She never became known for any particular issue and eventually seemed to be trying too hard. She will be a force in the party for some time to come and will probably try again for president down the line.
She is a Senator, and you are right about her career remaining intact. Moreover, her "service" to Willie Brown was legal, off-hours, and behind closed doors—whatever t was, it was between consenting adults. In addition, Willie might have been 'servicing' her in which case (can I get an amen, Ladies?) how would any of us know for sure?
There are too many candidates. Fundraising on the internet and the ease with which people become "famous" these days gives some of these people the idea that they should run for president. After there are 6 or so viable candidates the rest should wait for another year.
Of course this would encourage people to announce earlier and earlier, and that isnt a good trend either.
Maybe they should just go back to letting the convention decide it.
The race is between Biden, Warren, Buttigieg and Bloomberg. Maybe Sanders, but with his current demeanor, message and health issues he is very unlikely. The rest have no chance.
Oh happy days! One less progressive leftist liberal in the race. I don't think she would really have been a serious contender anyway. Carrying too much baggage for her to be winnable.
Actually Ed, this is what I find so scary about politics today. She was hardly a leftist. In fact, her biggest detriment was her long history of locking up black people.
Both parties are in control by their extreme ends and neither can see their way back to the middle. We need the middle now more than ever.
In retrospect you are correct on all points. I should have left out the leftist and just gone with progressive liberal. My bad and my thanks for the correction.
You make a great point! I can see how Perrie meant her point to be taken, nevertheless! A really rich thought-point, JR! Come to the head of the class!
Nancy is the leader in name only. AOC is her puppet master
Shhhh! Don't let people know!
(Of course you are right, but we're not supposed to let the secret out.
And BTW, not only does AOC control the entire Congress, but in actuality she single-handedly controls the entire U.S. government. (As well as the military).
How does she manage to do this you may ask?
Simple-- she's a Witch!
Yes, she's actually a practicing Witch and she's a successful practicioner of Witchcraft-- in the bat of an eyelash she can put a magicke spell on any government official and make them brnd to her will!!!!!!!)
"Eye of newt , and toe of frog, Wool of bat, and tongue of dog, Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting, Lizard's leg, and howlet's wing,-- For a charm of powerful trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble."
Can't say as I blame her. Her days as a "prosecutor" turned her into a real angry person and it seems, clouded her judgement outside of the courtroom..........and holier than thou woman. Foreign diplomats would most likely expose her nasty tendencies by defying her wants just because they can see she is a manipulative ...........fill in the blank. And many here think she isn't like Mr. Trump?
It wasn't sexist at all. If a man with the same "pedigree" tried, he would be treated the same. All I am saying is that her reputation precedes her and she would be toast just as anyone who occupied the office did. Did you watch any of the first debates? She played the poor me race card more than once and took offense at practically ANY comments trying to demean her. Look what world leaders did to Mr. Carter (speedy recovery please) and Mr. Obama. Carter was a puss and so was Obama. Bush, just out of touch. She doesn't belong in the office and would be better on a high court somewhere............maybe.
You see how, we are told by the locals here, that they scoff at Mr. Trump and his supposed behaviour. Just what the hell do you think they would do to her? Drop at her feet and say "Thank you ma'am may I have another?
Your above explanation is not sexist. I would have agreed with it even. But please re-read your first one, especially this comment:
Foreign diplomats would most likely expose her nasty tendencies by defying her wants just because they can see she is a manipulative ...........fill in the blank.
Sorry but YOU filled in that blank, ran with it, and created your own angst. Why do you think l typed "fill in the blank". It's just like when the race card is played. As we are told and scolded for here, those that call racist are usually guilty of that of their own accord.
Because before I was a teacher I had to deal with men who were. It affected me directly. But any guy who wants to take umbrage with a woman talking sexist smack, I would think they had it coming to them.
So if a woman is making sexist statements or using sexist name calling, you choose to ignore it whether directed at a man or woman? That is your prerogative.
But, it seems to be a double standard to chastise one and not the other.
It affected me directly.
I do understand, have spent over 35 years in a male dominated career but I have learned over the years to recognize what are sexist comments and what are not instead of perceiving what I think they are. Trying not to jump to accusations.
But any guy who wants to take umbrage with a woman talking sexist smack, I would think they had it coming to them.
Who? The woman or the subject guy(s)? As for.............
And I'm sorry... but let's be for real. What would you have filled in the blank in with after reading the first half of your comment? Please...
Barring any other term that may have popped into my head, "self serving, self aggrandizing, woman in it for her own recognition and resume".
And aren't we supposed to be equal? Seems one half of the "discussion" gets appalled when treated equally. While I realize there are some "civil" boundaries, what's good for the gander, in this case, is good for the goose.
Good for you. Perpetual victimization does NO one any good that I have ever seen. Reality, it seems of late, is that some groups LOOK for the victim card.
She played the poor me race card more than once and took offense at practically ANY comments trying to demean her. Look what world leaders did to Mr. Carter (speedy recovery please) and Mr. Obama. Carter was a puss and so was Obama.
That is full . . . .fill in the blank. Ms. Harris need not apologize to anybody for her black American/Indian heritage and it is her prerogative as such to properly speak about in a racially-sensitive manner according to the circumstances. It is the conservative movement's problem, if that is indeed what it is to them, that the policymakers can not collect or stir a suitable majority of minorities to its party-line. Perhaps, if conservatism and its adherents attempted to listen instead of repacking and re-wrapping itself overtime with peculiar values, people could properly move back and forth in the millions across both parties. That is not the case, however.
I take umbrage that when Ms. Harris fails in her first attempt to become president, that anybody should start talking about it as anything more than what it is. She simply is not ready to be president in the minds of the people. That happens. There is no need for conservatives to launch a celebration or throw a 'tap dance,'— it has always been and is clear from the start that 'shaving' of the democratic party contestants and the many personalities would occur.
As far as Jim Carter goes well conservativism did not make a good man go bad. As far as Obama goes, he probably could give a damn about what conservatism cares about state of governance or state of being or state of current affairs. Some conservatives apparently love to play the 'memory-card' when Trump is fuc. . .fill in the blank this nation's brand as caring, fair, decent, dignified and branding it as a faux monarchy under a leader who apparently will do anything to anybody he knows for a buck and does not like his natural hair color.
As far as Obama goes, he probably could give a damn about what conservatism cares about state of governance or state of being or state of current affairs.
That's why they shit canned his ideals and ideas in 2016. And he STILL continues to bash even now. Your faux image is just that. Yours.
and as for your...............
Ms. Harris need not apologize to anybody for her black American/Indian heritage and it is her prerogative as such to properly speak about in a racially-sensitive manner according to the circumstances.
Who said she needed to apologize for any of your victim perceptions?
Well Just Jim NC TttH, that is full. . . fill in the blank. It is a free country. the saying goes. Trump won through hook and crook. And, conservatives explicitly like their hook and crook when they can get it and now we will all have to do what we can to see if and when we can get rid of Trump and that. This is the fu. . . fill in the blank of the moment. But, a new day is on the horizon. We will have to run on and see what it will be!
By the way, democrats would be ridiculously stupid if they do not keep their attention on winning the Electoral College and the popular vote this winning season.
Enlighten me. There is two choices NEITHER of which I would post here. That seems to be reserved for women on the conservative side of the aisle here. And you know of the "by whom" I speak.
No he won because the "other" candidate took for granted that her way was what everyone across the fruited plain wanted. Unfortunately for her, she forgot to court that section of the country. And the only reason Mr. Obama won second term, and first for that matter, is that the GOP candidates sucked.
Actually Jim, I haven't a clue to what you are talking about. And here is the BS I really resent. I complimented you here:
Jim,
Your above explanation is not sexist.I would have agreed with it even.
So it's not like I am taking a liberal or conservative side. I said would have agreed with you.
But then I get all caught up in this BS, about liberals and conservatives... well news flash. I am an independent, who has voted both liberal and conservative and even libertarian and who believes in civil discussion. I don't think that is unreasonable.
And what you have elected is a lying, cheating, victimized, fake hair color, non-constitutional following, offender of all things just, and finally now conservatism is pleased to sit on its 'fat' laurels and say all is right with politics?
