CNN Host Says Trump's Kamala Harris Blowjob Dig Makes Her Stomach 'Sick'
By: HuffPost
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
CNN anchor Pamela Brown said Wednesday that Donald Trump's sharing of an odious sexual joke about Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton "makes my stomach feel sick." (Watch the video below.)
Trump, who has been accused of predatory behavior by dozens of women and found guilty of sexual abuse in a civil court case, reposted an old photo of Democratic nominee Harris and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The caption provided by a social media user read: "Funny how blowjobs impacted both their careers differently."
Donald Trump posts disgusting sexual and misogynistic meme on Truth Social. This is the kind of person he is, remember that when it's time to vote. pic.twitter.com/OoLb7CmVFX
— Mike Sington (@MikeSington) August 28, 2024
With all the subtlety of a third-rate comic, the post jabbed at the vice president's relationship in the 1990s with Willie Brown — who would later become the mayor of San Francisco — and former President Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky.
On "The Source," Brown and commentator Maggie Haberman of The New York Times tried to make sense of it.
"Trump, for his part, went on a reposting spree today, as I know you've seen, Maggie, including one that kind of makes my stomach feel sick," Brown said. "It involves both Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris with a crude sexual reference that suggested that Harris used sexual favors to advance her career. We are not gonna show that post. And the Harris campaign responded to all his truthing, saying, quote, 'Donald Trump is out of his mind.' But what does this signal to you about Trump's thinking and how Kamala Harris is getting under his skin?"
Haberman said Trump hopes that "people will talk about it" while using it to "amplify" misogynistic claims about his Democratic opponent.
"I think he has been trying to bait Kamala Harris and her supporters into a fight about race, a fight about gender," Haberman continued. "And that's what this speaks to. And I think that they have for the most part ignored it."
CNN host Anderson Cooper deemed Trump's vulgar repost on brand.
h/t Mediaite
Suggest a correction|Submit a tip
Who is online
120 visitors
Trump's social media behavior all by itself makes him psychologically unfit to be president.
It's sickens me to see folks here use those same ignorant insults about such an accomplished and intelligent and decent woman.
Maybe that's how THEY get ahead in life like the former 'president' convicted felon and rapist and his sycophants and cult, but not decent people.
The same insults and lies that is. Decent people know Kamala got where she is by merit.
Maybe nominate someone who didn’t get where they are because of who they slept with if it bothers you so much.
Trump defenders are becoming more and more unhinged as the defeat draws nearer.
[.] [✘] Hillary looked the other way while Bill sexually harassed many women, exposed himself to Paula Jones, received a blow job from Monica, and was accused of rape by two women.
[✘] Trump's alleged activities are no worse than any Democrat's. The sad truth is that for the rich and powerful, this is standard behavior.
Standard behavior of the gop and the filthy rich with no morals like the former 'president' and his cult.
Just cocoa for cuckoo puffs is what today's gop has become with PD&D being their MO. Today's alleged CONservatives.
So Harris slept her way into being a successful prosecutor, being elected DA of San Francisco, twice elected as Attorney General of California, elected as Senator from California? Did she also blow Biden to get the VP slot?
A woman cannot be successful unless she grants sexual favors to men? Pure misogyny.
Yes.
Maybe a better way of putting this would be that Kamala screwed up on the ladder of success.
yes, when her boyfriend was the most powerful man in northern california and controlled the party machinery. That's how elections work.
Willie Brown has so much power that he can rig reality so that Harris can:
With all this, you dismiss the idea that Harris was successful on her own merits. You do not even recognize the blatant misogyny of your claim?
Without his support, she's never elected DA of San Francisco. Are you familiar with how local politics work, at all?
Are you?
Pathetic attempt.
Do you think an unsuccessful prosecutor would be elected DA of San Francisco? Did Willie Brown rig all of Harris' cases? Did he rig the California bar so that she would pass it? Did he fake her grades so that she could graduate with a JD degree from law school?
How do you explain Harris' ability to:
Sexual favors all the way, Sean?
Yes it would be possible, since elections are a popularity contest and doesn't necessarily mean the person is qualified or successful. If you look at the headlines of her DA and AG elections they are that she is the first woman of color to be elected to those posts, so did the electorate even care about her qualifications or just voting for the woman of color with the blessings of the party leaders in the area, one of whom she knew very well. I believe this also goes for her senate run too.
How many unsuccessful prosecutors were there? One ? Two? Prosecutors are almost all very successful. It's the nature of the game.
Did he rig the California ba
Obviously not very well if she failed it the first try.
But these silly deflections demonstrate how desperate you are. Passing the bar are on a second try and trying some cases aren't very unique skills. What set her apart was sleeping with and gaining the support of the most powerful man in northern california.
Seriously, do you have any idea of how local politics work? Without his support she's not elected DA and none of the rest happens.
By all means, tell us with a straight face that merit and not nepotism is what wins elections in areas dominated by machine politics.
Who did she sleep with to get her law degree? Who did she blow to pass the bar?
Who did she sleep with to get elected DA? Who did she sleep with to be elected AG of California twice? What sexual favors did she use to get the people of California to elect her as a senator? Who did she blow to become VP?
Your comments are disgusting misogyny.
If she was such a successful prosecutor in San Francisco why was crime such a problem that many stores closed and businesses left?
Where do imagine I suggested she did those things? You are making increasingly wild and hysterical claims that bear no rational connection to what I've written.
What does that have to do with anything?
Questioning whether she was that successful, I would not like to see crime rate and what they let go there be allowed all over the country
That's not what happened there and not what will happen in the future 'all over the county'.
There's a lot of crime in big cities but that is not the fault of Kamala Harris, including San Francisco when she was there.
You may want to retract that.................
" But in 2005, Harris struck a plea deal with Dwayne Reed, charged with the murder of the California secretary of state’s son during a robbery. Harris agreed to release Reed, who had six prior felony convictions, in exchange for testifying against his accomplice in the murder-robbery, according to news reports at the time. Reed, who was released from jail two days after testifying against his accomplice, murdered another man eight months later."
She may be as tough on crime as she is about protecting the border.
So tell us why she can't do a live interview on a friendly network with a sympathetic questioner, without having Walz sitting beside her?
Two words:
Word salad
[✘]
The sad truth is that for the rich and powerful, this is standard behavior.
Exactly!
And as everyone knows, the poor would never, evah do anything like that!
(Heck, even "middle class" folks would never do anything like that).
He never said that.
What he is saying is if it not for Willie, she probably would not be anywhere near the position she is today.
If she did not sleep with him, she may never had gotten that first job in the DA office.
This is a disgusting portrayal of women. Nobody could possibly know what would have happened with Harris' career if she had never met Willie Brown. Note that you are going back to 1994 where Brown appointed Harris to two part-time positions:
Most every successful human being has had help from other people. That is how reality works. But it is up to the successful person to make the most of the opportunities they have been given. Failing to do so results in a side-tracked career.
Harris clearly made good use of the networking opportunities of those part-time positions. She was a successful prosecutor who was elected by the people to be the DA of San Francisco. She did this on her own merits and by the support of other people (based on networking) — like everyone else. She then ran and was elected to be the Attorney General for California ... and then was reelected to the position. And this too was based on her merits and the support of others (networking, just like everyone else). She then ran and was elected as a Senator for California ... same deal. Then she was selected by Biden to be his VP.
You, et. al. dishonestly portray this as Harris slept her way to the top. All because her boyfriend opened some doors for her at the beginning of her career. You pretend she has no brains, no education, no accomplishments ... just a mouth and a vagina that she prostituted to rise to the level of VP.
