Axios : Trump Has Repeatedly Called Kamala Harris A "Bitch" In Private Conversations
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Former President Trump has been in a foul mood the past few weeks and has repeatedly called Vice President Harris a "bitch" in private, the N.Y. Times' Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan report .
Why it matters: Axios has written extensively about this as the girls vs. boys election , with Democrats crushing the women's vote. Trump advisers privately concede his misogynistic language is deeply problematic, and something they worry he will unload in a public debate to his detriment.
Steven Cheung, Trump campaign communications director, told The Times: "That is not language President Trump has used to describe Kamala, and it's not how the campaign would characterize her."
Catch up quick: Trump said about Harris on Wednesday in a phone interview with "Fox & Friends": "I heard she's sort of a nasty person."
- At his Mar-a-Lago news conference on Thursday, he asserted Harris is "not smart enough to do a news conference."
Tags
Who is online
514 visitors
A man's man. ???????????????
Not this man’s.
Nor this one's either. Of the four candidates, I will vote 3rd party. Imo Harris/Waltz, Trump/Vance are not fit for president or vice president.
I've pretty much decided to go that route also, at this point in my life it doesn't all that much anyway. But I'll be sure to vote Republican down ballot so they can take control of the House and Senate. Going after Kemp was pretty much the final straw.
But she is a lying bitch.
[✘]
So what?
Is that worse than Fascist, racist, traitor, dictator, etc...... that Democrats openly call Trump?
No she is a complete and utter bitch- just ask her former staffers. Trump was being politically correct.
Why aren't Democrats running a "Put the far left bitch in the White House" campaign? It would be the first truthful add they will have ever run.
Trump is a traitor, there isnt even a shadow of a doubt.
Being a traitor is a lot worse than calling someone a traitor, and a lot worse than being a bitch.
When was that treason trial again by a judge and jury? Oh that's right there wasn't one was there? Nice try, but no cigar. I accept that he was found guilty of those felonies in NY but he was never tried and found guilty for treason so legally he is not.
I said he is a traitor and he is , for at least two reasons, one, he approved of a plan to subvert the US electoral system and disenfranchise millions of voters, and two, he refused to act when the US capitol building was under siege. Either or both of those make him a traitor.
This has been explained over and over on this site.
One does not have to be convicted of treason to be considered a traitor. Trump has not been found legally a traitor (and I have yet to read someone make that claim) but he sure as hell is a traitor (descriptive) given he is the only PotUS in our history who tried to steal a presidential election with fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement.
Refuted multiple times over, there was no plan to overthrow the proceedings, and he never incited the protesters to storm and break into the Capitol Building
Refuted by who? You?
None of these people here who complain about this have shown they know a single thing about what the J6 committee found.
Nobody refuted shit. Trump organized the Jan 6th rally. He asked protesters to come "Stop The Steal'. He incited the MAGA mob to march on the Capitol to force the delay of the transfer of power. We all saw the lead up to it, the speech, the insurrection and then we saw all of the evidence during the January 6th Hearings...
Who are we to believe? Our own eyes and ears of MAGA lies?
If it never happen why were 100s were convicted for Jan 6th?
"This has been explained over and over on this site."
Yes, it has been but there is nothing that says I and others have to agree with said explanation and I do not. So you believe what you want and I will believe what I will. With respect, we are obviously never to agree on this. You have a good weekend.
You are free to disagree, but that raises the question of what someone would have to do to be considered a traitor in your eyes.
To me if we entrust an individual with the power of the presidency and the obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the CotUS (among other things), then attempting to violate the CotUS —as the sitting PotUS no less— with fraud, coercion, lying and incitement would go well beyond the threshold of being considered a traitor.
The truth is that none of the people here who object to Trump being called a traitor know a single thing about the J6 case.
They dont want to know and simply ignore the evidence.
Clearly
Please see post #1.1.1 above. I plan on my vote not ensuring or entrusting any of those four people I named above as president/vp. Bottom line.