Pull down your skirt and raise your pants, Conservatism—your true nature is showing. It is clear to me anyway, conservatism never gave a damn about "truth, justice, and the "American Way." That was all fake flag-waving jingoism. Conservatism is tribalism, plain and simple.
Trump is tribal leader. And who would have 'thunk' it. The 'founding fathers of conservativism are rolling in anguish in their respective graves. Conservatism used to have some deep thinkers and the party has 'graduated' down to Trump? This 'meatball'?
I really don't want a pissing match and that was NOT my intention. Especially with you as I know your views and stance on most things as evidenced through your posts. I only replied to your responses. Sorry if it came across as prickish to you but you know you have seen worse.
Hi 'Fish! Governance is inherently complicated. In a system like ours with so much money circulating, people see it coming by on a 'conveyor' and they get saucer eyes. Then, this one gets a scheme, that one gets another, and that writes a book about the scheme that a third just hatched, and so on and so forth. No one has a problem, really, except the people on the bottom and on the outs are not happy. Those people 'litter' our politics, our streets, our lives, and the back spaces of our minds. Of course, then the 'world' comes a calling with its myriad of circular problems they can not manage to circumvent, talk their way out of, or stop causing under their own power.
Last thing I will say is this about it. We have to be smarter together and not just keep politically punching each other below the belt! Damn! Both parties have practically knee capped their success and all that is accomplished is you guessed it: Now our investigations cause investigations! We are duplicitous in fighting too much ourselves. Call it a 'war on politics.' It is costing us any savings we garner otherwise.
Or things along these lines of thought. We will not return to sanity until we as people decide to do just that. RETURN TO SANITY. Elsewise, we will continue on being 'sick and tired' of being sick and tired, and our politically "drug" of choice will continue letting us all have it!
Hey 'Fish, your last paragraph throws me. What do you mean?
That seems to be reserved for women on the conservative side
Exactly. I have yet to see anyone of these two and I say two because I see CB wanted to jump on the bandwagon, call out the left for calling conservative women CUNTS, BITCHES, SLUTS, Saying the President molests his daughter but OMG you said fill in the blank so you are a sexist.
She simply is not ready to be president in the minds of the people. That happens.
That's a fair assessment.
There is no need for conservatives to launch a celebration or throw a 'tap dance,'— it has always been and is clear from the start that 'shaving' of the democratic party contestants and the many personalities would occur.
I think she gets flak from people because she started the campaign in a very militant fashion.
You call 'em out then. If you truly care, that is. What's your role in all this? What's WRONG with your hands pounding it out? I'll answer that thank you very much: Nothing.
[Deleted] You make it explicitly clear you approve of what you won't call out with your own keyboard. If it bothers you that conservative women are called vulgar, demeaning, terms - you do something about it. Don't try projecting lack onto me. I stand in the square and make my case. By the way, when I do deal with the subject on behalf of my sisters and friends, I make mention (look it up) that I do not consider any woman to be fit for such statements.
Women birth all humans. I 'issued forth' from a woman's nether region. Chances are nearly everyone here did too. I let that count for something with me. We men should not forget that. But, now I am preachifying and so I step down from my stool.
Ms. Harris took a 'shot' at Joe Biden and in the long run it did not help. To the winner of risk-taking goes tthe biggest payoff. To the loser go the dregs. That is the way life is. I agree with you, that could have been partially what damaged her early in this. In addition, I suppose, getting in early with a field that opened its 'mouth' to so many candidates diluted her well-wishers and supporters. She became a lesser 'chew.'
Clean up your vocabulary with some scented fragrant and soaring words-and bring it on KDMichigan. We can talk about Trump in rosy language too, by another name. If you prefer it, that is. Find a field and I will bring two stools.
This may be a bit off topic-- but there is a person (or person') in this discussion who isn;t exactly playing with a full deck . . . (if ya catch my drift!)
Good. She was my least favorite candidate. She's mean, petty, and false. Perhaps more than any other candidate, she will say whatever she thinks is fashionable to get elected or whatever it takes to get ahead politically in the moment. Good riddance.