It is a sickening level of bigotry, but what is worse is that Trump defenders seem to have no shame and keep doubling down on this sick notion that a woman cannot be successful unless she sleeps her way to the top.
It's just deplorable. Also, the slurs and lies against the honorable service of Tim Walz. It sickens me.
It is sickening how they see certain women in power, only Democrats though.
This as an absolutely disgusting accusation for something that nobody has said or even implied, what has been clearly articulated is Harris! Singular one woman slept with a powerful man and used her body to advance her career. Without Brown she would have never been heard of in my opinion.
When you claim that Harris' success (her entire career) was based on sleeping with Brown you are categorically dismissing the possibility that her success was a function of her job merits.
Based on what ... other than the fact that she is woman? Is it really so difficult for you to believe that Harris' career was not based on her sleeping her way to the top.
And in case you do not know the context:
Do you agree with this crap?:
Doesn't matter, Harris is unfit for office.
How, specifically, is Harris unfit for office?
Well, specifically, she is a blooming idiot.
That defies reality given she is a former prosecuting attorney (law school, pass the bar, etc.), District Attorney, Attorney General, Senator and VP.
Amazing how partisanship can twist someone's reasoning to the point where they can deem someone with that kind of resume a 'blooming idiot'.
Yeah, I won't be pretending that because someone may hold a certain degree or a certain job makes them being immune to being an idiot.
An idiot is an idiot, and she is one.
And how partisanship can twist someone into being 'competent'.
The best you have is ... 'because I say so'.
[✘]
Yes, I am absolutely defending Harris against disgusting, absurdly unfair attacks.
Just as you are defending / supporting Trump by exclusively attacking his rival.
Now you are just making stuff up.
I have no idea why so many people here think an 'attack' on someone 'defends' someone else. It is highly illogical at best.
Sure you do. In a binary zero-sum game (in this case it is Harris or Trump for the next PotUS) those who almost entirely post negative (often hyperbolic) attacks on Harris and rarely criticize Trump are ipso facto presenting Trump (falsely) in a good light — especially given the volume of bad qualities and behavior from Trump.
If I say I don't, then I don't.
I have a hard time understanding something that is illogical as that line of 'reasoning'.
Before you make accusations if what I have said, get those accusations right. In this case, I never said she slept her way to the top. I specifically stated if not for Wille, we may never have heard of her. George has said the same but now you want to get into the question game about if he approves of what someone else said. If he approved, he would have said so and does not need to report to you.
Don’t lump my comment in with what others have said.
As a matter of fact, you inadvertently proved I was right in your post by stating this little tidbit.
‘
‘Brown appointed Harris to two part time positions:
Her objective was met by sleeping with him. It got her foot in the door for access to other positions.
Try and be honest.
What lies are those?
I am talking about the allegations made in the thread and those of you who are defending them.
And there you go. If a woman gets a favor from her boyfriend then that means that her intent was to prostitute herself. It could not be, apparently in your mind, that a boyfriend simply did favors for his girlfriend as he would for his male buddies and family.
If you were to only make the point that Brown opened doors for Harris at the inception of her career, that would be fine. But the claim is that her career accomplishments were not based on merit but rather sexual favors.
You either support that bullshit or you do not. Which is it?
Please encourage MAGAs to be as ugly and hateful as MAGAs can be. Winning!
Apparently no encouragement is needed.
It's ridiculous is what it is. They don't like sexual innuendo regarding Melania trmp but female Democrats will never be off limits to these guys
The word misogyny appears 25 times on this page in regards to chastising commentary about Harris. I think they have had their share of hand-slapping done to them. Basically, the message is stop it with Harris when we have seen time and time again over the years, comments about Melania, Boebert, Green, Owens, Gabbard, and a few others that don't come to mind right now.[✘]
[✘]
4 of the 5 women you mentioned opened themselves up for scrutiny, Melania did not. If we said Jill Biden slept her way to the position she had......than that would be different, but nobody has said that. Harris opened her legs to the most powerful man in politics in California and definitely SF. and was rewarded accordingly, denying this only makes one look ignorant or partisan.
This comment is bigoted.
I am not addressing scrutiny. I am talking about the nasty assed commentary about looks, intelligence etc.
Disinformation . Prove that Willie Brown and Kamala Harris even had sex - if the collective you can. A person can be helped (Donald had his father's millions and a silver spoon 'half-way' inserted up his rectum to start) up the ladder. BTW, Willie Brown states:
So prove the 'act' the collective Trumpists are implying. Prove it.
I agree, Looks should never be discussed, and children should be off limits. Melania is comparable to Jill, Boebert , Greene are the same as Kamala, their behavior is fair game, Kamala usen sexual relations to advance her career. If you can't stand the heat get out of politics.
So what? Everybody has help throughout their life. . . it's called 'Community' - time to accept it and not poo-poo it. And even if Kamala did do the 'do' with Willie Brown to get ahead . . . where does the remarks about Donald the sexual assaulter who 'took' what he wanted out of E. Jean Carroll's drawers and owes her today for the 'pleasure.'
[✘]
A court of law has determined Donald sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll in New York. Moreover, in some states the same determination would have resulted in a rape sentence. You have no evidence that Kamala slept with anybody. It's a 'fertile imagination' running wild and out of control at this point. In need of something salacious to discuss.
Can you name the states where a civil case can lead to a rape sentence?
I see, you are arguing that since 'they' did it, it is okay if 'we' (you, et.al.) do it.
Speaking for myself, I have never made such comments about Melania Trump (or any notable woman for that matter). So your feeble excuse for such disgusting behavior does not apply to my critical remarks.
There are some people who apparently cannot comprehend that accusing a woman of sleeping her way to the top sans any supporting evidence is chauvinistic bigotry. It projects the idea that successful women necessarily prostitute themselves to get ahead.
Your post illustrates my point perfectly. I hope everyone reads the disgusting crap you just wrote.
You conclude that Harris prostituted herself to further her career.
Is that true for every woman who had a boyfriend (and presumably the adults had sex) who gave her an initial modest opportunity early in her career?
If not, why is Harris different?
[✘]
This comment is ridiculous and has no semblance of reality,
You offer no facts. All you know is that her boyfriend gave her some modest opportunities in 1994 and that she is a woman.
So is it true in your world that if a woman receives opportunities from her boyfriend that she has ipso facto prostituted herself? If not, then what is it specific to Harris that causes you to draw your disgusting conclusion?
Confusing criticism of one particular woman with ALL women in general is just ignoring reality
That is why I ignore certain members as disgusting crap seems to be all some have to offer - that includes those who vote them up.
As noted, I hope everyone reads this crap from you:
George@2.1.58 ☞ Harris screwed the person that helped her, AKA prostitution, I have never slept with anyone who helped me further my career.
It has reached the point of ridiculousness trying to defend it, now we are trying to portray this as some random boyfriend with modest help. Arguably the most powerful man politically at the time in the state, 30 + years her senior, and modest help? 100,000 a year "jobs" on boards that are mostly no shows in the early 90's, not a bad gig for an escort if you can get it. plus throw in a BMW for good measure.
[✘]
Degrees and jobs don't preclude one from being an idiot, as Kamala so adeptly proves.
It just cracks me up how she went from a zero to hero in the blink of an eye.
[✘]
The premise of the question is irrelevant. In a state where a charge of rape would have applied (in this case) it would not be charged as sexual assault civilly. Don't know why I have to s-p-e-l-l-i-t o-u-t.
Because you claimed something false.
Then you should have no difficulty whatsoever s-p-e-l-l-i-n-g -the alleged false statement- o-u-t without any ambiguity.
O-f c-o-u-r-s-e!
I defy you to name even one state where a civil suit would result in a rape sentence.
EVERY word spot on!
I think the difference is that we don't confuse statements about ONE individual with misogyny.
Why don't you try and prove that statement? Neither you nor any one of the people who make this accusation can, because you need to prove the intent, not just the action.
See 2.1.73.
I already did, did so again, nothing changed.
You made this false claim.
I asked you to name a single state where your claim would be true.
Typically, you refused to answer.
You have no argument here.
So no place, thanks for confirming.
You have your answer. But, do have the last word as time is valuable and I won't be wasting mine further with this one.
See 2.1.82.
Indeed I do--ABSOLUTELY NO STATE!
It sure is. The comment about Harris is symptomatic of a 'good ole boy' mentality and the majority of women should be offended that it seeks to make a 'comeback' in today's political environment. This kind of 'speech' is what Trumpist have been clamoring for as 'making America great' - the capability to 'run people, women, in the ground through objectifying them in public discourse! We should not/NEVER let them a 'wholesale' attack on women simply for being and surviving in our culture as it is.
Believe anything the collective you wish to. For instance, "you" can believe the sky above us is polka-dotted. It's not, but that is how 'believing' what one wants works!
And though, it may frustrate you that when a member of a minority is pointed out and praised for being an accomplished first in their race or ethnicity, it is because the white majority is presumed to already have been established in those jobs because they are in the majority. 'First' whites, for good, bad, or indifference are the established 'norm' in this country. Thus, they are simply referred to as first male or female to achieve a job, sport, or ranking.
The collective "you' will not be allowed to diminish and discount the hard work minorities do to get 'in the game' and play just like and alongside whites-whether "you" like them being there are not!
Seriously, this comment is meritless and is another pathetic episodic attempt at demeaning an accomplished individual.
Crime is crime. It is not the job of the DA to fix 'broken' people. But to charge and prosecute the guilty. Now then, San Francisco has had at least a population of over 3 million plus residents (not including visitors from around the bay area) during Kamala's DA years 2004-2011. Now then, on reflection, many state-local DAs in red-states do not have the 'caseload' of San Francisco to get through in any subset of years. Do factor in differences in proportionality when forming conclusions.
Link to graph for San Francisco population (apply the period 2004-2011 for when Ms. Harris was the DA of San Francisco):
Can't wait for your proof.
That comment is beyond the pail of decency!
Prove Kamala slept with Willie Brown. Go ahead, proceed.
She was his girlfriend for 2-3 years (best I can find). So the chance of them having sex is extremely high. But that is normal. It would be strange if a couple did not have sex.
And it would be strange if Brown did not open any doors for Harris.
That all is reasonable.
What is unreasonable, and disgusting, is the notion that Harris' resume is based on her sleeping her way to the top. There is no evidence of that. And given the nature of her resume, it is absurd.
Some Trumpists have no shame and so they argue this 'stance' they take against a woman, Kamala Harris, while failing to consider the wretched creature they foist on the country as a whole who is the most UNPROFESSIONAL presidential individual in and out of office. Watch out! For what Trumpist leave out of their mockings, tauntings, and name-callings. Their silence (and that of the Right-wing so-called "church" on a presidential candidate talking about blowjobs in a public setting is appalling! And unforgiveable.
That comment presumes to know more than it possibly can.
When a person, group, or organization shows you WHO/WHAT THEY ARE: Believe them. And, in this case, tell others about your experiences with these people. As a guy, I am offended by this discussion and as a woman I would vote in protest of the idiocy of such persons, groups, and organizations.
Prove Kamala Harris slept with Willie Brown if you can.
Prove that comment or it is likely just bloviating. . . . Go ahead, please. . . . And even if she did it (it would have to be proven yet the same), it is nobody's business since they would have a really hard time distinguishing the sexual 'exploits' of a woman from those of a man who sucks, 'f-ks, and licks his way to the top in the good old boys network.
And ambitious women get this 'treatment' all the time. In fact, I am pretty sure misogynistic men in leadership positions feel that it is the 'role' of ambitious women to 'service' them on the way up the ladder as some form of transactional understanding. Rather true in some cases or not (we can not determine who will do what for what in any given situation) it is not to be presumed to be the case as a point to argue without evidence of it.
They can't prove it. But that is not the purpose - some Trumpists hoped to come and swept innuendo that they wish to go 'viral' and unhindered here. Thus, we have met the 'match' and properly pushed back against the disinformation being proliferated on this article.
We can take comfort that we have 'torn some Trumpists a 'new' one.
But, not all people do the same things. For instance, Willie Brown could have wanted companionship and/or a platonic relationship. No one has been made privy to the sexual interests of Willie Brown or Ms. Harris together in the nineties.
After-all, he had a separated marriage to consider during this time. And, yes some 60 years old public figures can have medical conditions (ED?) or other health conditions that they don't have to share in public and reserve the right to keep private.
If some SOBs want to call a public figure or a group of public figures out for 'doing it' then they have the burden of providing evidence in written form from one or both of the parties. After all, Willie Brown has attested to helping "many pols" to get ahead (mentoring?) in their careers. . . these Trumpists are not presuming Willie 'stuck anything' inside any of them.
(Yes, I am angry about this blowjob 'attack' and I won't let it go unchallenged or insinuated on these boards. Trumpists will either prove the sexual, any sexual activity, occurred or get push back.)
Are you seriously trying to float that a 29 year old woman dated a 60 year old man for 2 years, and he appointed her to not 1, but 2 no show boards, these appointments allowed her to make 100,000 a year, and he gave her a BMW, and after all that they never had sex? is that what you are trying to say? because it is ludicrous to even question the fact that she wasn't whoring herself out.
'What lies are those?'
All of them
‘I am talking about the allegations made in the thread and those of you who are defending them.’
Show me where I defended them. You won’t because you can’t.
‘And there you go. If a woman gets a favor from her boyfriend then that means that her intent was to’
Yes because we all know 20 something year olds have a 60 something year old married man as a boyfriend because of ‘love’. Get a grip
My assessment was correct. She slept with him and got favors in return. No spinning this one needed.
‘If you were to only make the point that Brown opened doors for Harris at the inception of her career, that would be fine. But the claim is that her career accomplishments were not based on merit but rather sexual favors’
That is exactly the point I made. Just because someone else went further does not make me part of that. Stop that bullshit now.
’You either support that bullshit or you do not. Which is it?’
To paraphrase someone here ‘I only opine on subjects I deem worthy of opining. Your question does not fit that requirement so don’t ask it again.’
Did he sleep with any of the others before he gave out ‘favors?’
I don’t think that sleeping is the question.
‘Speaking for myself, I have never made such comments about Melania Trump (or any notable woman for that matter). So your feeble excuse for such disgusting behavior does not apply to my critical remarks.’
But you find no problem attributing other’s remarks to those who never said them themselves.
Why the double standard?
I want documentation from the collective "you" (pictures even or eye-witnesses) that Kamala had sex with Willie Brown. Please proceed or "you" have nothing but noise.
And, btw, it kind of blows the collective "you" point out of the water that Willie Brown is not leaning into the sexual innuendo disinformation being spread:
The collective "you' are firing 'blanks' in the hopes that it will fuel the nasty, childlike, imaginations of sordid individuals in the voter population.
We wish to see the collective "you" documentation of Kamala Harris and Willie Brown having sex right now or "you" should desist in spreading lies, rumor, and innuendo!
