By Pie Guevara
Pie Guevara is an unregistered trademark of Engulf and Devour Investments LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Walton Industries which, in turn, is wholly owned by David Walton. So there!
Democrat party presidential candidate Kamala Harris (whose campaign appears to be in the dumper) explains/complains about her lack of electability in this HBO/Axios interview clip…
Harris concludes the interview with a lengthy story about her as a starry-eyed Obama campaigner getting told by an elderly black woman that, “They’ll never let him win.”
Harris who is currently polling in fifth place behind Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Pete Buttigieg has evidently taken a chapter out of Hillary Clinton’s excuse playbook before she has even folded her campaign.
Harris: “…what I believe to be the elephant in the room about my campaign. Electability… essentially is America ready for a woman and a woman of color to be president of the United States… There is a lack of ability or a difficulty in imagining that someone whom we have never seen can do a job that has been done 45 times by someone who is not that person.”
Translation: Democrats are too racist and sexist to nominate Harris.
My first impulse is think that no, Ms. Harris, Democrats are not too racist and sexist to imagine a woman of color as president. Then I reflected on my long experience with Democrats and thought that maybe Harris is onto something.
Perhaps the Obama presidency and the Hillary nomination in 2016 were flukes? Besides, how else do you explain her polling behind Buttigieg?
Harris has previously accused Joe Biden of racial insensitivity and has charged that the medical health care profession is misogynist and racist.
I think Trump winning over Hillary in 2016 can be explained somewhat through sexism, though of course that was far from the only factor. Can you imagine a female candidate behaving like Trump? What if Hillary had been caught on video saying she likes to grab men’s crotches? Heck, what if Hillary had had five children by three different men? By the same token, what if Obama had had five different children by three different women? They would have gotten nowhere in politics.
Then again, Trump doesn’t even seem to be held to the standards other white male politicians are held to, so maybe this doesn’t prove anything.
Kamala is right that Joe Biden has been racially insensitive–I’ve seen plenty of Republicans here point to examples, and you were right to do so. His tendency to put his foot in his mouth on racial issues and others is one of the reasons I hope he is not the nominee. I’m not voting for Kamala in the primary, not because she’s a woman of color, but because she’s got a long history of overly aggressive prosecution of people for low-level offenses. This has harmed communities of color in my opinion and the opinions of many POC on the left I’ve listened to. My vote in the primary will likely go to Warren.
Chris, you’re right, there [is] a double standard in play. However, the Republicans didn’t cause it, this goes back to beginning of humankind, it’s part of our DNA. Men have always had one role and women another. It’s only until liberals arrived on the scene that we have been told that we all have interchangeable roles and that there is absolutely no difference between the genders. Some would call equality nothing more than the feminization of men, others would call it gender progress…. your call.
However, if you are curious what it must have been like a thousand years ago, go visit any Muslim country. There’s an eye opener for you. Not only have they failed to evolve culturally, but they promote radicalized sexism in the name of their religion, as if this is what Allah would want! I find that disgusting and something that is worthy of my protesting. How about you?
Now you ask, “What if Hillary were caught saying something as crude as what Trump said?” Is [caught] the key word here or are you alleging nothing equally offensive has ever came from her mouth? But, if it had, do you think the media would have been as likely to report it or is reporting such things reserved for conservatives, people like Trump or to punish men in general for engaging in locker room talk?
The world is far from a perfect place and it’s filled with all kinds of double standards. Some of those double standards are worth noting for the sake of improvement (stoning women for adultery) and some are not worth bringing up at all. The latter are the one’s that I classify as the, “toughen up” and “just get-over-it” kind of stuff, cause it’s just part of real life and real men. The double standard you choose to focus on will say a lot about you, so choose carefully.
I think there is nothing that Hillary Clinton has said publicly that is equal in offense to what Trump has said publicly. Therefore, there’s nothing in the record that would lead me to believe that her privately made comments are as bad as Trump’s privately made comments.