Now if only somebody in California with at least the sunny disposition of Oscar the Grouch or Squidward would run against her for Senate, we could be rid of her entirely.
Perhaps more than any other candidate, she will say whatever she thinks is fashionable to get elected or whatever it takes to get ahead politically in the moment.
Some guy named Robert O'Rourke has just asked me to "hold his beer"....
She sealed her fate when she attacked Biden over the busing. White people heard her say that she's going to go back 60+ years and hold people accountable for positions and views that were common during that period in time. It was a stupid move on her part.
Ted Cruz on Tuesday unloaded on Donald Trump , accusing him during a news conference of being a "pathological liar," "utterly amoral," "a narcissist at a level I don't think this country's ever seen" and "a serial philanderer."
"He is proud of being a serial philanderer ... he describes his own battles with venereal diseases as his own personal Vietnam," Cruz said, citing a decades-old Trump appearance on "The Howard Stern Show."
Ted Cruz on Tuesday unloaded on Donald Trump , accusing him during a news conference of being a "pathological liar," "utterly amoral," "a narcissist at a level I don't think this country's ever seen" and "a serial philanderer."
"He is proud of being a serial philanderer ... he describes his own battles with venereal diseases as his own personal Vietnam," Cruz said, citing a decades-old Trump appearance on "The Howard Stern Show."
She never became known for any particular issue and eventually seemed to be trying too hard. She will be a force in the party for some time to come and will probably try again for president down the line.
She was known for servicing Brown's Willie to start her political career is all.
Funny, you should mention that. Men get and give 'service' each and every day and it mostly never harms their chances of a political career.
She is a Senator. Not seeing where it has harmed her career.
She is a Senator, and you are right about her career remaining intact. Moreover, her "service" to Willie Brown was legal, off-hours, and behind closed doors—whatever t was, it was between consenting adults. In addition, Willie might have been 'servicing' her in which case (can I get an amen, Ladies?) how would any of us know for sure?
No shocker there.
There are too many candidates. Fundraising on the internet and the ease with which people become "famous" these days gives some of these people the idea that they should run for president. After there are 6 or so viable candidates the rest should wait for another year.
Of course this would encourage people to announce earlier and earlier, and that isnt a good trend either.
Maybe they should just go back to letting the convention decide it.
This was obvious.
The race is between Biden, Warren, Buttigieg and Bloomberg. Maybe Sanders, but with his current demeanor, message and health issues he is very unlikely. The rest have no chance.
Constant "Giggling" just isn't a "Vote Getter" !
Oh happy days! One less progressive leftist liberal in the race. I don't think she would really have been a serious contender anyway. Carrying too much baggage for her to be winnable.
A former prosecutor is a "leftist" ? lol
Actually Ed, this is what I find so scary about politics today. She was hardly a leftist. In fact, her biggest detriment was her long history of locking up black people.
Both parties are in control by their extreme ends and neither can see their way back to the middle. We need the middle now more than ever.
In retrospect you are correct on all points. I should have left out the leftist and just gone with progressive liberal. My bad and my thanks for the correction.
If the main contenders are Biden, Bloomberg, Warren and Buttigieg, how is the Democratic Party in the control of the extreme?
Nancy Pelosi is arguably the leader of the Democratic Party today. She is about as far from extremist as you can get.
You make a great point! I can see how Perrie meant her point to be taken, nevertheless! A really rich thought-point, JR! Come to the head of the class!
And the rest of the "The Squad" are their cheerleaders!
Shhhh! Don't let people know!
(Of course you are right, but we're not supposed to let the secret out.
And BTW, not only does AOC control the entire Congress, but in actuality she single-handedly controls the entire U.S. government. (As well as the military).
How does she manage to do this you may ask?
Simple-- she's a Witch!
Yes, she's actually a practicing Witch and she's a successful practicioner of Witchcraft-- in the bat of an eyelash she can put a magicke spell on any government official and make them brnd to her will!!!!!!!)
in the bat of an eyelash. . .
(or is it the "eyelash of a bat? ):
"Eye of newt , and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg, and howlet's wing,--
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble."
Macbeth (IV, i, 14-15)
Can't say as I blame her. Her days as a "prosecutor" turned her into a real angry person and it seems, clouded her judgement outside of the courtroom..........and holier than thou woman. Foreign diplomats would most likely expose her nasty tendencies by defying her wants just because they can see she is a manipulative ...........fill in the blank. And many here think she isn't like Mr. Trump?
Well, that was totally sexist. If a guy is a good prosecutor, he is called tough. A woman is called nasty. Why is that?
I mean she wasn't my cup of tea, but I would not describe her that way.
It wasn't sexist at all. If a man with the same "pedigree" tried, he would be treated the same. All I am saying is that her reputation precedes her and she would be toast just as anyone who occupied the office did. Did you watch any of the first debates? She played the poor me race card more than once and took offense at practically ANY comments trying to demean her. Look what world leaders did to Mr. Carter (speedy recovery please) and Mr. Obama. Carter was a puss and so was Obama. Bush, just out of touch. She doesn't belong in the office and would be better on a high court somewhere............maybe.
You see how, we are told by the locals here, that they scoff at Mr. Trump and his supposed behaviour. Just what the hell do you think they would do to her? Drop at her feet and say "Thank you ma'am may I have another?
Jim,
Your above explanation is not sexist. I would have agreed with it even. But please re-read your first one, especially this comment:
The fill in the blank was the icing on the cake.
Sorry but YOU filled in that blank, ran with it, and created your own angst. Why do you think l typed "fill in the blank". It's just like when the race card is played. As we are told and scolded for here, those that call racist are usually guilty of that of their own accord.
Calling men dickheads and pricks for their manipulative behavior is sexist?
First, I have no angst over this.
And I'm sorry... but let's be for real. What would you have filled in the blank in with after reading the first half of your comment?
Please...
Yup, it is. That is why I don't do that.
Great, do you suggest that others are sexist for those comments?
Nope, but then again, I am not a guy. Do you?
Why does that matter?
No. I don't pay much attention to it. A sexist comment would be she is manipulative/nasty because she is a woman. But, that wasn't the comment.
Because before I was a teacher I had to deal with men who were. It affected me directly. But any guy who wants to take umbrage with a woman talking sexist smack, I would think they had it coming to them.
So if a woman is making sexist statements or using sexist name calling, you choose to ignore it whether directed at a man or woman? That is your prerogative.
But, it seems to be a double standard to chastise one and not the other.
I do understand, have spent over 35 years in a male dominated career but I have learned over the years to recognize what are sexist comments and what are not instead of perceiving what I think they are. Trying not to jump to accusations.
Who? The woman or the subject guy(s)? As for.............
Barring any other term that may have popped into my head, "self serving, self aggrandizing, woman in it for her own recognition and resume".
And aren't we supposed to be equal? Seems one half of the "discussion" gets appalled when treated equally.
While I realize there are some "civil" boundaries, what's good for the gander, in this case, is good for the goose.
Good for you. Perpetual victimization does NO one any good that I have ever seen. Reality, it seems of late, is that some groups LOOK for the victim card.
And why I have already judged that I stop calling them that publicly, anyway.
That is full . . . .fill in the blank. Ms. Harris need not apologize to anybody for her black American/Indian heritage and it is her prerogative as such to properly speak about in a racially-sensitive manner according to the circumstances. It is the conservative movement's problem, if that is indeed what it is to them, that the policymakers can not collect or stir a suitable majority of minorities to its party-line. Perhaps, if conservatism and its adherents attempted to listen instead of repacking and re-wrapping itself overtime with peculiar values, people could properly move back and forth in the millions across both parties. That is not the case, however.
I take umbrage that when Ms. Harris fails in her first attempt to become president, that anybody should start talking about it as anything more than what it is. She simply is not ready to be president in the minds of the people. That happens. There is no need for conservatives to launch a celebration or throw a 'tap dance,'— it has always been and is clear from the start that 'shaving' of the democratic party contestants and the many personalities would occur.
As far as Jim Carter goes well conservativism did not make a good man go bad. As far as Obama goes, he probably could give a damn about what conservatism cares about state of governance or state of being or state of current affairs. Some conservatives apparently love to play the 'memory-card' when Trump is fuc. . .fill in the blank this nation's brand as caring, fair, decent, dignified and branding it as a faux monarchy under a leader who apparently will do anything to anybody he knows for a buck and does not like his natural hair color.