So you think it was only a coincidence that a 20 something year old slept with a married 60 something year old then was given 2 part time jobs that required little show time?
Get real. She used him to get her foot in the door. He knows it.
And before any more comments about how she is a female and that is the only reason why she is being criticized, I would say the same about a 20 something year old male doing the same with a well known, well connected, powerful 60 something year old woman.
You are referencing an obvious tactic that you, et.al. often use. You make comments that clearly imply a particular position but when challenged run away with the lame excuse of 'I never said that'.
There is no double standard by me; it is just a feeble game of yours and others in lieu of a rebuttal. To wit, if you know you cannot back up your words, just pad your comments with wiggle room in the flawed belief that nobody will notice.
We notice.
‘You are referencing an obvious tactic that you, et.al. often use. You make comments that clearly imply a particular position but when challenged run away with the lame excuse of 'I never said that'. ’
I guess being challenged by the truth throws you a curve ball. Why?
Because I never said what you are falsely implying. Stop lying.
‘There is no double standard by me; it is just a feeble game of yours and others in lieu of a rebuttal. To wit, if you know you cannot back up your words, just pad your comments with wiggle room in the flawed belief that nobody will notice’
There is because I just showed it to you.
I have backed up everything I have posted here. You, et al? Not so much
Since none of us know the details your negative speculations are of no value.
But let's pretend that Harris dated Brown for a couple of years because he was powerful. Okay. Now, where do you go from there? Brown gave her the opportunity to be a part-time member of two state commissions. No doubt he also spoke highly of his girlfriend to his associates. This is normal networking. This is how people in politics rally support.
But the implication is that Harris' success (to-date) is based on granting sexual favors. Are you going to be clear and state that you are only stating that Brown enabled Harris early in her career (1994) or are you going to join others — some of whom claim that her resume to-date was based on prostituting herself?
Did she achieve these positions through sexual favors?:
Tell us at what point in her resume you acknowledge her professional merit. At what point does her professional work lead to future opportunities or do you believe every opportunity was a result of sexual favors?
You evidence the point I just made.
I do not know how they met, what the status of their relationship was at any given time while it lasted, or the character of it's ending. I am just not interested.
The age difference is what it is. If you have not been exposed to generational couples, more the poorer for you.
What I am saying is that to prove intent and quid pro quo, you need a statement by at least one of the two people involved and I highly doubt that you can find such a statement.
You commentary amuses me to no end. Why is it always the woman's fault? Why say,"She used him," when it could be said, "He used her," or, "They were in a fling, so he did what he could for her" ?? But you can't do that, because then it is not an attack on your intended victims integrity and you would lose points from the troll-master Trump.
At no point. They are arguing from the primordial original sin doctrine.
Some do seem to hold the position that Harris could only sleep her way to the top.
Many of the critics probably could not even graduate Law school much less pass the notably difficult California Board exam. And only a minority of attorneys are litigators ... stand up in a courtroom and make a case. Not sure, but I suspect prosecuting attorneys probably have to present a good argument rather than blow the judge and the jury.
These partisan attacks are so pathetic. But I suppose it is natural if one is trying to help a scoundrel like Trump win the presidency.
Yes. There is no chance of it being anything else /s
Looking at the picture with the post on TruthSocial, I can think of several scenarios that don't put her as the one expending the agency involved.
‘But let's pretend that Harris dated Brown for a couple of years because he was powerful. Okay. Now, where do you go from there? Brown gave her the opportunity to be a part-time member of two state commissions. No doubt he also spoke highly of his girlfriend to his associates’
I don’t pretend. I tell the truth. I’m sure it was also a coincidence that she dumped him after she got her foot in the door of SF politics. Her objective was met.
The rest of your rant has nothing to do with me. As I have said numerous times, she slept with him to get her foot in the door, nothing more. Stop associating other people’s comments with what I have specifically said and take your rants to them.
Any point you believe you have made has been proven woefully wrong.
Those same 'men' will never admit to their lies or being wrong or their misogyny or agnorance but just keep digging deeper and deeper and deeper
I was going to take your comment seriously until I got to this point.
‘Why is it always the woman's fault? Why say,"She used him," when it could be said, "He used her," or, "They were in a fling, so he did what he could for her" ?? But you can't do that, because then it is not an attack on your intended victims integrity’
Obviously you did not read the entirety of the comment you are responding to. To wit…
’And before any more comments about how she is a female and that is the only reason why she is being criticized, I would say the same about a 20 something year old male doing the same with a well known, well connected, powerful 60 something year old woman. ’
Try harder next time.
‘lose points from the troll-master Trump.’
Just couldn’t help but bring up someone you have zero intention of voting for, could you?
Whooshh! goes the swing and the miss.....
Ditto
Yes, we do.
Should I have said "Troll master Richard"?
You talking about trump and Melania?
Yes! We notice.
No swing or a miss. What I states was fact. Nothing more.
Certainly not by you.
lol - no facts ever involved
that comment was meant for 2.1.125
It's an empty attempt to bring this woman down to Crooked Donald's level by alleging they are the same - without discussing Donald (the Weird) who sticks his. . .'self' in places which cost him hundreds of millions of dollars .
Trumpists refuse to talk about Donald's nasty butt, but let's get started:
Donald Trump describes his personal Vietnam to Stern
Apparently, in the 90's, Donald was not willing to be 'slut shamed' then either. One of the preeminent creatures that put the 'T" in f-king 'toxic masculinity.'
Note: The silly 'enabler' woman chiming in with blue commentary. Just discounting her own for a 'misogynist moment' that will live in infamy.
Dig the weirdos up. Give the 'wicked' no place to rest on their laurels.
Well, fortunately for those of legal ages -they can 'do it 'til they are satisfied' to any other consenting legal ages person. The 'judgement' of trumpists carries no sway with who one dates as an adult—and we all know this:
BT EXPRESS: Do It (Til You're Satisfied) *
Song acknowledged. Nobody has proved that is what occurred in this case we're discussing. If it did it's not the business of weirdos anyway.
*1974.
Here is another version of the STD 'weird': Howard alleges that in the 90's Donald is sending women to see a physician to get 'cleared' for sex relations. Listen closely and note that Donald does not answer or comment to Howard on whether he sends his prospected sexual lay' to his physician to get checked before intercourse with them. Also, Donald is asked if he ever got an STD in the 90's: He ignores the question.
And by the time STORMY DANIELS arrives at his room in 2006 to have 'unplanned sex' (she was the one not aware of what was 'bout to go down); Donald did not even have a condom on the premises (Stormy had to insist on the driver/handler going out and getting a pack in her testimony at trial).
Donald, you're not just naughty (wife at home while you're out searching for butt) - You're NASTY. And those self-righteous hypocrites in the Right-wing church 'adore' your trifling butt.
BTW, Donald was 60 and Stormy was 27 thereabouts in 2006. We don't have to speculate on the sexual activity that occurred, it was testified to in open court and published before the whole world. Anybody else might hide in shame. But not Donald and his right-wing church supporters—not them.
You again proved that you have no argument.
Yes, it was a swing and a miss because you did not address the portion of my comment that was not an aside, and by doing so, missed (ignored?) the point of my comment.
My Point: You cannot prove that Harris was attempting to gain a foothold by being involved in a sexual relationship with Brown.
I would guess that you don't know who started the relationship, how it developed over the course of two years, or how it ended.
I don't.
Your re- posting of this:
Shows that you in fact did not understand my point.
