IDBillzFan Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 For those hidden in the bunkers lately, Kamala Harris is being tee'd up as the woman who could do what Hillary could not. She is every bit as corrupt and disgusting as Hillary, but without the coughing fits and inability to climb stairs. She swept onto the CA scene as Attorney General before beating out Loretta Sanchez for the golden seat of Barbara Boxer to become what Wiki refers to as "...the first woman,[4] the first Jamaican American, the first Asian American, the first Indian American, and the first African American to serve as attorney general in California." That's a whole lotta phobias on the horizon for anyone interested in challenging her statements. She quickly filled her coffers with Planned Parenthood money after being paid to bust open the house of PP videographers David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, confiscate all their PP videos, and then throw 15 charges at them; a string of actions even Mother Jones said was "political grandstanding." But Kamala got her money, got her Senate seat, and now has the media tee'd up to develop false stories about being interrupted because she's a woman, when she was badgering witnesses during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing and was asked by the chair to tone it down. (Plenty of video and discussion here.) Yesterday, 15 charges against Daleiden and Merritt were dropped by a California judge, and we all know that if a CA judge is dismissing them, then they were clearly bogus in the first place. Still in all...Kamala moves forward and upward. This thread is dedicated to discussing the inescapable journo-listic meteoric elevation of the left's new Queen of the Silver Dollar, set to replace Hillary. Meet the new boss... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 AYAAN HIRSI ALI AND ASRA Q. NOMANI: Kamala Harris Was Silenced. Then She Silenced Us. Why is it sexist when men interrupt Kamala Harris, but not Betsy DeVos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 If the Dems really wanted to get behind a fresh voice in their party they'd be jumping on the Tulsi train: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 If the Dems really wanted to get behind a fresh voice in their party they'd be jumping on the Tulsi train: I'd even cuddle her after sex... if she wasn't too rough on me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 If the Dems really wanted to get behind a fresh voice in their party they'd be jumping on the Tulsi train: FYI, that first ribbon is a Meritorious Service Medal. The second (second row, right) is an Army Commendation Medal with an oak leaf device indicating she was awarded two. The third is an Army Achievement Medal (with oak leaf), which basically get handed out like candy. The rest are "I was there" medals. But the MSM And ACM ain't nothing. The MSM is roughly equivalent to a Bronze Star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 So first the Left elects Stuart Smalley and now they have Bobbi Fleckman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 If the Dems really wanted to get behind a fresh voice in their party they'd be jumping on the Tulsi train: You ain't from Hawaii. We know Mike Gabbard from way back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Dems really need to color coordinate their candidates or Harris and Holder will siphon primary votes from the same pool, opening the way for some white male or perish the thought of a moderate Democrat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryPinC Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 If the Dems really wanted to get behind a fresh voice in their party they'd be jumping on the Tulsi train: She's impressed me with her pragmatism and intelligence which of course means left wing elitists wouldn't dream of considering her for an influential role in the party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Plus, she's not bad looking. It became pretty clear last fall the Dems have her on the short list for much bigger things. And unlike Hillary there isn't a 25 year record of everyone hating her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 And unlike Hillary there isn't a 25 year record of everyone hating her. This is the key point! Clinton, Bush W, Obama and now Trump were all pretty much fresh faces in national political spotlight. I think Dems should dump Pelosei now. Politicians shelf life isn't that long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 While I don't agree with the OP's take on Harris, I do absolutely agree that the Democrats need 'new blood' to represent the party. The old guard is simply not cutting it, hopefully Hillary is gone for good, and I wouldn't mind Pelosi going either. The liberal block is increasingly left of their Democratic representation, and increasingly fed up with shady politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 22, 2017 Author Share Posted June 22, 2017 While I don't agree with the OP's take on Harris... Most of what I wrote wasn't my take. It's what she did. It's in the links. She went after investigative reporters to scoop up PP money to get Boxers seat and left town before a CA judge could throw everything out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Most of what I wrote wasn't my take. It's what she did. It's in the links. She went after investigative reporters to scoop up PP money to get Boxers seat and left town before a CA judge could throw everything out. I personally didn't find anything wrong with the charges, considering that the 'investigation' by the two videographers was more of a smear job, and included some shady business. As far as a liberal receiving money from PP for an election campaign, that's not exactly news. Organizations such as PP, on either side of the political spectrum, will back politicians/political parties that protect their interests. That's basically how our politics work these days, lobbying and campaign contributions. I dislike it, but until Congress changes the rules on that, it's how things operate. Also, articles I'm finding state that 14 of the 15 charges were dropped, and that the prosecutors can resubmit the 14 privacy charges, and that the conspiracy charge still stands. So again, I largely disagree with your take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 I personally didn't find anything wrong with the charges, considering that the 'investigation' by the two videographers was more of a smear job, and included some shady business. As far as a liberal receiving money from PP for an election campaign, that's not exactly news. Organizations such as PP, on either side of the political spectrum, will back politicians/political parties that protect their interests. That's basically how our politics work these days, lobbying and campaign contributions. I dislike it, but until Congress changes the rules on that, it's how things operate. Also, articles I'm finding state that 14 of the 15 charges were dropped, and that the prosecutors can resubmit the 14 privacy charges, and that the conspiracy charge still stands. So again, I largely disagree with your take. Ahh. So just like Hillary it doesn't matter what was said or done just that it was exposed. It doesn't matter that planned parenthood broke the law because those who found it broke it too. Inconceivable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 As far as a liberal receiving money from PP for an election campaign, that's not exactly news. Organizations such as PP, on either side of the political spectrum, will back politicians/political parties that protect their interests. That's basically how our politics work these days, lobbying and campaign contributions. I dislike it, but until Congress changes the rules on that, it's how things operate. But planned parenthood operates in part on taxpayer money. Is it ethical, or even legal, for them to contribute to campaign funds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 (edited) Plus, she's not bad looking. It became pretty clear last fall the Dems have her on the short list for much bigger things. And unlike Hillary there isn't a 25 year record of everyone hating her. Can't be a democrat. She must be ,in reality, a conservative/libertarian. Possibly a plant being pushed as controlled opposition? To attractive to be a leftist. Bad casting by conservative dark ops imho. Edited June 22, 2017 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 23, 2017 Author Share Posted June 23, 2017 I personally didn't find anything wrong with the charges, considering that the 'investigation' by the two videographers was more of a smear job, and included some shady business. As far as a liberal receiving money from PP for an election campaign, that's not exactly news. Organizations such as PP, on either side of the political spectrum, will back politicians/political parties that protect their interests. That's basically how our politics work these days, lobbying and campaign contributions. I dislike it, but until Congress changes the rules on that, it's how things operate. Also, articles I'm finding state that 14 of the 15 charges were dropped, and that the prosecutors can resubmit the 14 privacy charges, and that the conspiracy charge still stands. So again, I largely disagree with your take. You're good with the money-laundering scheme that is PP? You're good with her pushing charges that even Mother Jones disagreed with, simply for the laundered PP money to run for Boxer's seat? I figured you to be a more discerning liberal. Surely I'm not wrong about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 But planned parenthood operates in part on taxpayer money. Is it ethical, or even legal, for them to contribute to campaign funds? tax payer money has no business near campaign funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 23, 2017 Author Share Posted June 23, 2017 tax payer money has no business near campaign funds. The left is magnificent it it's ability to launder taxpayer funds. Simply magnificent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts