Flustered Kamala Harris spews latest word salad after protesters interrupt Nevada rally
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 3 weeks ago • 80 commentsBy: Victor Nava Published (New York Post)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Vice President Kamala Harris grew flustered when protesters heckled her during her Nevada rally on Thursday, causing her to once again spew her infamous word salad.
"You know what? Let me say something about this," Harris said amid the disruption at the Reno event.
Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris speaks during a campaign rally in Reno, Nevada. AFP via Getty Images "You know what? Let me say something about this," Harris said amid the disruption at the Reno event. AFP via Getty Images
"We are here because we are fighting for a democracy," the vice president fumed. "Fighting for a democracy.
"And understand the difference here, understand the difference here, moving forward, moving forward, understand the difference here," Harris rambled.
"What we are looking at is a difference in this election — let's move forward and see where we are because on the issue, for example, freedom of choice …," the Democratic nominee continued as the heckling intensified, interrupting her yet again.
"That's OK. That's all right. That's OK," Harris said as her supporters drowned out the protest.
Hours earlier, during a speech in Phoenix, the Democratic nominee for president was interrupted multiple times by anti-Israel protesters.
"Hey guys, you know what? Here's the thing …," Harris said, addressing the demonstrators.
"Let's talk for a moment about Gaza," she continued. "We all want this war to end and to get the hostages out, and I will work on it full-time when I am elected president."
Earlier in her remarks, Harris responded, "That's all right," when her supporters attempted to drown out a demonstration with chants of "Ka-ma-ka, Ka-ma-la."
"Democracy can be complicated, but we believe in democracy and the right of everyone to have their voices heard," she added, before powering through the disruption.
Harris has been plagued by anti-Israel protests at her rallies throughout her campaign.
On Wednesday, in Madison, Wis., a protester seated near the stage shouted, "Cease-fire now," shortly after Harris began her speech.
"Listen, we all want the war in Gaza to end and get the hostages out as soon as possible," Harris responded. "And I will do everything in my power to make it work."
"And everyone has a right to be heard, but right now, I am speaking."
More than 650,000 Democrats nationwide voted "uninstructed" or "uncommitted" in the Democratic presidential primaries earlier this year in protest of the Biden-Harris administration's handling of the conflict in the Middle East.
Tags
Who is online
305 visitors
She folds under pressure quite easily.
It's hard to picture her having serious conversations with other leaders.
EU President: What do we do about ending the fighting in Ukraine?
Kamala: "I was raised in the middle class. So, Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia is a powerful country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine. So, basically, that’s wrong, and it goes against everything that we stand for.”
EU President: Thanks Kamala. You are a great help. Why don't you go play with the dog outside while the grownups talk?
I just can't picture us having another Biden like president.
Good one!!!!
No. Where are the grown ups in the room here?
Recess.
No, she doesn't.
Okay so some protestors continue to interrupt her rally and she responds.
I don't see that folding under pressure.
I happened to see this one. There were multiple hecklers in two locations, One shouted "lies"', others invoked the Christian God which she did hesitate to answer but the crowd came alive chanting "We won't go back".
When Harris calmed the crowd down there were a few shouts about Gazza.
I thought she handled it well, she didn't tell her supporters to take them out and beat them or that she would take care of them if they got in trouble for it like Trump did in earlier campaigns.
She didn't fold in the least and there was no word salad.
There certainly wasn't any wild anecdotes asking them to look down the 9 barrels of a firing squad.
Thank you for straightening that out - I can be a little hard on Just Jim sometimes - he was correct then about the shout outs at the same time - but this all now makes sense to me.
I definitely heard the 'lies' and I believe that's when Kamala told them they were at the wrong rally and the other ones kind of overlaid that one.
I am still having trouble finding a trump quote mentioning a firing squad. Please supply link.
Trump said he would like a day of extreme violence, presumably he means the police or national guard decimating gang members and other low lifes.
Okay, how about we give Trump a gun and send him to the south side of Chicago and have him face a dozen hoods with assault rifles aimed at him.
Does that sound like something a national politician should say?
I am talking about a quote several people have stated he said yet no one has actually supplied it.
Your deflection attempt while ignoring the question is noted however.
Does he have to say those exact words for you to recognize the seriousness of his rhetoric?
Listen to his rhetoric:
Do you approve of this kind of imagery? Is this the kind of person who should be PotUS?
What drives you to constantly defend this scoundrel?
correct.
Trump was trying to make a point (poorly) that Congress would be less willing to send troops anywhere of they had to go with them.
Either that or he was just trying to out Tucker, Carlsons' hyper poutrages.
That's exactly what he means - like unleashing dogs on protesters and firehoses, but those were the good old days. I guess they'll just shoot them now. All those who dared oppose him in any way.
Like those Purge movies, a scenario I absolutely despise by the way.
She didn't serve in the House until 2017. The wars were essentially over.
Then that should have been addressed to Mr. Trump by someone who cares about accurate reporting.
Unfortunately, Tucker Carlson is not that kind of person.
He continued by expressing disdain for those in Washington who wanted to see the United States involved in foreign conflicts. "You know, they're all war hawks when they're sitting in Washington in a nice building, saying, 'Oh, gee, well, let's send, let's send 10,000 troops right into the mouth of the enemy.'"
That seems to be a standard anti war cry whenever we are close to going to war. It was poorly communicated but hardly a call for a firing squad.
The claim by many here and other places was that he said fire squad so yes in order to verify the claim the actual words should have been used. Anyone with any objectivity would like the claim to actually be verified. Just as most people with objectivity would not accuse people that have said a candidate is an idiot and did not vote for him is defending him. They would understand a desire for accuracy is not the same as support or defending.
Why do you keep trying to make it about me with bogus claims when you won't even let me comment on your seeds? This is the last I will speak of it. Feel free to stick with your narrative, anyone important to me knows better.
Liz isn’t one of the woman that he will protect regardless if she wants it or not.
This is not a game; this is a serious matter. The GOP nominee is unfit to serve and your comments focus on chickenshit / irrelevant differences in interpretation rather than responsibly dealing with yet another demonstration of the character and philosophy of Trump.
There is a huge difference between saying someone should be put in front of a firing squad and saying "She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face, You know, they're all war hawks when they're sitting in Washington in a nice building, saying, 'Oh, gee, well, let's send, let's send 10,000 troops right into the mouth of the enemy.'". It is far from being chickenshit or irrelevant difference. If you want to bash Trump for something he said or did, go for it. At least be honest and responsible about it or credibility will suffer.
Trump wants to be PotUS and yet is painting a picture of one of his most outspoken political opponents facing the barrels of nine guns pointed at her head.
What PotUS uses such incendiary and dangerous rhetoric?
Yet instead of expressing appropriate concern about Trump's character and unhinged behavior, your comments continue to defend him.
You mean running around with my hair on fire screaming "Devil" from the mountaintop a dozen times a day. No thanks, I would rather look at things objectively and with what I consider to be appropriate concern, not what someone else tells me is appropriate concern.
Anyone with any objectivity would like the claim to actually be verified. Just as most people with objectivity would not accuse people that have said a candidate is an idiot and did not vote for him is defending him. They would understand a desire for accuracy is not the same as support or defending.
Why do you keep trying to make it about me with bogus claims when you won't even let me comment on your seeds? This is the last I will speak of it. Feel free to stick with your narrative, anyone important to me knows better.
Appropriate concern = objectively dealing with the extreme rhetoric and behavior of Trump rather than dismissing it as normal behavior for someone who would be PotUS.
Your comments translate serious stated concerns of Trump (e.g. this seed) into "no big deal, nothing to see here". This has been going on this entire election cycle and no matter how bad Trump behaves, your comments try to defend him.
Exactly. I will continue to look at things objectively and with what I consider to be appropriate concern, not what someone else tells me is appropriate concern.
I can't help how things translate to you. Maybe your objectivity is a little skewed. After all I am not the one that doesn't care if comments attributed to Trump were not actually said by Trump as long as they make him look bad.
How many GOP high-ranking, connected officials need to weigh in before you recognize the problem?
Your attempt to pretend that Trump is a fit, normal nominee is not only an act of futility, but it is pathetic. Trump has provided a steady stream of evidence (and proof) that he is unfit to serve. Yet you ignore and absurdly suggest that those who recognize the obvious are out of touch with reality.
Do you really think anyone is fooled by the blatant bullshit of your Trump defense comments?
at her head isn't quite graphic enough
I believe it was 'at her face'
Why do you keep trying to make it about me with bogus claims that have been successfuly refuted several times? It seems to be reaching a hysterical pitch. Feel free to stick with your narrative, anyone important to me knows better.
Good grief RDTC. Typical Trump defense. He didn't use those exact words "firing squad".
That's the same excuse the Mafia has used to beat the legal system for decades.
He openly talked about 9 people shooting at Liz Cheney's face.
just before sounding like an uninformed old grandfather and complaining about war.
More whining. I am responding to your absurd attempts to defend Trump. You are the one writing the ridiculous comments so you have involved yourself.
Bottom line, your comments are attempts to defend Trump, whining about rebuttals to same, and dishonest tactics like claiming you have made successful rebuttals. Your comments continually ignore the realities of Trump yet you claim you are actually making a real argument.
Trump has provided a steady stream of evidence (and proof) that he is unfit to serve. Your comments ignore all of this and try instead to paint Trump as a fit candidate with a tone of "what is the big deal?".
Again, who do you think you are fooling with such blatant nonsense?
Why do you keep trying to make it about me with bogus claims that have been successfuly refuted several times? It seems to be reaching a hysterical pitch. Feel free to stick with your whiny narrative, anyone important to me knows better.
Looks like you feel it is ok to make up shit too
She is definitely "Not his Type"
I haven't seen you successfully refute a claim yet. Your commentary has been closer to group of chickens going after barnyard waste than an actual rebuttal. Just because you are typing, doesn't mean that you are saying anything.
I dont think he is going to win any undecided voters by fantasizing about Cheney getting shot in the face. At least I hope not.
Exactly what did I make up?
Please be specific.
English is such a pain in the ass. Just ask the WH stenographer who didn't know to put an apostrophe in
"supporter's"
Then you have someone arguing that Trump didn't use the words "firing squad' which excuses Trump's insults and threatening analogies.
Content and context are still important.
At best this will trigger some more to NOT vote for him, to vote for Harris, or just say 'fuck it' and stay home.
Shocking. LOL
Content and context are still important.
As is accuracy and truthfulness
Nah, he is just crowing to his base voters, the ones who cannot tell truth from fiction, aka, most of the base Trump voters.
Case in point.
Uh huh
zactly. You refuse to answer critical posts with reasoned rebuttal.
Please list anything I wrote that was incorrect instead of "weaving".
zactly!
Silence?
At this point the very phrase 'word salad' has become a tiresome word salad. Maybe, although I doubt it, y'all can come up with something new before y'all kill us with verbal ennui. I am reminded of an old recipe commercial that employed a vinyl record that skipped at the line "add a little more sherry".
Kamala isn't the one guilty of word salads. Or demented nonsensical ranting and rambling and raving.
The phrase is stuck in their craw.
There's a lot of shit stuck in there
Thank you.
Kamala Harris delivers word salad like Donald Rumsfeld. Kamala Harris stretches the truth like Colin Powell, Kamala Harris lowers the political temperature like Condi Rice. Kamala Harris prosecutes adversaries like Dick Cheney.
Does the name Jim Sensenbrenner bring back fond neocon memories of torture, enemy combatants, and Freedom Fries? The remaining neocons who supported the war on terror, the Patriot Act, globalization, free trade, and all the efforts of Republicans to sell out America are backing Kamala Harris.
Kamala Harris has made a big deal about who supports Donald Trump. From my perspective the Republicans supporting Kamala Harris are far more dangerous than those backing Trump.
There may be truth stretching but no one lies and distorts the truth like Trump and his pals.
Yeah, what's the purpose of the exaggerations, fabrications, and lies? The lies aren't nearly as important as what the liar is attempting to achieve. Is Trump trying to lie the country into war, like Colin Powell? Is Trump trying to lie the country into open borders for trade, immigration, and military expansion? Is Trump trying to lie the country into accepting more power, influence, and control by financial institutions, insurance brokers, and stock peddlers? Is Trump lying to get another Patriot Act to turn social media vendors into censors and snitches? Is Trump lying to expand for-profit medicine at the expense of those who need health care? Is Trump lying to burden communities with half funded infrastructure projects and no promise of maintenance? Is Trump lying to give taxpayer money to purveyors of untested, unproven high tech junk?