It has been explained over and over and over that if Trump has not been convicted of treason any accusation of Trump being a traitor is using the colloquial definition of the term traitor. And as we all know that is nothing more than opinion.
The truth is many people here are just as knowledgeable as you are with regards to Jan 6th. They just don't come to the same conclusion that you did. Heaven forbid.
Yes, I am the one who provided that explanation. And yes it is opinion, as I have stated all along.
So you totally miss the point (no doubt on purpose) and then explain to me what I have been explaining to you and others.
Seems you forget to mention the opinion part so I am making it clear.
Another non-argument. Trump attempted to steal the 2020 election with fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement but you ... disagree.
And that opinion is backed by overwhelming evidence. That opinion is backed by a sound argument.
But Trump supporters will, of course, ignore all the evidence, ignore what they can see with their own eyes, and defend Trump by blindly dismissing his traitorous acts as mere opinion.
It is a statement of fact. Many people don't agree with the conclusion.
It is opinion. Overwhelming evidence is opinion . Sound argument is opinion.
Tig and I have both posted extensively on the facts of the J6 investigation. I cant recall you posting a damn bit of factual information about it, but maybe I missed it the first time around. So what exactly do you have ?
Good luck getting eyewitnesses to Trump's Jan 6th train wreck to believe it is only their opinion Trump's insurrection happened...
Good luck telling people who heard Trump threatening elected Georgia officials it is only their opinion that Trump interfered...
Who am I kidding? Absolutely nobody is ever buying that crap!
Obviously. Right? Trump could win the presidency. So ... again ... obviously.
I doubt anyone needs you to point out incredibly obvious facts.
Will you let it stand that overwhelming evidence is mere opinion"?
I see your problem. If a sound argument with overwhelming evidence is opinion then everything is opinion. A legal judgement is also opinion by your definition.
If everything is opinion, you observing something as 'opinion' is literally a (meaningless and pointless) platitude.
See @2.1.25
Yes you have, several times. The thing is I (and possibly many others) have a hard time taking it seriously or believing it is credible coming from sources where everything written goes through a "need to make sure Trump is not elected" lens. Regardless of any claims to the contrary I find it hard to believe the conclusions reached are reached by any critical, rational or non biased reasoning.
Unlike some here I am not trying to change anyones opinion or belittling them for the opinion they hold.
I doubt anyone here does not know your feelings on Trump either yet you continue to post it.
Actually it is not me that has the problem. When the opinion comes from a source whose main priority is to have Trump not win I take that fact into account when deciding of the opinion is a sound argument with overwhelming evidence. If I determine it is not a credible source because I do not believe their opinion is non biased then yes, I may consider their opinion an meaningless and pointless platitude.
See 2.1.30
Un, no
Good fact based arguments like yours are met with word salad by the "other side" on Newstalkers. Sometimes it is little more than babbling.
And sometimes it is spot on
Then what are you doing here constantly posting you opinion?
That makes about as much sense as one of Trump's speeches!
I choose to
Sorry if it went over your head
Then you probably should not ever complain so much about anybody anywhere any time ever serving another word salad...
If you are not here to influence us you must just do it to bother us and to inflame us. Which seem to be extremely lowly motivations!
Yet, I am here to educate you and bring you around into the light!
Nor should you simply believe what some anonymous poster writes in a social forum. What you should do is verify the claims.
A rational individual who objectively reviews the evidence will conclude that Trump attempted to steal the 2020 US presidential election. They would realize that this was the only time in our history where a sitting PotUS attempted to thwart the peaceful transfer of power using coercion, fraud, lying, and incitement. The obvious, rational conclusion is that Trump attempted to set the CotUS aside in an abuse of power and violation of his oath of office.
Merely stating 'I do not find you credible' is not a rebuttal. It is vague bullshit which expresses disagreement without making an argument. It is simply 'nuh-uh'.