Funck-EEEE
You would have loved to see yo' 'boy' back in the day doing his thang in psychedelic tie-dyed shirts, hip huggers, oversized caps, afro, and platform shoes.
Love The One You're With
The Isley Brothers.
I understood it completely, hence my fact filled rebuttal.
Again, you probably think it was just a ‘coincidence’ that she broke up with her 60 year old ‘boyfriend’ after he gave her the favors she wanted by sleeping with him.
I haven’t seen a coherent argument by anyone that says different.
Speculation. Prove Kamala slept with 'boyfriend.' It should be so easy, if "you" know it. Not easy at all-if/since you don't. It could have been all "arm-candy" and social outings.
Really? You're still stickin' with that? Well then, I guess that if I say...
...I can claim that I have a fact-filled rebuttal, also.
Diggin on the Picture you just slapped on my brain
You could but it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, so…….
So close....
Nope…….right over target
BOOM!!!!
They know he's a scumbag CB. They don't care. Birds of a feather ..,,,,
Yet keeps digging ......
What facts are those and you obviously don't know the meaning of coherent and you have never won an argument.
never
Obviously you did not read my comments. The facts lie within.
I can assure you no one has ever lost an argument with you.
lol
Never a fact to be found.
That's true as I am usually correct
lol
Tell you what….
How about you show something…….ANYTHING…..where you have posted something factual.
When you try and answer, don’t let your feelings overtake you.
2.1.154 + lol
Maybe you did not read the whole comment, to wit….
When you try and answer, don’t let your feelings overtake you.
-Try again
2.1.154
Obviously only your feelings dictate your thinking.
Can’t come up with a coherent andwer.
And again with the "where did it go?" commentary.
Other people know what I am talking about, but you seem to have no idea.
Such a shame.
So Harris slept her way into being a successful prosecutor, being elected DA of San Francisco, twice elected as Attorney General of California, elected as Senator from California? Did she also blow Biden to get the VP slot?
A woman cannot be successful unless she grants sexual favors to men? Pure misogyny.
In case of these two women, it was part of the process and game plan. Nothing misogynistic about it.
What a purely dishonest characterization of what I wrote. Do you need me to explain how faulty your supposed logic is?
Go ahead, attempt to explain how your fact-contrary claim that Harris "get where they are [she is] because of who they [she] slept with" is not misogyny.
Amazing that you do not recognize the blatant misogyny of your comments.
ahead, attempt to explain how your fact-contrary claim that Harris "get where they are [she is] because of who they [she] slept with" is not misogyny
Smart move abandoning your farcically dishonest claim that criticism of Harris means I claimed " A woman cannot be successful unless she grants sexual favors to men? Pure misogyny." Imagine equating Harris to all women.,
m that Harris "get where they are [she is] because of who they [she] slept with" is not misogyny.
The truth is not misogynistic. If she'd never slept with Brown, you'd have never heard of her.
That would admit being wrong, something maga is not capable of.
When you claim without supporting facts that a demonstrably successful woman achieved her success because of who she slept with, you are implying that the only way a woman can be successful is to perform sexual favors.
Your comment is pure misogyny and it is a real shame that you cannot see that.
That comment is complete bullshit, what he is saying is that the incompetent piece of shit only became successful because of who she slept with, not that the only way a woman can become successful is by sleeping with someone.
Your comment reeks of desperation.
I am not sure everyone here even knows what misogyny is.
But I do know it sure is easy to label any criticism of a favored woman as misogyny.
Of course not.
That is just a weak argument wrong on the facts.
Exactly.
And since Harris clearly is a very successful woman his comment dismisses the possibility that her success was from her own merit. That in spite of her success, this was all a result of sexual favors.
That is pure misogyny — the notion that a woman who is successful has done so with sexual favors.
How do you explain Harris' ability to:
You can't just make up claims and expect to be taken seriously. That she slept with the most powerful man in California and that he supported her campaigns are well supported facts.
yep, he needs to desperately conflate two separate claims.
It's as dumb as saying anyone who criticises how Hunter Biden was named to the board of Burisma is claiming the only way a white man can succeed is through his father's influence.
have you read anywhere on this page where I have argued any of that?
Seems like flailing to me.
I have not denied that.
Your blatant misogyny is to claim that Harris' considerable success was due to her granting sexual favors.
Then you recognize that Harris' resume is based on merit and not because she slept her way to the top.
Claiming that Harris' success was due to sexual favors is not 'any criticism' ... it is textbook misogyny.
Again another bullshit comment that tries to paint all women with the Harris whore brush, it is a documented FACT that Harris slept with the most powerful married man in California politics to get ahead, Not all women who were successful, just this woman is the claim.
No, and that is a very poor argument.
Non sequitur
Your insult is ludicrous and ignorant.
That is quite the jump
“Again another bullshit comment that tries to paint all women with the Harris whore brush,”
Exactly. The definition of misogyny is, “dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against WOMEN.”
i see negative (deservedly so) comments about one woman, not women.
This happens almost every time a liberal woman is criticized.
It's a lazy and extremely weak argument to claim misogyny because they can't logically refute the arguments.
Evel Knevil-worthy jump!
“This happens almost every time a liberal woman is criticized.”
yep, but whenever the left goes after melania trump, or another gop woman, the misogyny defense is silent.
Evel crashed and failed alot
There have been some spectacular crash and burns right here.
[✘]
Is it? Really? You have documented evidence of her motive in dating the Mayor? It couldn't be that she was just attracted to a wealthy powerful man not unlike every one of Trumps three wives and porn stars he screwed?
I find it hilarious that there are so many Trumpite sycophants who spend their days throwing stones at Kamala for dating Willie Brown but never seem to attack the wealthy powerful men like Brown or Trump in their tired tirades, who use their money and power and influence to screw anything that moves. As Trump famously said "when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything." That just proves what a bunch of misogynistic assholes they really are.
Especially when they are the ones attacking a conservative woman.
What is your opinion of those women?...
I have no problem with any of Trumps three wives or any of the porn stars he slept with, Trump is the scum bag. I think it's far worse for someone to use their power and influence to get sex, and as we know at least two dozen women didn't respond positively to his gross form of "wooing" women as they accused him of sexual assault, but clearly there were some who welcomed that kind of courting and some even married the scum bag.
It is indeed a weak and poor attempt to manipulate what he said specifically about Harris into magically becoming about 'all women'.
Bad form.
The presumption is that Harris was successful only because of Brown. Why is that ... because she is a woman? A woman cannot be successful unless a man is holding her hand? Other than being a woman, why is this allegation being made of Harris?
There is no avoiding the generalization. The facts are that Harris in reality:
Why is Willie Brown mentioned if not to imply that Harris' accomplishments are not based on merit? After all, pretty much everyone (especially in politics) who rises does so with the help of others. That is why networking is so critical. There is nothing unusual about a boyfriend opening doors for his girlfriend as he might do for male buddies, or family members.
Why, exactly, is Harris treated as a special case? Nobody has presented any facts that support the idea that she did not rise based on her own merit. But they leap to the conclusion that her career was based on sexual favors.
Given you et. al. have no facts to support your disgusting allegations, you are ipso facto arguing that a successful woman necessarily slept her way to the top. Your argument does not distinguish Harris from any other successful woman (i.e. insert any other woman in her place) thus your bigoted allegations apply to all women.
What 'process' and 'game plan' is that???????????
It is a weak and misguided argument you provide.
I am sorry you are unable to discern any difference between criticizing Harris legitimately and saying it applies to all women. That is one ridiculous failure.
And you can list her degrees and elections won but it won't make her less of an idiot, as previously told to you.