You know, Kamala Harris is making all sorts of wonderful promises about what she'll do in office. But she is already in office. Why hasn't she done what she said she will do? Isn't Harris lying? What is she trying to achieve with those lies?
Kamala Harris is making all sorts of predictions about what Donald trump will do in office. But Trump was already President and has a record. Why didn't Trump do what Harris says he'll do? Isn't Harris lying? What is she trying to achieve with those lies?
Seeing as your diatribes consist of questions, here's one for you ... what powers does a VP have?
The VP is the liaison between the Oval Office and Congress, particularly the Senate. The VP, in modern times, has become a chief advisor to the President and has the authority to lobby Congress for legislation to support, apply pressure on the President, and enact the VP's political agenda.
Dick Cheney was the modern VP who expanded the role and authority of the VP into more of a partner to the President rather than a servant to the President. Joe Biden was a similar type of activist VP under Obama.
What country do you live in? Those are not the job functions of an American VP. The VP is picked by and serves at the pleasure of the President. Period.
Cheney/Bush and Biden/Bush are irrelevant to what Biden expected of Harris.
"The VP is picked by" this part is correct.
"and serves at the pleasure of the President. Period." absolute unadulterated bullshit. the VP is in elected position and can only be removed by Congress, the President can go fuck himself if he doesn't like or want his VP. and the VP can absolutely pressure a president through lobbing congress and the press and there isn't a fucking thing the president can do about it.
“the President can go fuck himself if he doesn't like or want his VP.”
To the point of sitting idly by while his acolytes chant ‘hang him’…
And saying 'so what?' when told he was in danger
Where was Teddy Roosevelt when McGinley was shot?
Roosevelt was essentially exiled to do whatever he wanted, wherever he wanted as long as he didn't interfere with or bother McGinley at all.
He was dead politically and McGinley aimed to keep him that way.
Roosevelt lived with Henry Cabot Lodge at 1765 Massachusetts Ave for 5 days after the inauguration before returning to New York to live with his family.
And Congress couldn't do shit about it except to talk Roosevelt out of resigning a few times.
It's not reality TV George; can you list any instance where an American POTUS "fucked himself' because he didn't like his VP?
Again, it would be interesting to see how this theoretical political theatre would workout. Do you have any example. Self experience?
Still unadulterated bullshit, the VP doesn’t serve at the pleasure of the president. PERIOD!
[✘]
Stil wrong as far as reality goes. Who picks a VP he can't stand besides Donald Trump?
Let me ask a different way counselor.
Have you any experience working in the Executive Branch? the White House? any self experience or just being disagreeable
because you can?
[✘]
Removed for context - sandy
Yes, George, the PotUS cannot directly fire the VP, but the reality of the relationship is that the PotUS sets the agenda and the VP supports it. Politically, if a VP is at odds with the PotUS, the PotUS can relegate the VP to oblivion. A VP who publicly counters the PotUS would be viewed as a traitor to the party.
In history, to see a such a disagreement in action one needs to go back to John Calhoun and Andrew Jackson where Calhoun resigned as VP. The most recent example was Pence refusing to engage in the unconstitutional acts of Trump's scheme but prior to that he was entirely loyal to Trump.
In effect, in actual reality, the VP abides by the wishes of the PotUS because it is political suicide to do otherwise.
Calhoun and Agnew both resigned. Agnew was allowed to be replaced by Gerald Ford after approval by Congress, Ford was not elected to the position.
Calhoun like many other VPs could not be replaced according to the Constitution prior to the 25th Amendment. Calhoun had also run for a Senate seat for SC which he won and decided he could do more to protect slavery as a six year Senator as opposed to a toothless VP. He resigned the VP position after six days.
The office of the VP wasn't taken seriously for over 200 years and functioned without a VP for over 40 plus years.
Isn't history fun?
And yet some people ask why the current VP hasn't been running the show for the past 3 and a half years?
Really?
SMH
Projection. Absolutely fucking nuts as well.
Almonds? Cashews? The glorious goober? The nuttier the better, I always say. It would be a truly miserable existence without nuts.
Love those honey roasted Virginia peanuts at COSTCO.
It's not word salad, it's weaving.