We Traced The Smears Against Kamala Harris To Obama Birthers And Neo-Nazis

  
Via:  john-russell  •  4 months ago  •  77 comments

We Traced The Smears Against Kamala Harris To Obama Birthers And Neo-Nazis

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


We Traced The Smears Against Kamala Harris To Obama Birthers And Neo-Nazis


"Seeing the tweets declaring that Kamala isn't black enough because her parents are from Jamaica and India, I had an immediate flashback to the 2008 campaign".



Posted on June 28, 2019, at 4:11 p.m. ET





sub-buzz-2012-1561751613-7.jpg?downsize=



Drew Angerer / Getty Images





Not long after Senator Kamala Harris challenged  Joe Biden’s record on race  during the second Democratic debate last night, a barrage of tweets questioned her race and US citizenship. While these claims erupted into national prominence last night, in part due to a quote-tweet from Donald Trump Jr., falsehoods about her have been long-simmering in fringe conspiracy and neo-Nazi circles.

Just as Barack Obama’s US citizenship and background became a full-fledged conspiracy theory — promoted at the time by Donald Trump — Harris has also been targeted with disinformation questioning her legitimacy as a US citizen and race. Obama birther conspiracy theorists and prominent neo-Nazis, including Andrew Anglin, have questioned her eligibility to run for president, and she’s been labeled an “anchor baby.”

In fact, Harris was born in Oakland, Calif., to an Indian mother and Jamaican father, and is eligible to run for president.

“Seeing the tweets declaring that Kamala isn't black enough because her parents are from Jamaica and India, I had an immediate flashback to the 2008 campaign,” Shauna Daly, who led the fight against online smears on the Obama campaign, told BuzzFeed News. That campaign faced an early wave of rumors about Obama’s race and religion, which later coalesced into false claims about the president’s birthplace whose most famous champion was Donald Trump.

The Senator’s campaign didn’t comment on the claims after being contacted by BuzzFeed News. However, Harris herself is alert to the pattern and made a connection between claims made about her and Obama birtherism in a February radio interview  later broadcast on CNN .

"This is the same thing they did to Barack, this is not new to us,” she said. Harris said “powerful voices trying to sow hate and division among us. And so we need to recognize when we're being played."

Last night’s tweets, some of which were amplified by bots and in one case by Donald Trump Jr., gave a new level of exposure to earlier claims propagated by fringe websites and discredited figures such as Jacob Wohl and the virulent neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin.

As documented by social media researcher Caroline Orr, Harris’ presence in the debate led to an onslaught of tweets that claimed she isn’t black, was not born in the United States, and was raised in Canada. (Harris went to high school in Canada, but otherwise lived in the US.)








The sentiment that Harris is not an “American Black” was also expressed in a viral tweet — one that was briefly amplified by Donald Trump Jr. (he later deleted his message):








The tweet’s author is Ali Alexander,  who previously went by the name Ali Akba . He’s a black MAGA-world personality who  launched a website for other fringe  Trump supporters unable to find a home in more traditional conservative media. Alexander recently joined Jacob Wohl and Laura Loomer on their trip to Minnesaota to make a film about Rep. Ilhan Omar in which they floated conspiracies about her background. Hours after sending his viral tweet, Alexander  followed up with a live stream  to further explain his claim.

After Alexander sent his tweet, it was soon  copied word for word  and tweeted by a network of bot accounts previously  identified  by bot researcher  Josh Russel .

He said the bots often copy and repost tweets from prominent accounts on Twitter, including those from different sides of the political spectrum.

“To me it seems like [the bots] are just trying to blend in … and just trying to make them appear more human they are,” he told BuzzFeed News.

It’s unclear whether their amplification of the above tweet was done automatically, or at the direction of the unknown operator running the botnet.

Where the false claims started


The smears against Harris have been percolating since long before she announced her campaign for president earlier this year.

One of the earliest attempts to paint her as ineligible for the presidency came in 2017 from a California man who has spent years pushing the false Obama birther conspiracy. Gary Wilmot wrote the Senator a letter that year telling her she should withdraw from the race.

“In this age of Trump, where the current president was fully informed of Obama’s identity fraud and lack of constitutional eligibility in April of 2011 (just weeks prior to Obama’s forged birth certificate release), you can expect ferocious opposition from equal opportunity ‘birthers’ such as myself who only want the Constitution respected,”  the letter  said, in part.

The letter also says Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz “fail to meet the standard of citizenship.”

“I’m an equal opportunity birther,” Wilmot told BuzzFeed News in a phone call. He said he’s a 67-year-old private citizen who will probably keep speaking about Kamala Harris’s eligibility.

His letter was posted to the website of the American Resistance Party, which holds far-right views on immigration, abortion, and religion. Wilmot said he is unaffiliated with the party and didn’t know they published his letter before BuzzFeed News asked him about it.

Wilmot’s claims were also picked up by other Obama birth certificate conspiracy theorists. In August 2018 a website called The Post & Email published an article titled “Is Kamala Harris Eligible to be President?” That site is run by Sharon Rondeau, whose bio says she is focused on “the Obama birth certificate investigation.”

Its article received more than 14,000 shares, likes, and reactions on Facebook and was tweeted more than 10,000 times, according to data from Crowdtangle, a social media analytics service.

Within 24 hours of announcing her presidential campaign this January 21, Harris was again targeted with false claims about her eligibility and citizenship.

Among the first to falsely claim that her race and parents make her ineligible to run for president after she announced her candidacy was The Daily Stormer, an openly neo-Nazi website. Its founder, Andrew Anglin, claimed that Harris is “not an American” and said she does not belong in the country.

Similar claims were echoed by Jacob Wohl, a disgraced right-wing hoaxer, who  falsely tweeted on Jan. 22 that the senator “is not eligible for President.”  In his tweet, Wohl misstated the requirements for American citizenship.

Along with Wohl’s tweet and the Daily Stormer’s article, the website patriots4truth.org published a post titled,  “Kamala Harris is an Anchor Baby and She is not Black.”  The article included an image of what it claims to be Harris’ birth certificate. BuzzFeed News could not confirm its authenticity, but even if genuine it confirms the fact that Harris was born in Oakland.

The “About” and “Contact” pages on patriots4truth.org don’t list the owner and the article containing the birth certificate did not have a byline. However, domain registration information from the website and meta data from the birth certificate both list the name Tyla Wells. Wells, who was  once featured in a 40 under 40 feature by Crain’s Detroit Business , did not respond to an email or phone call from BuzzFeed News.

The website registration information also lists her business, School House Corporate. According to the Crain’s Detroit Business profile, “she has helped establish two public-charter vocational high schools in the Detroit area.”


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    4 months ago

How long will it be before Trump claims  "Some people say Kamala Harris isn't eligible. I don't know if it's true or not, but a lot of people are saying it, so we'll wait and see what happens."  ?

 
 
 
WallyW
1.1  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 months ago

In the case of Obama, his race and birth were not the issue.

Of more concern was his total lack of experience and knowledge of the position.

He was unfit to be president.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  WallyW @1.1    4 months ago

Trump has no experience or knowledge of the position.  His advisors can't even inform him about the position, because he's too stupid and arrogant to listen.

He was and still is unfit to be president.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  WallyW @1.1    4 months ago

He had virtually no accomplishments in the private sector and regardless of where he was born he was not a representative American.

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.3  JBB  replied to  WallyW @1.1    4 months ago

Obama surely had enough experience or he would not have been reelected...

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.2    4 months ago
He had virtually no accomplishments in the private sector and regardless of where he was born he was not a representative American.

Utter bullshit. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
1.1.5  Thrawn 31  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.2    4 months ago
He had virtually no accomplishments in the private sector and regardless of where he was born he was not a representative American.

I thought you were trying to defend Trump. Or are "multiple bankruptcies because you fucking suck" now a badge of honor?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  WallyW @1.1    4 months ago

How come you aren't concerned with Trump's total lack of experience and knowledge of the position?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.1.6    4 months ago

IOKIYAR

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.8  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @1.1.4    4 months ago

Not!  Fact.  The guy was never an American at heart.  True Americans don't want to fundamentally "change" (fuck up) the country.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.8    4 months ago
Not! Fact. The guy was never an American at heart. 

More utter bullshit. 

True Americans don't want to fundamentally "change" (fuck up) the country.

That's ridiculous. I could cite a dozen acts by Presidents that fundamentally changed the country and that some conservatives thought would 'fuck up' the country. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.10  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @1.1.9    4 months ago

Well obummer got his wish.  He did fuck up the country.

The good news is at least is we are now reclaiming some of that lost ground.  Much to the chagrin of those Anti-American types.

Just yesterday the lame stream media was getting blue balls waiting to pounce on anything they could spin negatively about Trump's celebration of American.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.10    4 months ago

And Trump delivered handsomely.  Airports?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.12  Freedom Warrior  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.11    4 months ago

That appears to be a sweeping generalization.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.12    4 months ago

It appears that you don't know what a sweeping generalization is.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.10    4 months ago
Well obummer got his wish.  

Does name calling make you feel better? 

He did fuck up the country.

How so? 

The good news is at least is we are now reclaiming some of that lost ground.

Who are 'we' and what 'ground' was lost? 

Much to the chagrin of those Anti-American types.

Who would they be FW? 


Just yesterday the lame stream media was getting blue balls waiting to pounce on anything they could spin negatively about Trump's celebration of American.

There was no need to wait, there was plenty to 'pounce on' before' Trump's ego play. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.15  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @1.1.14    4 months ago

 You didn’t read the article did ya.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.16  Freedom Warrior  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.13    4 months ago

 Well I’m certain you don’t 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.17  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.15    4 months ago
You didn’t read the article did ya.

The article doesn't have anything about Obama fucking up the country or about how y'all [those 'we' you claim to speak for] are regaining lost ground or about these 'Anti-Americans types' you speak of.

Instead of deflecting, how about some answers? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 months ago

Another bombshell from "Buzzfeed" the organization that first released the unverified, bogus Steele Dossier and more recently had their story that Trump instructed Cohen to lie debunked by none other that Robert Mueller.

First of all John, tweets off the internet say all sorts of things. Do you really think these obscure, outlier claims are going to be a part of the campaign?  I'm guessing they would have even less news time than when such claims were made against Obama, McCain, Cruz and even the Conservative Barry Goldwater. 

Here might be a way to stop it: The two major political parties vet every candidate on the issue of qualifications as soon as a candidacy is announced!

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    4 months ago
First of all John, tweets off the internet say all sorts of things.

Especially Trump's. 

Do you really think these obscure, outlier claims are going to be a part of the campaign? 

They don't need to be a 'formal' part of the campaign.

I'm guessing they would have even less news time than when such claims were made against Obama, McCain, Cruz and even the Conservative Barry Goldwater. 

I guess it depends on how often Don Jr. retweets them to his 3 million+ followers...

BTW, the bullshit about Obama is still repeated, even here on NT. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 months ago

I think Harris must first worry about winning the nomination. After scoring a nice win in the first debate via Biden's expense, a reporter has since asked her "whether she supports federally mandated busing, she replied: “I believe that any tool that is in the toolbox should be considered by a school district.” 

(Speaking of tweets); Kate Bedingfield, Biden's deputy campaign manager, quickly tweeted: “It’s disappointing that Senator Harris chose to distort Vice President Biden’s position on busing — particularly now that she is tying herself in knots trying not to answer the very question she posed to him!”


That means Harris has her hands full with winning the primary #1. Smearing the President will have to wait.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
2  Mark in Wyoming    4 months ago

Only constitutional eligibility is being a natural born citizen , Oakland cali 1964 check

be at least 35 years old  check

have lived within the boundries of the US for the last 14 years , check

So she meets the minimum eligibility requirements dictated by the US Constitution to hold the office of president or vice president .

Any other eligibility requirements are subject to ones individual opinion.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2    4 months ago

The same was true when Obama was a candidate.  That didn't stop the liars from lying.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
2.1.1  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1    4 months ago

true , it just make them look stupid .

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.1    4 months ago

Agreed, but stupid people vote, and so do gullible ones.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
2.1.3  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.2    4 months ago

yep and everyone will end up voting for their own interests in the end anyway.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.3    4 months ago

Well, that will be their intention.  Some stupid people vote against their own interests.  Repeatedly.

 
 
 
lib50
2.1.5  lib50  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.4    4 months ago

Its why Trump and the gop like the stupid, the uneducated.  Trump puts on a show -his rallies are combination of a circus act and the Rocky Horror picture show, his base knows their cues.  Of course the paid ones (like 'his African American') help generate the mood. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
2.1.6  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.4    4 months ago
Some stupid people vote against their own interests.

I never did hold with that accusation/ saying . main reason is no one person making that statement can truly know what anothers self interests are, the person saying that can guess , postulate , summize  and think THEY know whats in anothers self interests , and they make themselves look just as stupid for saying it because the only one who can make a choice in their own self interests is the person themselves. At best the person who is accused of voting against their own self interests are actually only voting AGAINST the ones self interests making that accusation.

 
 
 
JBB
2.1.7  JBB  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.6    4 months ago

Does poor people voting to cut rich people's taxes makes sense?