Your continued defense of Kamala is noted.
To Trump, she is just another floozy not so intelligent bimbo, currently surpassing the 45 light gassing, as he be amassing many an asz to garner his more than oxygen needed fix of must have attention, as Trump needs to hear his name in mention, constantly and if needed buy his own incomprehension.
I sorta recall Trump doing a favor for Melania, to help with her 'acting' career, or was it to become a citizen and raise Kane, which was actually Barons' first name, before the stork came.
Funny how they get their panties in a bunch when Melania's name is ever mentioned in a negative light, but if Trump attacks, they are all in delight, and share his condescending misogynistic messages meant to demean and stereotype, and they do, and bring many to the lower levels 0f the basement, where his base was meant, to always be buried
This comment adds nothing to this discussion.
Neither did this one.
So nice that you tell me you recognize that I am defending Harris against these disgusting attacks.
I am indeed defending her. I am voting for Harris and I am defending her against bullshit attacks. I would not, however, defend her against legitimate criticism (e.g. she is liberal and will likely have policies that are too liberal in my view).
You, in contrast, defend Trump and attack Harris yet claim you are not going to vote for Trump.
I claim I am not voting for Trump because I am not voting for him.
This whole "defending Trump" is made up bullshit. Either quote me doing exactly that or cease with that nonsense.
This comment is a study in 'Archie Bunkerism.'
This comment reeks of sensational wretched seediness. Prove it.
And yet, the collective "you" have no facts to display in support of your so-called assertion. That's laughable. (But of course, some Trumpists are trying to claw in a number of low-information voters who like a bit of noise, controversy, and to excel at bullshit.)
Some trumpists are not ignorant of what they are doing; they hope to pull in low-information voters who simply need some alleged offense or ridicule to give them 'permission' (talking point) to support that lying old fool named Trump (in discussions with others) against Kamala. Also, they are desperate to DIRTY up anybody (bring them down to the level of that lying old fool Donald). They simply can't do it though as people won't stand for this bullshit tactic.
Consequently, trumpists will keep there talking point going about shit they can't possibly know, because it, they think, serves their purposes. WE MUST KEEP PUSHING BACK AGAINST THERE BULLSHIT because that is all it is.
Show it already. Don't just say it; produce it already!
DP, they have no prove (and I will not concede the point to them) that Kamala 'touched' anything on Willie Brown personally below his neck and beyond the possibility of his hands for which they would have to produce images or witnesses. They have offered nothing but 'f-ked up' imaginations (as evidence of sexual activity). They have to do better or 'go home' with this shit.
As far as we know, Willie Brown (powerful men like 'eye-candy' too on their arm when they are out in public), could have only needed companionship thus, the 'relationship' we see. Concede nothing to these. . . 'opportunistic mockers' who presume to know what they can not ascertain . . . but need others to allow them to visualize as a 'given.'
Then you should have no problem proving that was her intent.
How come in all this we don't see the claim that Brown was attracted to Harris? Why does all of the agency have to come from her?
This is yet another clue that your commentary is created by a misogynistic troll.
Hell to the 'No'! Women should not let any group of weirdo men anywhere treat them as 'sluts' in need of shaming. Don't take that bullshit from anybody!
On Jan. 26, 2019, Brown published a short op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle with the headline “Sure, I dated Kamala Harris. So what?”
Yet they never make that remark about any republican woman - VP or First Lady or other wise.
None of the ones who say they don't make such remarks about women ('or any notable woman for that matter) that is.
'Why the double standard?'
Yeah, prove it or lose it.
Zeek Arkham?
Well, to each his own.
And you brought in Zeek because?
It disgusts me posters on this site claim Harris got where she is at due to having sex with a man. Would they be saying same thing about a man, I doubt it.
Harris had a relationship with mayor of SF, so what? Brown supported Harris' campaigns, so what? Coud Harris have kept her positions, continued to raise unless she did well in those jobs? Many people had influence in SF and California supported Harris and her campaigns, one person, no matter how "powerful" could not have kept her in those positions unless she was competent and doing well.
Why is it when a woman does well, especially one that is not in your political party, or disagrees with your views, it must be because she somehow got help, she somehow is/was not climbing the ladder due to her own merit. Yes, I am casting a broad net but over and over I hear/read same thing about powerful, competent women if there is any shadow, any slight chance she had sex with a "powerful" man.
As a woman who was very successful in male dominated technology industry decades ago, the stigma was the same, how could I have possible been so successful, who was the man behind me, helping me, what was I doing to deserve such success. I would hope by now thinking has changed, apparently not by many posters here.
Do you believe nepotism exists?
If you, and others, didn't actually care about Harris benefitting from nepotism you'd simply say "so what" and leave it at that. But the hysterical overreactions and attacks on anyone for pointing it out suggest exact opposite, that you dare, that you realize it is a problem and doesn't put her in a good light and desperately want to keep it from being discussed.
No, it doesn't mean that at all.
actually, i dont give a fuck
the world will be better off with more women in power.
That may be true, but why on earth would anyone pick Kamala-freaking-Harris to start with?
Of course, nepotism exists, Trump benefited from it. Nepotism is always a negative, although often it is.
The way you and other posters on this site are posting, it isn't about nepotism, it is about giving sex in return for positions of importance. that can be either male or female but majority of the time it is aimed at women because males, in the past, have typically had the power and influence.
I am guessing your gender is male so probably never experienced allegations, rumors, innuendos, flat out lies about how, if you were, successful in your career. If you had, or any person close to you had, you would not be so flippant as to think it is merely a "so what".
That is absolutely a form of nepotism.
experienced allegations, rumors, innuendos, flat out lies about how, if you were, successful in your career
They aren't rumors. Or allegations. She slept with a very powerful local politician who literally appointed her to governmental positions and supported her candidacy in races where he wielded massive influence.
The idea that his support didn't matter or distinguish her from her peers is just loony toons.
Indeed, Malaria Trump fucked her way into the country.
To take a play from the liberal playbook:
MISOGYNY!!!!!!!!!!!!
How many, how often, with whom? Does that expose an issue with immigration laws?
[✘]
Probably Ivana also.
Most everyone rises due to networking. Other people open doors of opportunity.
You claim that Harris would not have been elected DA without Willie Brown and that the rest of her career would have dissipated. How, exactly, do you know this? You cannot. You have no possible way of knowing what she would have accomplished.
The bottom line is that you are trying to discredit Harris by claiming that she would have not amounted to anything special if she did not sleep with her boyfriend Brown. Pretty disgusting.
Based on your rational, Trump getting millions from his father is why he is able to run for president. If Trump wasn't born into a wealthy family, if his father hadn't given him millions, we'd probably not even know his name. It is a well-known fact Trump's daddy helped him both with money and influence.
Trump did not get where he is at all by himself, there was nepotism and plenty of it. If Harris isn't worthy to run for office because of what you feel is nepotism, Trump wasn't/isn't either. We have seen his incompetent, immaturity, lack of intelligence, so we know he is unfit for any role in politics.
LOL, so that is what they call it? Times sure have changed. Back in the day networking did not include being on your knees or bent over a table.
In my day a man who digitally rapes women was unelectable...
I've never thought otherwise.
rump wasn't/isn't either
Equating Harris to Trump probably isn't the argument you want to make.
Trump does digital and analog asz well, gee, isn't Trump the sexual assaulter and rapist, just swell...?
Because I have a modicum of understanding of how politics works. Without Brown and Brown appointing her to government positions while banging her and using his machine to support her candidacy, she doesn't have the contacts nor the money to run a credible campaign, not to mention the automatic support that comes from being machine endorsed.