That's why they shit canned his ideals and ideas in 2016. And he STILL continues to bash even now. Your faux image is just that. Yours.
and as for your...............
Who said she needed to apologize for any of your victim perceptions?
I was going to answer this, but you know what. This is all double speak. We all know what was meant.
Well Just Jim NC TttH, that is full. . . fill in the blank. It is a free country. the saying goes. Trump won through hook and crook. And, conservatives explicitly like their hook and crook when they can get it and now we will all have to do what we can to see if and when we can get rid of Trump and that. This is the fu. . . fill in the blank of the moment. But, a new day is on the horizon. We will have to run on and see what it will be!
By the way, democrats would be ridiculously stupid if they do not keep their attention on winning the Electoral College and the popular vote this winning season.
Enlighten me. There is two choices NEITHER of which I would post here. That seems to be reserved for women on the conservative side of the aisle here. And you know of the "by whom" I speak.
No he won because the "other" candidate took for granted that her way was what everyone across the fruited plain wanted. Unfortunately for her, she forgot to court that section of the country. And the only reason Mr. Obama won second term, and first for that matter, is that the GOP candidates sucked.
Actually Jim, I haven't a clue to what you are talking about. And here is the BS I really resent. I complimented you here:
Jim,
So it's not like I am taking a liberal or conservative side. I said would have agreed with you.
But then I get all caught up in this BS, about liberals and conservatives... well news flash. I am an independent, who has voted both liberal and conservative and even libertarian and who believes in civil discussion. I don't think that is unreasonable.
And what you have elected is a lying, cheating, victimized, fake hair color, non-constitutional following, offender of all things just, and finally now conservatism is pleased to sit on its 'fat' laurels and say all is right with politics?
Pull down your skirt and raise your pants, Conservatism—your true nature is showing. It is clear to me anyway, conservatism never gave a damn about "truth, justice, and the "American Way." That was all fake flag-waving jingoism. Conservatism is tribalism, plain and simple.
Trump is tribal leader. And who would have 'thunk' it. The 'founding fathers of conservativism are rolling in anguish in their respective graves. Conservatism used to have some deep thinkers and the party has 'graduated' down to Trump? This 'meatball'?
I really don't want a pissing match and that was NOT my intention. Especially with you as I know your views and stance on most things as evidenced through your posts. I only replied to your responses. Sorry if it came across as prickish to you but you know you have seen worse.
OK Let's just call by gones, by gones.
Hi 'Fish! Governance is inherently complicated. In a system like ours with so much money circulating, people see it coming by on a 'conveyor' and they get saucer eyes. Then, this one gets a scheme, that one gets another, and that writes a book about the scheme that a third just hatched, and so on and so forth. No one has a problem, really, except the people on the bottom and on the outs are not happy. Those people 'litter' our politics, our streets, our lives, and the back spaces of our minds. Of course, then the 'world' comes a calling with its myriad of circular problems they can not manage to circumvent, talk their way out of, or stop causing under their own power.
Last thing I will say is this about it. We have to be smarter together and not just keep politically punching each other below the belt! Damn! Both parties have practically knee capped their success and all that is accomplished is you guessed it: Now our investigations cause investigations! We are duplicitous in fighting too much ourselves. Call it a 'war on politics.' It is costing us any savings we garner otherwise.
Or things along these lines of thought. We will not return to sanity until we as people decide to do just that. RETURN TO SANITY. Elsewise, we will continue on being 'sick and tired' of being sick and tired, and our politically "drug" of choice will continue letting us all have it!
Hey 'Fish, your last paragraph throws me. What do you mean?
Exactly. I have yet to see anyone of these two and I say two because I see CB wanted to jump on the bandwagon, call out the left for calling conservative women CUNTS, BITCHES, SLUTS, Saying the President molests his daughter but OMG you said fill in the blank so you are a sexist.
That's a fair assessment.
I think she gets flak from people because she started the campaign in a very militant fashion.