No. That is why the gop feeds on racial and religious resentment.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.6    4 months ago

I'll disagree.  I think folks who repeatedly vote for a party that sells them out (usually financially) because that party makes promises that are nearly impossible to keep,  sometimes even unconstitutional, are voting against their own interests.  Sometimes they do so because they are deceived about their own interests.  Sometimes, they don't understand the Constitution and the impossibility of the promises made.  And sometimes, they're bigots who see only candidates who share their prejudices.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.9  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.8    4 months ago

Sometime they are sick of being taxed to death by politicians buying votes.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.10  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @2.1.9    4 months ago

So they vote for politicians who promise they won't tax them, and still do.  Politicians who start wars that have to be paid for somehow, but make money for their rich friends (Haliburton, anyone?).

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.11  WallyW  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.8    4 months ago
I think folks who repeatedly vote for a party that sells them out (usually financially) because that party makes promises that are nearly impossible to keep,  sometimes even unconstitutional, are voting against their own interests.  Sometimes they do so because they are deceived about their own interests.  Sometimes, they don't understand the Constitution and the impossibility of the promises made.  And sometimes, they're bigots who see only candidates who share their prejudices.
You have perfectly described the Democrats,, past and present.  jrSmiley_27_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Snuffy
2.1.12  Snuffy  replied to  WallyW @2.1.11    4 months ago
You have perfectly described the Democrats,, past and present

Actually he described both parties. Neither party gives a damn about the people except when it comes to their votes because the parties need our votes to maintain their power.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
2.1.13  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.12    4 months ago

beat me to it Snuffy, maybe for different reasons . Which is why I am neither registered democrat or republican. The old axium I follow, know when a politician / party is lying? their lips are moving.

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1.14  Ronin2  replied to  JBB @2.1.7    4 months ago

Except when the poor and middle class taxes are cut as well. The left always leave that fact out, the GOP cut taxes for everyone- no tjust the rich. Reagan did it, Bush Jr it, and so did Trump. 

Want to know who didn't do anything for the middle class or poor for taxes? The Democratic Party, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.

Clinton raised taxes on everyone. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/states/stories/sou021893.htm

Clinton emphasized that "98.8" percent of America's families "will have no increase in their income tax rates." He stressed that neither Medicare nor Social Security recipients would face cuts in their benefits, and that the overall tax burden for families earning $40,000 a year would rise less than $17 a month.

As for Obama- he was more concerned about increasing taxes on the rich by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Even if that meant allowing them to expire for the poor and middle class as well. Unfortunately, the Republicans caved. I would have loved to see Obama having to explain to the middle class and poor why their taxes were going up; and how it would negatively affect the economy.

 
 
 
lib50
2.1.15  lib50  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.14    4 months ago
the GOP cut taxes for everyone- no tjust the rich. Reagan did it, Bush Jr it, and so did Trump. 

Total bullshit.  This article is very informative and give history to gop tax cuts.  It also compares the Reagan and Bush cuts and how they came to be.  Not even remotely close because Trumpers didn't even try to do due diligence.  I'm posting the epilogue,  but read the whole thing.

https://publicintegrity.org/business/taxes/trumps-tax-cuts/the-secret-saga-of-trumps-tax-cuts/

Epilogue3.jpg
 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
2.1.16  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  JBB @2.1.7    4 months ago
Does poor people voting to cut rich people's taxes makes sense?

about as much sense as telling poor people that taxes will only be raised on and paid by the rich , who have the ability to move funds around so it is non taxable.

Both depend on how it is packaged and presented as to if it makes sense to any individual, remember there is no law that says anyone has to have an income  since it is income that is usually taxed , nor is there a law that says people that can afford to, have to invest. just like there is no law that says a person has to allow any bank use their money to make loans to anyone.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.17  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.14    4 months ago
As for Obama- he was more concerned about increasing taxes on the rich by letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

It's called fiscal responsibility. 

Even if that meant allowing them to expire for the poor and middle class as well. Unfortunately, the Republicans caved.

It was the GOP that were 'all or nothing'...

Yes the Republicans caved and Obama got to rescind the Bush tax cuts for the rich and leave the Bush tax cuts for the poor and middle class. 

I would have loved to see Obama having to explain to the middle class and poor why their taxes were going up; and how it would negatively affect the economy.

Aren't conservatives the ones that insist that the debt and deficit effect the economy? 

Oh wait, my bad, that's only when a Democratic POTUS is in office. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
3  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    4 months ago

Kamala is polling non existent with African Americans because of her oppressive record with minorities as a prosecutor.