That you have to pretend Brown's support didn't matter shows how absurd your position is.
In my day there was no such thing
You have resorted to blatant lies. How many times now have I pointed out that most everyone (especially in politics) who is successful needs others to support them and enable opportunities? There is nothing wrong or unusual about Brown giving Harris an initial opportunity.
What is wrong is your insistence that Harris' success is not based on her own merit but rather based solely on Brown's support early in her career.
In your day, it was an analog world.
You think Trump invented sexual assault?
I do not care if it is 1950 or 2025 when a creep forces a hand down women's pant and fingers her against her will it is rape!
Kamala Harris got her start in politics because she had a "friend" , which is supposed to some sort of "crime".
Donald Trump got his start in politics by grossly lying about the then president Obama. Trump wanted to run for president in 2012 but did not have a natural constituency, and he tried to create a base by appealing to the large number of Republicans who believed Obama wasnt really an American. So Trump began lying his ass off about Obamas birthplace. That is how he started his 'political" career.
I have never seen a conservative on Newstalkers criticize Trump for how he got his start in politics.
What does that have to do with digital rape?
Did anyone say she should be charged for having friends with benefits?
In the immortal words of Harry Reid, (paraphrasing) "it worked"
I might make our digital date 1993 when the World Wide Web was accessible by the public.
As if that matters or anyone cares...
That marked the beginning of digital or online sexual harassment.
Might be funny except we're talking about Trump sexually assaulting women...
The world would be better off if most conservatives cut the bullshit 'f-king' around with other people's lives and making salacious statements about their unknown and privacy affairs.
Some trumpists are fully aware of how demeaning and damaging this line of attack is to the spirit of a girl and woman and yet here they continue to try to tear girls and women down for their advantage in politics. Do not accept that. Fight back politically. Use your power and do not let anybody demean you - even if it was so. . .it is none of their damn business . . .as it is a free country and we all, every damn one of us, do what we must or essentially need to to get by and ahead.
Dark humor.
Prove she slept with him. Prove Willie and Kamala's relationship was sexual and she gave blow jobs (since it is mentioned in the article). Go ahead here's space. . . .
Pretty Archie-Bunkeristic.
All the right wingers blathering on about it can't prove any of it, but it sure excites them to think about it. The only way they could actually prove it is if they were in bed with them, the thought of which excites them even more.
The irony is that Willie introduced Harris to Donald and solicited a campaign donation from him to her.
Crooked Donald has already forecasted (with SCOTUS approval and Project 2025 documentation) that he will re-discover something the lost 'art' of nepotistic placement of people in government career jobs (displacing those who justifiably are in them right now) who support his personal loyalty considerations and attitudes to the detriment of freedom for people like you and me. I won't 'entertain' for a second any of their one-sided bullshit pretenses to care about me and mine.
This talking point we are engaged in on this article is an attempt to spread disinformation to low-information voters who desire rumor, innuendo, and sensational salaciousness (or the like) to feel validated in supporting a weirdo like Crooked Donald.
Implying that the three of them "worked something out". Pretty kinky.
This comment is weirdly suggestive—without any proof produced to consider. Keep that in mind, 'everybody.'
In Trumpists 'day' too as most here have indicated they are 'people of a certain age.' However, now some trumpists abhor virtue and have turned to disinformation and selective 'storytelling' as the way reality should go.
This comment has no credible evidence to back it up. It's disinformation at this point.
I implied nothing, that’s just your imagination running away with you.
That's not my imagination. That's the only way the very kinky right wingers so obviously excited about this topic could actually prove anything.
How did you get to that implication from my comment about Willie introducing Kamala to Donald?
...or 1982
????
So?
What are you talking about?
Meghan McCain on "X"
" I don't know if democrats fully realize how damaging the image of the possible first woman president being incapable of giving an interview alone without the presence of a man to help her is."
An edited video at that, that will erase all her bloopers, lies, mistruths, giggles, and cackles.
Joint interviews featuring both members of a presidential ticket are not unusual.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden sat for an interview with 60 minutes after Mr Biden was selected as the vice-presidential nominee in 2008. Eight years later, Hillary Clinton and her running mate Tim Kaine did the same. For Ms Harris and Mr Biden in 2020, they picked ABC’s 20/20. And less than a week after Trump announced JD Vance as his running mate, the pair were jointly interviewed on Fox.
Methinks the illustrious Meghan is in need of some illumination.
Have you heard John Doe Vance's vacuous laugh?
All those candidates did solo interviews and then a joint one when the VP was announced. Do you see the difference?
Methinks you may want to rethink. This is the first two of three checked boxes candidate
And a plexotomy !
I believe everyone really knows that. This was just a clumsy attempt to defend Harris.
I see a crack that you and others are attempting to morph into a canyon.
How in the hell do you defend this shit. She is talking to high school seniors FFS................
And down at that
The woman, despite histrionics to the contrary, is a freaking idiot.
Guess she is used to talking down to idiots who don't know enough to get out of jury duty.
Meghan McCain needs to just hold her peace. When she decides to enter the dark, dirty, filthy (now) world of females in politics. . . then she might learn from her experiences there what is better in practice than in theory. BTW, so can some in the media who only have the perspective of asking questions of people who have to do and have done the hard work of trying to respond to the questions, commentaries, 'publishings, ' written books, of tens of writers and individuals.
She might need to mine her own career outside of politics, that is.
Proof?
A good looking 30 yr old, banging a 60 yr old, I am sure it was for LOVE!
Exactly, I am sure that Melanie trump married donald for love. All you have to do is watch them and you can just feel the love....
/s
What office is she running for?
Is that the criteria for this debate? I guess I missed that part.
So do you believe Kamala blew and slept her way to the top?
Is that what's called moving the goal posts, deflection, or what?
That's nice, prove it.
Not too long ago this election was solidly Trump's to lose and that is exactly what he has done by ignoring any discussion or presentation of policies and issues and focusing on personal attacks on Harris and Walz
Trump is going to lose, he deserves to lose and hopefully the zealotry and hare of MAGA will go away as a failed strategy with him
Disagree in part. Biden was so dreadfully bad that Trump was ahead in polling by a larger margin and it definitely seemed as if he would win in November. Since Biden dropped out and was replaced by Harris, the Democrat numbers have come up mostly I believe from Democrats who just were not interested in November due to Biden and the relief of getting rid of him is what has changed those numbers.
I agree that the continued identity attacks by Trump are not doing him any favors in the general electorate. He seems as if he's still campaigning in a primary where he needs to convince his followers to vote for him. But he's not gaining Independents by those attacks so yes, he seems to be doing what he can to lose the race.
But I'm not convinced that he will lose in November. The race is still too close to call in the 'battleground' states where this will all be decided. We may not know on November 6th who the incoming president will be thanks to the law in Pennsylvania where they cannot start counting mail-in ballots until the morning of election day and are already cautioning people that those numbers may not be available until the weekend after the election. I think the EC count is going to be very close.
But we shall see, I was wrong once before so...
Trump will lose based on his poor campaign strategy (including Vance) and then he will whine that the election is unfair and the noise will go on for a while. It is time for Trump to fade from the national scene - settle his shit with the courts and everyone that he owes money to and retire.
