there to arrest Blake for violating a restraining order stemming from a sexual assault claim, according to the New York Post.
A 911 call Aug. 23 alerted them that Blake, 29, was at the home of his alleged victim. The officers on the scene knew he had an open warrant for felony sexual assault, according to dispatch records and the Kenosha Professional Police Association.
That union also claimed Blake was wielding a knife at the time of his arrest. He put one of the arresting officers in a headlock and shrugged off two attempts to taser him, it said.
State investigators have said the knife recovered on the scene was found inside Blake’s vehicle.
He was shot in the back seven times by Kenosha police officer Rusten Sheskey as he turned away from police to get in his car.
The restraining order stemmed from a criminal complaint, which was obtained by The Post, that accused Blake of breaking into the home of a woman he knew and sexually assaulting her in May. The victim, who goes by her initials in the paperwork, told police she was asleep when Blake broke in at 6 a.m. and said, “I want my sh-t.”
She reportedly told police that Blake used his finger to sexually assault her. The record states she told police the incident “caused her pain and humiliation and was done without her consent” and she was “very humiliated and upset.”
The victim then allegedly ran out the front door after Blake. She said she realized her keys were missing and “immediately called 911,” the complaint said.
Police filed charges against him for felony sexual assault, trespassing and domestic abuse in July when the warrant was issued for his arrest.
She’s proud of him for resisting arrest? She’s proud of him for being charged with felony sexual assault? She’s proud of him for violating a restraining order? She’s proud of him for grabbing a woman by the pussy?
No, she’s proud of him getting shot by police so that she and her political party could use it as an excuse to destroy America.
If you thought the Summer of Love 2020 was crazy, just wait for the election. The incomparable Michael Anton recently wrote about the Democrats’ plan to steal the election in a piece called “The Coming Coup?“:
It started with the military brass quietly indicating that the troops should not follow a presidential order. They were bolstered by many former generals—including President Trump’s own first Secretary of Defense—who stated openly what the brass would only hint at. Then, as nationwide riots really got rolling in early June, the sitting Secretary of Defense himself all but publicly told the president not to invoke the Insurrection Act. His implicit message was: “Mr. President, don’t tell us to do that, because we won’t, and you know what happens after that.”
All this enthused Joe Biden, who threw subtlety to the winds. The former United States Senator (for 26 years) and Vice President (for eight) has not once, not twice, but thrice confidently asserted that the military will “escort [Trump] from the White House with great dispatch” should the president refuse to leave. Another former Vice President, Al Gore, publicly agreed.
One might dismiss such comments as the ravings of a dementia patient and a has-been who never got over his own electoral loss. But before you do, consider also this. Over the summer a story was deliberately leaked to the press of a meeting at which 100 Democratic grandees, anti-Trump former Republicans, and other ruling class apparatchiks got together (on George Soros’s dime) to “game out” various outcomes of the 2020 election. One such outcome was a clear Trump win. In that eventuality, former Bill Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, playing Biden, refused to concede, pressured states that Trump won to send Democrats to the formal Electoral College vote, and trusted that the military would take care of the rest.
The leaked report from the exercise darkly concluded that “technocratic solutions, courts, and reliance on elites observing norms are not the answer here,” promising that what would follow the November election would be “a street fight, not a legal battle.”
Two more data points (among several that could be provided). Over the summer, two former Army officers, both prominent in the Democrat-aligned “national security” think tank world, wrote an open letter to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in which they urged him to deploy the 82nd Airborne Division to drag President Trump from the Oval Office at precisely 12:01 PM, January 20, 2021.
About a month later, Hillary Clinton declared publicly that Joe Biden should not concede the election “under any circumstances.” This doesn’t sound like the rhetoric of a political party confident it will win an upcoming election.
No, the Democrats are not confident they will win the election. Privately, at least. As I’ve been saying, the only thing the Democrats have going for them is the polls. But given the backlash against the riots, the Democratic nominee’s obvious unsuitability for office, and the fact that the Democratic Party has gone completely off the deep-end; all these signs point toward a Trump win. The signs are there if you look past the rigged polls.
The polls are rigged because the point is to get Biden supporters in the mindset that Biden is supposed to win, and when Trump wins it is due to election theft or cheating. “Trump was way behind in the polls, and somehow he won? He must’ve cheated!”
This is why, in turn, they were pushing the “Postal Service Crisis” several weeks back: to say, “See? We told you Trump would steal the election this way!” They have laid the groundwork before the election.
The nation currently feels like a powder keg waiting to explode. Something big could serve as the match to set it on fire, and that “something big” might be the election.
How the Fighting Starts
Right now, we have BLM and Antifa openly provoking a war. I’m not even going to say we’re in a “cold civil war” because it has gone past that in the past few months. It is now a civil war that only one side is fighting: everything the far left is doing–rioting, arson, vandalism, harassment, assault and even murder–is warlike in nature.
In Rochester, NY recently, normal people were under attack by the mob:
The main caveat is that they’re running amok and destroying cities not because of their physical power, but because of their benefactors’ political power: the police have been told to stand down and allow BLM/Antifa to run wild.
Police could crush BLM/Antifa in a matter of hours if they were allowed to. But they are not allowed to. So BLM/Antifa get to keep pretending they’re powerful and are starting a revolution.
This can end three ways, listed in order of most likely to least likely:
The chaos gets so bad that Democratic mayors relent and allow their police forces to crack down on BLM/Antifa.
The police turn on the Democratic mayors, refuse the stand-down orders, and start cracking BLM/Antifa heads.
Right-wingers with guns get so fed up that they decide to take care of business themselves. We’ve already seen Trump supporters roll into Portland in truck parades to confront the angry mob. A situation like this could easily turn violent. The only thing that prevents it is gun-carrying Trump supporters’ knowledge that the Democratic Mayors & Prosecutors are looking for any reason–any reason at all–to lock them up and throw away the key, even if they have to make something up.
A disputed election could be the tipping point with BLM/Antifa. Normal America hates BLM/Antifa and the all the chaos and unrest they’re causing right now, but Normal America has to tolerate BLM/Antifa because BLM/Antifa have the media, Democratic Mayors & Prosecutors, as well as the Beltway Establishment on their side, rendering them largely untouchable. If the Silent Majority feels like the left has taken the rioting and protesting too far after the election is already over, who knows what’ll happen. Right now, the rioting and chaos is perceived as, if not “tolerable,” then expected election year antics. But if it carries on beyond the election, it will be something else entirely and perceived as a full-fledged rebellion. That’s when rightwingers might decide to put their proverbial foot down.
What the Fighting Will Be Like
We will not see a full-scale, nationwide, brother vs. brother civil war, at least I don’t think. The Elite Political Establishment is hoping for a largely bloodless coup in which the military storms the White House and deposes Trump with little to no pushback.
But the far left wants a full-scale revolution. They want violence.
The far-right also wants violence, as do many everyday rightwingers who are not aligned with any sort of political group but simply see stuff like Rochester, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis and Kenosha and think to themselves, “We are under attack.” It’s far more reactive than the left, which wants to blow it all up (even though they are unaware of the fact that they are both working for and supported by “it”).
If the war becomes two-sided, I don’t think it will be very organized. I think it will be largely confined to major cities. It’ll be sporadic clashes between BLM/Antifa and right-wing Kyle Rittenhouse-types. The only missing ingredient right now is right-wingers shooting back, and if they see a coup unfolding against their president, many of them will mobilize and come to his defense. If the far left goes on a rampage in DC after the election, expect rightwingers to show up with their patience at its limit.
I strongly recommend getting out of cities in advance of the election and until things blow over. I don’t think it will last too long, but it all depends on police/military response. Rightwing Trump supporters will not shoot at cops or military, especially with Trump still in office, but if police refuse to step-in and protect the BLM/Antifa mobs in the wake of the election, then things will very ugly.
HowLikely is This to Happen?
Over the past few years, I’ve gone back and forth on whether I believe a second civil war will happen. I used to think that given the ever-worsening Big Tech censorship of conservatives, as well as the sporadic but increasing attacks on Trump supporters in public, we were destined for a civil war.
Then I sort of backed off when I realized that “the civil war” was mainly happening on TV and social media–in other words, if you simply didn’t watch the news, spent a minimal amount of time on social media, and just lived your life as normal, there was no indication the country was about to go to war with itself.
Even the Summer of BLM I wrote off as largely a product of the media. Most of the images of burning buildings and looted stores and violent mobs we were seeing on TV and on social media were, while disturbing, not the reality for most Americans when they stepped outside. I live in Chicago and even I haven’t seen a hint of the chaos. If it wasn’t for social media, I would have no idea it was happening at all. Certainly I’ve gone downtown and seen the boarded-up stores in the aftermath, but that’s it.