Her draconian positions on non violent crimes as prosecutor are the cause and the outrageous story she told on the biggest syndicated African American morning show in America.

This article is garbage.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3    4 months ago

 There’s more to come on that racist Bitch you wait-and-see the prosecutorial record was the least of her troubles.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3    4 months ago

The right, alt right, libertarians and anarchists will all launch a smear campaign against whoever looks like the most likely to take down Trump, so Harris better get ready. 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
3.2.1  dave-2693993  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    4 months ago

Out of curiosity, who are the anarchists and why would they target anyone in particular for or against Trump?

 
 
 
bbl-1
3.2.2  bbl-1  replied to  dave-2693993 @3.2.1    4 months ago

Grover Norquist qualifies. 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.3  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    4 months ago

They may tap her phones start unwarranted investigations wait that is what they did to Trump.  

 
 
 
dave-2693993
3.2.4  dave-2693993  replied to  bbl-1 @3.2.2    4 months ago

Aright, then let's start from there. That is an individual known for certain things related to taxes.

I tend to think there are more qualifiers to fall in to such a group, worthy of it's own label.

Any ideas what these other qualifiers might be?

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
3.2.5  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  dave-2693993 @3.2.1    4 months ago

He has no idea......

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.6  Dulay  replied to  dave-2693993 @3.2.4    4 months ago
That is an individual known for certain things related to taxes.

Norquist is the one that said: I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
3.2.7  dave-2693993  replied to  Dulay @3.2.6    4 months ago
I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.

Again, that is part and parcel with his tax views.

The question is not so much "can anyone" cite an example of an anarchist, but rather more a question of what are the qualifiers that result in falling under the label or category of anarchist?

 
 
 
dave-2693993
3.2.8  dave-2693993  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.2.5    4 months ago
He has no idea......

Maybe many know, but are unwilling to go there...?

 
 
 
cjcold
3.2.9  cjcold  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    4 months ago

You forgot all of the online Russian bots who will be out to destroy any frontrunner.

Who knows, there might even be a few here on NT.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
3.2.10  dave-2693993  replied to  cjcold @3.2.9    4 months ago
You forgot all of the online Russian bots who will be out to destroy any frontrunner.

Now, that right there is the more accurate statement.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.11  Dulay  replied to  dave-2693993 @3.2.7    4 months ago

IMHO, drowning the government in a bathtub would cause anarchy, and such an action is the definition of an anarchist. 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
3.2.12  dave-2693993  replied to  Dulay @3.2.11    4 months ago
IMHO, drowning the government in a bathtub would cause anarchy, and such an action is the definition of an anarchist. 

Absolutely. I agree 100%, but it still doesn't answer my original question.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.13  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  dave-2693993 @3.2.7    4 months ago
rather more a question of what are the qualifiers that result in falling under the label or category of anarchist?

If you want to discuss the meanings of the word anarchist, why don't you start a seed about it?Prolonged wondering about it on this seed is off topic. 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
3.2.14  dave-2693993  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.13    4 months ago

You introduced it right here in your own article.

The right, alt right, libertarians and anarchists will all launch a smear campaign against whoever looks like the most likely to take down Trump, so Harris better get ready. 

There is no wondering about it. I know exactly what it is. You put it out there and now I am asking how you can justify the statement?

You know, with this question of your above statement:

Out of curiosity, who are the anarchists and why would they target anyone in particular for or against Trump?

 
 
 
dave-2693993
3.2.15  dave-2693993  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    4 months ago

Unfortunately, it seems clear, most want to substitute perceived ideology with reality on this specific subtopic introduced by the poster of the topic, even the originator himself.

So, once again, it seems we have a situation where to toss out statements which may be more emotionally appealing than accurate in order to drive a particular political ideology is the thing to do.

When will we the people become the more important thing?

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.16  Dulay  replied to  dave-2693993 @3.2.12    4 months ago
but it still doesn't answer my original question.

Which was:

what are the qualifiers that result in falling under the label or category of anarchist

There is only one, causing anarchy. 

Now what we each consider to be anarchy is subjective.

Some see any form of protest as anarchy.

Some protest to prevent what they view as anarchy. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3    4 months ago
[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
3.4  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3    4 months ago
Kamala is polling non existent with African Americans because of her oppressive record with minorities as a prosecutor.

So do you have a link to support that claim

 
 
 
Dulay
3.5  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3    4 months ago

I presume that your deafening silence proves that you pulled that claim from your nether regions. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
4  pat wilson    4 months ago

Social media researcher Caroline Orr noted that a number of “suspect accounts” highlighted similar claims after Harris’s debate appearance.