I’ll agree, except for the retire part. The ‘man’ attempted to stop our peaceful transition of power that had been observed since the birth of this country and was only obtained through the blood and treasure sacrificed by true American Patriots. Trump should be in prison, not the GOP nominee, cause if all the court cases had been completed and brought to fruition, there would be another representing the Republican Party this year, and it is practically inconceivable, the one who cannot be trusted or is believable, cheers to Abbey NORM! being the new one for the low GOP fruit to raise up, the lowered Barr
Retire behind bars for about 20 years -him and Barr!!
Retire? Well, I guess that he is guaranteed some salary, so seeing him old, penniless, and homeless is too much to ask for.
Thomas
Retire has many definitions, I was thinking of this one
retire - to withdraw to or from a particular place
The place I was thinking of was the public eye, the media, the news, the internet actually to retire from the sight of the American people
Crooked Donald retruthed a junior-high level "X" comment about blowjobs. Can you believe it? A former president (with the experience of having been in the office) and he did that?! Donald is 'openly' talking under the skirts of women. . . and women had better understand it. He means to do worse. . . if we and women don't shut him down right now before he 'runs out' utterly. The comment is toxic. Donald Trump is not presidential 'material.' The GOP has failed in its candidate selection process.
Moreover the RNC is 'f-ked' up for foisting this silly old fool onto its party. The RNC has failed republicans (even kicked the 'good ones' out into the wilderness).
the RNC is 'f-ked' up for foisting this silly old fool onto its party. The RNC has failed republicans (even kicked the 'good ones' out into the wilderness).
No argument from me that Trump has destroyed the Republican Party - it will take time for the Trump Effect to be overcome
We have to help 'nourish' the GOP/RNC back to relatively good health. As is being stated we need (I guess) two-parties or more set of political systems for balance between our great people for expression and so that all can be heard. But not this, sick and twisted GOP/RNC that seems to think it can make 'saps' out of its followers and oppressed of the rest of us.
Nope. They need to fix themselves. It's like helping an alcoholic - they have to want help. And the GOP has shown that they're perfectly willing, for now, to give in to their addiction to Trump.
When they stop supporting candidates who spout bigotry and poison, and start working toward the betterment of all by putting forth non-bigoted, non-criminal candidates, they'll be showing us that they deserve help. But they're still backing Trump. They're still under his thumb. They're still pushing the Big Lie, and thrive on racism and misogyny.
And I won't enable that.
True, WE don't have to do anything, why should we? They've spent decades - since Newt - just trashing Dems/Progressives/Libs - from Newt to the teabaggers to today's maga - that seems to be all they have - projecting all their hate and failure and doing nothing to further/progress towards the future and contribute - all they want now is power and staying in power.
Like Sandy says - they need to fix themselves. They have to want help and they DON'T. WE'VE done nothing to break them.
The true republicans need to continue to speak up and renounce the party of projection, deflection, denial and delusion, today's gop. Like the 200 who recently denounced the traitor and convicted felon and are now backing Harris/Walz.
I hear and understand.
I hear and understand. That said, we do have a 'force' to be reckoned with which has stockpiles of guns. . . we should do what we can for them before somebody/ies get seriously hurt, maimed, permanently injured, or killed. I do hear you loud and clear, nevertheless!
CB
If we assume what you say is correct about what needs to be done, then the first step is that Trump and all of the insanity of his MAGA cult need to be purged from the party and a return to real conservative fiscal and family values accomplished.
So long as Trump and the followers control the Republican Party it will continue to wither and die
A return to "real" conservative seems almost quaint, considering the tomfoolery and dangerous glide path Donald and trumpists have the GOP following toward civil war. (Yes, I mentioned that which should remain unspoken, because mentioning it can help tamp down its power).
no idea what point you were trying to make
[✘]
Leader of the pro-Trump Project 2025 suggests there will be a new American Revolution
Kevin Roberts said the revolution will be bloodless “if the left allows it to be.”
By Associated Press
07/04/2024 12:04 AM EDT
NEW YORK — The leader of a conservative think tank orchestrating plans for a massive overhaul of the federal government in the event of a Republican presidential win said that the country is in the midst of a “second American Revolution” that will be bloodless “if the left allows it to be.”
Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts made the comments Tuesday on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, adding that Republicans are “in the process of taking this country back. ”
This has nothing to do with "the need for Republicans to get id of Trump and his cult following" which is the point I made.
My commenting was in addition to what you wrote, not conflict. So I don't get what's to criticize here. And with that in mind, we can enhance or build on something another has shared in discussion without being solely stuck on one perspective or train of thought—that's routine in sharing together.
How is is okay for a presidential candidate to be talking about blowjobs during the campaign? The RNC is out of its F-king mind. This is the 'puritans' being hypocrites to tell others what they can and can not do while they say all manners of dirty, stupid, ignore, lying, bullshit under the skirts of women. Not going to be allowed to stand.
Donald has disqualified himself for the office of president with that tasteless comment; and damn-it he will be called out for having the balls to make this attempt!
From the days of 'pussy grabbing' the left has used base sex references to disparage Trump but when he uses the same tactic, and truth, he's a villain? They're shocked, 'utterly shocked', they'll tell you. Get over it.
Are you implying that Trump did not speak of 'grabbing her by the pussy'? That people are unfairly criticizing him?
There is a big difference between quoting Trump's actual words and him endorsing made-up sexually demeaning attacks.
Who was it again who bragged about pussy grabbing?
You don't distinguish between "the left" calling out Trump for actually bragging about "pussy grabbing" himself, and Harris being accused by others of prostituting herself?
That's disturbing.
Donald Trump is legally defined as a sexual assaulter and the collective you have to own that one! On the other-hand, "you' have NO PROOF that Kamala Harris slept with Willie Brown despite what is presumed. All "you" have a wild imagination that is an attempt to exploit what you can not possibly know as fact!
Prove it-otherwise!
This is all about the vulgarity of the references making someone physically ill and something you'd all like to gloss over. The idea of 'president' and 'blowjob' in the same sentence has been around for, oh, thirty years.
You're glossing over the fact that Trump made the reference to "grabbing pussies" himself. He bragged about committing sexual assault. Unless you're claiming that Harris is bragging about using her relationship with Brown to further her political career, they are not the same, regardless of your ineffectual attempts to equate them.
The fact that your comments equate the two is disturbing.
I will not tip-toe around this. Donald and his Trumpists have gone too far with this!
The collective you, and Donald can not insinuate a woman as giving a 'thing' without explicit knowledge of it. Donald is out of his F-KING mind to try to make an assertion his butt can't 'support.' Prove it. Provide published evidence that Kamala Harris has given even One blowjob to get ahead in politics. If the collective "you" can't do so: Crooked Donald should be disqualified from the office of president for daring to be a foul-mouth 'WIERDO.' Please, proceed with you your evidence. . . .
MAGA's self destruction reaches frenzied pace!
Talk about your textbook definition of Insanity...
Any politician who dares to talk about blowjobs in public is unfit to be around children or hold the job of even: Dog catcher! And Donald has the temerity to retruth a disgusting remark 'under the skirt' (thereabouts) of Kamala and dragged Hillary in for the 'ride.' This former president is vulgar, lying, and indecent. Our nation deserves better, I tell you. We need to get out from under 'the floor' where this loser named Donald is driving us as a nation!
Just imagine in your mind, the United States as being thought of as no better a country than Russia by western countries and our alliances. How 'low' and tawdry our national and international image is being driven! Wake up, America! Your long pathetic 'slumber' needs to end now!
Do you mean animal control officer?
Yes, and "dog catcher" carries more of an impact.
It’s an outdated term and not an elective office.
MAGA is a Peyton Place where they're all Harper's Valley hypocrites...
Damn soap opera. I so hate soap operas. Stilted acting is awful.