But now I’m starting to see a plausible path to a civil war. It was not like that until the past few months: in 2018-2019, it was more like I could see things getting worse, but there was no plausible path to get from point A (unrest) to point B (war). Now it seems like there is a path.
We now have the two most essential aspects of a civil war: desire for it on both sides. A significant dispute over the election in November could light the fuse.
How do we avoid civil war? Here are the ways:
Trump wins in a landslide. The election is so far out of reach that the Democrats cannot realistically muck things up and pull out dirty tricks to steal key swing states. At this point they’ll just have to give it up.
Trump supporters simply sit back and allow their duly elected President to be deposed in a Latin American-style coup. This is the end of American democracy for good and the greatest political crime in US history. I don’t think Trump supporters will take this laying down: this might be the “call to arms” moment where their patience finally runs out and they grab their proverbial muskets.
All the Democratic talk of “war games” is just talk, and once Trump wins, they don’t really contest the election all that seriously. Sure, they try “ballot harvesting” and deploy an army of lawyers, but it ends up not amounting to much.
Fortunately, on August 28, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, went on record to say that the military will have “no role” in settling a disputed Presidential election:
This is great news. He seemed to throw cold water on all the Democratic fantasies of a military coup:
“I believe deeply in the principle of an apolitical U.S. military,” Milley said in written responses to several questions posed by two Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee. “In the event of a dispute over some aspect of the elections, by law U.S. courts and the U.S. Congress are required to resolve any disputes, not the U.S. military. I foresee no role for the U.S armed forces in this process.”
Of course, he could be lying. But he didn’t have to make this public declaration. Democrats in Congress demanded written testimony from him, and they were hoping he would say the exact opposite of what he said; they were hoping he said something like, “We will protect America from the Bad Orange Man.” Milley made a point to throw cold water on the Democrats’ military coup fantasies.
At the end of the day, Trump is the Commander in Chief of the US military. While much (you could even say most) of the Pentagon’s “top brass” are Obama-Hillary neocon liberals, the troops themselves are overwhelmingly on Trump’s side. Even if the “top brass” decides to turn on Trump, they are running the risk that their troops remain loyal to Trump–again, the Commander in Chief–and the “top brass” are left twisting in the wind. In this case, they’d be hung for treason–along with all the other coup-aligned Democrats.
And that’s the real risk for all of them: if the coup fails, they’re all getting hung for treason.
Anton says the recent Atlantic fake news piece about how Trump hates the troops was all part of the effort to sway the military into being open to forcibly removing Trump from office. Of course, it wasn’t a coincidence at all that on the same day the Atlantic hit job came out, Democrats were touting some poll that showed Biden beating Trump with military voters. That pretty much gave up the game. Of course, there’s no way that poll was accurate. According to Statista, Trump won the military vote over Hillary 60-34 in 2016. The military is traditionally a heavily Republican group, and all the Fake News in the world is not going to cause them to shift from Trump to Biden massively.
Trump even acknowledged as much today:
So if the military doesn’t save Democrats’ bacon, then what’s their next play? The Secret Service, but Anton says that’s also a bust for them:
Can the Dems rely on the Secret Service to drag Trump out? I have my doubts on this one. I’ve seen the Service up close; it really is (or strongly appears to be) apolitical. It has a job to do: protect the president, whoever that is. Officers take that job very seriously. If they don’t believe Trump lost, I don’t think they can be counted on to oust him. On the other hand, were they to believe he did lose and was refusing to leave—a scenario I find impossible to imagine but the Democrats insist is just around the corner—it’s possible the Service might act.
But Trump isn’t going to lose. Most Americans with any shred of common sense can see that the Democrats do not deserve to win this election. They should not and cannot be trusted with power. So when the Democrats lose and inevitably try all their dirty tricks, most people will correctly see it for what it is: children throwing a temper tantrum.
Barring all that, what’s left? Remember that phrase from the Dem war game: “street fight.” In other words, a repeat of this summer, only much, much bigger. Crank the propaganda to ear-drum shattering decibels and fill the streets of every major city with “protesters.” Shut down the country and allow only one message to be heard: “Trump must go.”