“A lot of suspect accounts are pushing the 'Kamala Harris is not Black' narrative tonight. It’s everywhere and it has all the signs of being a coordinated/artificial operation,” she tweeted after the debate. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/450979-twitter-bots-amplify-far-right-conspiracy-that-kamala-harris-is-not-black

Fucking bots !

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5  Sean Treacy    4 months ago

Phew... Lucky you found this...

Fear mongering about tweets is really all democrats have going for them after the last two days..

The democrats and their pet media  will draw much more attention to these tweets than they ever would have gotten otherwise.

Keep manufacturing the boogeymen. Better than talking about tax payer funded abortions for men, abolishing ICE and free health care for illegals, which is what Democrats actually focus on at debates.  

 
 
 
cjcold
5.1  cjcold  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    4 months ago
tax payer funded abortions for men

I must have missed that part of the debate.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  cjcold @5.1    4 months ago

Julian castro.

He probably was spending too much time getting Spanish lessons from a Jewish lady so he could sound "authentically" ethnic to study biology.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.1.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  cjcold @5.1    4 months ago
I must have missed that part of the debate.

So did all the others in attendance nodding dutifully in agreement when the wing nut called out for taxpayer funded abortions for trans women.

It's fucking insane but they're so afraid of revealing the truth they can't admit how loony it really is.

 
 
 
bbl-1
6  bbl-1    4 months ago

'The Alt Right' bag of crap group gains most of its support from Russian INTEL who's only goal is to weaken the West.   It is there where 'Birtherism' was spawned and Donald J. Trump received his national name recognition.

 
 
 
WallyW
6.1  WallyW  replied to  bbl-1 @6    4 months ago

Pure paranoid conspiracy theory BS.

 
 
 
cjcold
6.1.1  cjcold  replied to  WallyW @6.1    4 months ago
Pure BS

[Removed]

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7  Raven Wing    4 months ago

I for one would never vote for Kamala Harris. She is much too busy ridiculing and attacking other candidates instead of speaking about her position on the topics in America that really matter to the voters.

To me, she is just another Trump, "It's all about me...me...me," and trying to make everyone else look bad while actively trying to cover up and/or excuse any of her own faults.

IMHO, she is in no way Presidential material.

JMOO

 
 
 
dave-2693993
7.1  dave-2693993  replied to  Raven Wing @7    4 months ago

I know who my candidate is, unfortunately she is not running.

Too bad, as that is where my vote is going, come hell or high water.

Maybe next go round Deb Haaland will decide to run.

She actually works across the isle for all her constituents.

"Political Hot Topic Du'jour"? What's that? It's BS, that is what it is.

I am in the state of Maryland. I am working for her.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7.1.1  Raven Wing  replied to  dave-2693993 @7.1    4 months ago
Maybe next go round Deb Haaland will decide to run.

She would indeed be a worthy candidate. However, as she is a Native American her chances of being elected to such a high office is doubtful, as there are still far too many who hate Native Americans, as they see them only as lazy, drunken vermin that should be exterminated. 

But, perhaps one day we will see a Native American President, just as we saw our first black President. I will not live to see that day, but, hopefully, my Granddaughter or Great-Grandchildren will see it happen in their lifetime. 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
7.1.2  dave-2693993  replied to  Raven Wing @7.1.1    4 months ago
I will not live to see that day, but, hopefully, my Granddaughter or Great-Grandchildren will see it happen in their lifetime. 

I understand Raven Wing, yet this is where I am taking my stand.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7.1.3  Raven Wing  replied to  dave-2693993 @7.1.2    4 months ago
I understand Raven Wing, yet this is where I am taking my stand

I will be an avid supporter as long and as best as I can. As well as for many other well deserving and fully capable Native Americans. 

Our country has been going through a learning process since its inception, and there are still many bridges yet to cross. But, as the years pass, the American people, as a whole, will learn that no man, or woman, is a world unto themselves.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
7.1.4  dave-2693993  replied to  Raven Wing @7.1.3    4 months ago
But, as the years pass, the American people, as a whole, will learn that no man, or woman, is a world unto themselves.

Yes, and you know what, IMO, Deb Haaland is the only visible politician who knows this.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

MrFrost
Dean Moriarty
Dismayed Patriot
Ender
PJ
jungkonservativ111
XDm9mm
KDMichigan
Sunshine
Tessylo

JBB


80 visitors