Most every reader likely knows why Trump defenders like you make these vacuous 'nuh-uh' rebuttals. It is an inescapable fact that Trump attempted to steal the election and remain in power. This cannot be rebutted so the best Trump defenders can do is be disagreeable just for the sake of being disagreeable with a 'nuh-uh'.
It is to them. They have no other option.
Sure is. When you state that:
You fail to realize that a verdict by a jury is based on judgment ... opinion. Even with overwhelming evidence and a sound argument by prosecution, a jury must consider same and make a judgment call.
Your claim (quoted) is absurd as it essentially deems everything expressed by a human being mere opinion.
Exactly. They cannot possibly argue that Trump did not try to steal the election. So what they deliver, in many different forms, is a mere ...
He incited them for MONTHS prior to the insurrection and then for hours with his non-stop lies at the 'rally' that day.
It is called exercising one's right to free speech, but some feel that only applies if said speech exactly matches their own particular political worldview.
Also another one of those 'protesters' or 'rowdy tourists' was just sentenced to 20 years for his stomping on the heads of police, attacking them with poles, assaulting - 20 years for something that never happened.
You’ve never been a teacher, not as easy as you thought?
One of my favorite movies jbb
also one of my favorite scenes from that movie
You have no idea what I have done and as always observation about me personally are off topic and inappropriate.[✘]
No, I can only infer from your comments.[✘]
[✘]
Well that ain't gonna happen. But thanks for the suggestion.
Your multitude of lame memes falls more than a little short.
[✘]
[✘]
[✘]
No, they can merely claim Trump did not try to steal the election.
Go ahead, be the first, make an actual argument that Trump did not attempt to steal the election.
As usual, when proven wrong the response is a paraphrase of nuh-uh.
You have been asked time after time to present some sort of evidence or even fact based argument that Trump did not try to steal the election. You have repeatedly been either unable or unwilling to do that.
You are making "no value" comments , at least as I see it in my group.
[✘]
[✘] deleted[✘]
Proven that I don't know what I meant when I said it?
Laughable
lol
[deleted][✘]
Not to show true hypocrisy, but I did ask you several days ago to show your proof that Trump ‘lied his ass off’ during a speech the other day.
You told me it would be easy to find and all you had to do was go on you tube.
Here we are three days later and not squat.
Maybe if you followed your own advice to Right.
Here you go! There have been multiple recent news stories on the wires about all the lies Trump is telling in his stump speeches...
Do you actually think that JR (or anyone) would have any problem showing Trump lied his ass off? Delivering lies by Trump has got to be one of the easiest 'Google challenges' in 2024.
Do you not recognize that he lies on almost every point he makes? The fact that you challenge someone to deliver lies by Trump suggests that you either do not ever listen to Trump or that you actually believe that he is being truthful.
One person's light is another's darkness and vice versa.
He might be qualified to teach Mime 101, by teach I mean display.
Speech that incites violence or insurrection is not protected.
Speech in perpetration of criminal conspiracies is not protected.
It doesnt count as a lie unless its something they dont like.
Then do show where and when the charges were made. When was the trial? When was the Constitution suspended and made your opinion all that was needed for a conviction.
Why weren't the rioters in Portland prosecuted for attacking police with rocks,bricks, fire bombs and fire works? Where were the heavy sentence for those in Seattle that took over several city blocks?
Attacking police and a federal Courthouse constitutes an insurrection per the DOJ.....
They have been asked this multiple times but yet the crickets seem to be getting louder.
[deleted][✘]
There is no pleasing the left, the left wing media whines when he lies and are now whining when he tells the truth.
That is because many on the hardcore liberal left are absolutely convinced that only those on the liberal left are capable of telling the truth.
Pretty sure he never tells the truth. It's not in his nature.
Have you met her personally? Perhaps she is, wouldn't be surprising with the accounts of ex-staff....
I have, and no she is not.
Harris lands back in DC after campaign swing, wearing a Team USA jacket.
You should hear some of the things I call Trump.
[removed][✘]