I.e., what’s come to be known as a “color revolution,” the exact same playbook the American deep state runs in other countries whose leadership they don’t like and is currently running in Belarus. Oust a leader—even an elected one—through agitation and call it “democracy.”
The events of the last few months may be interpreted as an attempted color revolution that failed to gain enough steam, or as a trial run for the fall. Is the Trump Administration prepared?
But there’s a couple problems with all that: the media’s propaganda doesn’t matter anymore, as the 2016 election already proved. If Trump wins again and by a bigger margin than 2016, it will only prove the media’s propaganda is even less impactful than ever before. It will all fall on deaf ears.
On top of this, they have already “filled the streets of every major city with ‘protesters'”. It’s been going on for the past three months-plus. And it has all been a flop. It has backfired mightily on the elite.
The only thing more riots and chaos will do in the event of a Trump win is just piss Trump supporters off even more. People do not respond well to threats and intimidation. I know the chaos and riots could always be worse and more violent and destructive than what we’ve seen so far, but I doubt it. The next step the rioters could take would be to march into the suburbs, but I think on some level they know they’d be shot if they did.
As long as the chaos and rioting is confined to the cities, it’s largely a futile effort; little more than a mental patient thrashing around in a padded room. Burning down your own city because you’re mad your side lost an election is not going to accomplish much.
It’s hard to have a “color revolution” when the President you’re trying to depose was literally just reelected.
The only way things get out of hand is if the military does indeed step in and try to depose Trump. Then, I think the gloves come off for the right.
Ultimately, the Democrats know they’re going to lose this election. Given that they have completely abandoned any and all attachments to representative democracy, their fantasizing over “war games” and military coups is to be expected. In the long run, it does not bode well for American democracy that one of the two parties is openly anti-democratic. But for now, it’s mostly hot air.
Always remember: whatever the Democrats accuse our side of, they themselves are guilty of. Every single time.
The Democrats are gonna bring back Civility and Decency, you guys.
She’s preparing to reject the results of the election. The Dems are getting their excuse ready for when they lose: “It was because Trump sabotaged the postal service!”
They’re coming to the realization that all their desperate measures have failed and Biden is going to lose. So they’re going to try and take the whole country down with him by refusing to concede. Because Democrats are straight-up gangsters with zero morals or principles at all and will burn everything to the ground if it helps them claw back to power.
However, on the flip side, Nancy Pelosi is a joke. Ridicule and mockery are our greatest weapons against these people:
Now, this may be a product of the different circumstances, what with the convention being being downsized and carried out primarily via video conference. But still, you’d expect that with more people stuck at home, this would be a bigger draw given the lack of alternative things to do for many people:
The first night of the 2016 DNC drew 11.6m viewers, while last night’s DNC drew only 5.8m viewers.
Is this a harbinger of bad things for Biden–namely an utter lack of enthusiasm–or is it a product of the unique circumstances of 2020?
We’ll have more clarity when we the GOP convention happens and we can compare its ratings vs. 2016’s.
But there’s no way this can be spun as a good thing for Biden.
The signs are there that Democrats are in trouble. In fact, the only thing they seem to have going for them is the polls, but given the fact that all the other signs are pointing to a Trump win, it casts major doubt on the legitimacy of the polls–and the polling firms themselves.
“Political warrior” — Nah, she slept her way to the top.
“Woman of color in No. 2 slot of Major Party” — she’s not even an African-American, she’s half Indian and half Jamaican. In some photos, she could even be confused for white.
But beyond that, does anything matter other than what box she checks on her Census form? No, apparently not.
“Pick seen as safe, but energizing” — No, sorry, it doesn’t work that way. There’s an inverse correlation between “safe” and “energizing” VP picks. When Obama chose Biden as his running mate in 2008, that was a safe pick. When Trump chose Pence as his running mate in 2016, that was a safe pick. Tim Kaine was safe and boring.
Paul Ryan in 2012 was “energizing” because at the time–and I know it’s hard to remember at this point–he was a conservative fan favorite. But it also ran the risk of energizing the left against him because he was seen as a radical fiscal conservative. He was not “safe.” Remember when they made an ad about him throwing an old lady in a wheelchair off a cliff? Paul Ryan was arguably a liability for Romney given how much the left hated him.
Sarah Palin was “energizing,” but not “safe” at all for McCain in 2008. She got the base revved up, but the pick backfired because voters saw her as wildly inexperienced and kooky. The media ripped her to shreds. How many TV-watchers still to this day think she actually said, “I can see Russia from my house”? She never did. Tina Fey played her on SNL and said it, and millions of Americans think Palin herself said it.
There’s safe picks, and there’s energizing picks. But none that are both.
Kamala Harris is not “energizing.” Do people forget that she ran for President last year? She flamed out spectacularly and shut down her campaign in December. She didn’t even make it to the Iowa Caucus.
And you’re trying to tell me this woman is going to “energize” the Democratic base?
If that was the case they wouldn’t have rejected her campaign less than a year ago.
When Kamala Harris ended her campaign on December 11, 2019, she was polling at a measly 3.5%:
In early July 2019 she may have been in 2nd place in the Democratic race for, like, a day, but that was it. She had a brief spike but then quickly fell down to 4th, and then eventually 5th, where she ended her campaign.
If the Democratic voters wanted Kamala Harris, they would have shown it by actually supporting her candidacy when she ran for President.
Now, you might say that her terrible performance in the Dem Primary just last year doesn’t matter because hey, Obama won the election with Biden as his VP, and Biden flamed out way early in the 2008 Democratic Primary.
But Joe Biden 2020 is not Barack Obama 2008. Obama had enough star power, help from the media, and his own massive cult following to win in 2008. Joe Biden only has the media propping him up. He has no charisma, no cult-following that would crawl through broken glass to vote for him (Trump does, though), and no compelling reason he should be president other than “Orange Man Bad.”
Joe Biden needs a superstar running mate pick now. Obama in 2008 did not. Obama was the superstar.
Kamala Harris is not the answer.
The media certainly loves her and thinks she’s #Inspirational–I won’t deny that–but I doubt many voters will be “energized” by this.
Do you really think there are people out there that were going to vote for Trump, but will switch over to Biden because Biden picked a Woman Of Color as his running mate? Those voters do not exist.
Most will see this pick for what it is: a cynical, superficial ploy by the Biden campaign to pander to BLM based on nothing but Kamala Harris’s ethnicity.
The thing is, though, Kamala Harris will not energize the BLM-wing.
Kamala Harris may be officially “black,” but she is not the candidate BLM wants. She’s not nearly enough. Remember why she flamed out in the Democratic Primary? You could be forgiven for drawing a blank, as her campaign was so uneventful. But it was these five words: “Kamala Harris is a cop.”
“During her 28-year tenure as a county prosecutor, district attorney (D.A.), and state attorney general (A.G.), Harris proved quite willing to live up to the epithet. In the public eye, she spoke of racial justice and liberal values, bolstering her cred as one of the Democratic Party’s rising stars. But behind closed doors, she repeatedly fought for more aggressive prosecution not just of violent criminals but of people who committed misdemeanors and “quality of life” crimes.
Every attorney general fights for state power and police prerogatives. It’s part of the job. But over and over again, Harris went beyond the call of duty, fighting for harsher sentences, larger bail requirements, longer prison terms, more prosecution of petty crimes, greater criminal justice involvement in low-income and minority communities, less due process for people in the system, less transparency, and less accountability for bad cops.”
The media will ignore all of this, of course. But far-left activists who have spent the past two months raging against law enforcement and calling to “Defund the Police” won’t.
These tweets all come from far-leftwing accounts. They are not happy about “the cop”:
49.2k likes 👀
This dude’s name is “SocialistMMA”:
This account “NoComradesUnder1K” replied:
(Most of the time the left can’t meme, but this is a quality meme. Credit where it’s due.)
I’ll keep going:
These are not right-wing accounts.
The Bernie campaign’s national press secretary blasted the Harris pick today:
Democratic Socialists of LA weighed in:
This chick has a hammer and sickle in her Twitter name:
I could keep going, but you get the point: the far-left is not placated by the fact that Kamala Harris is a woman of color. They’re the opposite of placated.
Now I have no problem with her “tough-on-crime” record. In fact, to me it’s a rare positive on her record. But the Biden campaign does not care about me. My vote is already locked-in for Trump. The problem for them is this will not fly with the people they are actually counting on to win the election.
The whole point of the George Floyd Riots of the past few months was to whip up black support for Biden. And it all culminated with. . . Kamala Harris. Very anti-climatic.
They’re counting on their base to forget about her record, but they won’t.