If someone said that to me in a discussion, my reaction would be the same. And frankly, I think it's disgusting to use the C word ever by anyone.
Welcome to the Dark Side.
You call 'em out then. If you truly care, that is. What's your role in all this? What's WRONG with your hands pounding it out? I'll answer that thank you very much: Nothing.
I remember the big debate over the B word on the vine.
I am guessing it kinda went the same.
Is this your lame attempt at justifying your hypocrisy?
Let me guess you never seen it, am I right?
I'm not calling out your left wing Feminist, that would be misogynistic.
I agree. Woman, thou understandeth thyself!
Just Jim didn't say anything to you, you jumped in.
[Deleted] You make it explicitly clear you approve of what you won't call out with your own keyboard. If it bothers you that conservative women are called vulgar, demeaning, terms - you do something about it. Don't try projecting lack onto me. I stand in the square and make my case. By the way, when I do deal with the subject on behalf of my sisters and friends, I make mention (look it up) that I do not consider any woman to be fit for such statements.
Women birth all humans. I 'issued forth' from a woman's nether region. Chances are nearly everyone here did too. I let that count for something with me. We men should not forget that. But, now I am preachifying and so I step down from my stool.
Full of what? Tired of these soap box preachers that want to spew their hypocrisy? yup I am
[Deleted]
KD,
This is an open forum. Anyone can say anything to anyone... just like you said to me, and you just jumped in.
See how that works?
And for the record, Jim and I have made it good with one another.. why are you stirring the pot? Oh yeah.. jumping in.
It can be hard to see that considering you recently told Freedom Warrior not to respond to you.
Dean,
That is a one to one request. I can ask. He can say no. I didn't tell him not to respond to someone else.
I'm really getting sick of you and a few others trying to play gotchya with me.
I didn’t read it as an option. It looks to me like you are telling him not to respond to you. That is why I find it confusing.
What is with this nit-picking meta today? Dean, read this: "Please do not respond to me. ". That is a request.
Please do not ... is normal English preceding a request.
You might have had a point if the phrase was "Do not respond to me, this is your final warning" or equivalent.
And so are the rest of us,
Ms. Harris took a 'shot' at Joe Biden and in the long run it did not help. To the winner of risk-taking goes tthe biggest payoff. To the loser go the dregs. That is the way life is. I agree with you, that could have been partially what damaged her early in this. In addition, I suppose, getting in early with a field that opened its 'mouth' to so many candidates diluted her well-wishers and supporters. She became a lesser 'chew.'
"it."
[deleted] I often see Donald Trump hanging around the gutter there. Now, when you want to discuss a hypocrisy indeed let me know!
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
Clean up your vocabulary with some scented fragrant and soaring words-and bring it on KDMichigan. We can talk about Trump in rosy language too, by another name. If you prefer it, that is. Find a field and I will bring two stools.
This may be a bit off topic-- but there is a person (or person') in this discussion who isn;t exactly playing with a full deck . . . (if ya catch my drift!)
She came across as a phony. Very little heart and emotion in her campaign.
Good. She was my least favorite candidate. She's mean, petty, and false. Perhaps more than any other candidate, she will say whatever she thinks is fashionable to get elected or whatever it takes to get ahead politically in the moment. Good riddance.
Now if only somebody in California with at least the sunny disposition of Oscar the Grouch or Squidward would run against her for Senate, we could be rid of her entirely.
Some guy named Robert O'Rourke has just asked me to "hold his beer"....
LOL!
She sealed her fate when she attacked Biden over the busing. White people heard her say that she's going to go back 60+ years and hold people accountable for positions and views that were common during that period in time. It was a stupid move on her part.
Next....
Political candidates exaggerate and misrepresent their opponents positions all the time.
I wonder how many people remember all the idiotic things Trump said on the debate stage and during the Republican primaries in 2016.
Like being done in the Democrat led Impeachment Committee's ?
Remember what Ted Cruz said about Trump?
Ted Cruz on Tuesday unloaded on Donald Trump , accusing him during a news conference of being a "pathological liar," "utterly amoral," "a narcissist at a level I don't think this country's ever seen" and "a serial philanderer."