I have no problem with anyone protesting gender discrimination in Muslim countries, which no sane person could argue isn’t worse than it is in the Western world. But I also find it disengenuous for Americans to always pivot to that topic when other Americans criticize ideas of gender in America.
Elephant in the room????? Nah – it’s the Donkey!
HAH!
Jack, I have no problem with the idea of a woman of color being president. Neither would I object to a lesbian, gay man, transperson (although I would wonder about the mental stability of a transperson) or whatever of the many “genders” there supposedly are. I could not care less about sexual orientation, ethnicity or skin color.
All I care about is the person 1) Not be a Democrat and 2) not be a left-wing liberal progressive loon trying to turn the U.S. into some sort ridiculous, untenable socialist dystopia.
I do not like Trump and have never liked Trump. I did not vote for him. I was as shocked as anyone else when he won. Part of his personality I find distinctly unlikable, disgusting and embarrassing to have as a president of the United States. He is a intolerable, recalcitrant blowhard reality TV host who makes me cringe. I hated his TV show and thought it stupid and annoying above and beyond the call of network television.
But I have come to recognize other parts of his personality that I can not only tolerate but admire. He truly loves this country. He has boundless energy, optimism, enthusiasm and desire to see the United States and her citizens prosper and live in peace. I admire his desire that the U.S. be a leader in cause for freedom and democracy across the globe and not go on ridiculous “apology tours” or expensive and ineffective nation building.
I credit his stewardship as executive officer for the current wave of economic optimism, record breaking low unemployment figures and improved trade situation. I credit him for successes in overseeing the generational war on Islamic terrorism. I credit him for his support of Israel, the only true democracy in the Middle East. I see him instilling the same optimism, energy and the love of country he has in others. That is what I care about. The rest is just so much noise.
Jack, I have no problem with the idea of a woman of color being president. Neither would I object to a lesbian, gay man, transperson (although I would wonder about the mental stability of a transperson) or whatever of the many “genders” there supposedly are
But what about a transcyclist??
Would you oppose a transcyclist??
This is a huge accomplishment for the transcyclist community. And I’m sure Chris and Libby would agree. And if you disagree, well you’re just a hater and trancyclistphobic.
https://babylonbee.com/news/motorcycle-that-identifies-as-bicycle-sets-world-cycling-record
Pie, ditto 100%, with the addition of Trump and his family are all volunteers. Four times a year Trump donates his salary to a department of his choosing, with House approval. I didn’t vote for him in 2016 either, but will in 2020!
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-donating-second-quarter-salary-to-the-surgeon-generals-office
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/01/the-highest-paid-staffers-in-the-trump-white-house-in-2019.html
A $400,000 salary is not a lot to a guy like Trump, and is dwarves by his attempts to enrich himself and his business while in office, such as his attempt to hold the G7 at Trump Doral before being talked out of it by Republicans who knew it was a gross violation of the emoluments clause. It’s not the only violation of that clause, but it was one so egregious even Republicans couldn’t ignore it. The salary donations are a red herring meant to distract from the constant self-dealing.
Yeah, right, like $400,000 per anum is chump change plus what members of his family draw in salary — nothing. By the way Trump did not actually “enrich himself” and withdrew to the loss of revenues for the businesses and citizens of the city and the city itself in which the hotel resides. Self dealing? You mean like the Clinton and Biden families?
You act as if these stories are hard to find.
Eric Trump and his older brother, Donald Trump Jr., run the Trump Organization, which conducts business — and takes in tens of millions of dollars annually — around the globe and is still owned by the president. The company is forging ahead with projects in Ireland, India, Indonesia and Uruguay, and is licensing the Trump name in such turbulent areas as Turkey and the Philippines.
Their sister Ivanka is a senior advisor to the president. She kept her international fashion business going for 18 months after she was given a loosely defined White House portfolio that includes interacting with heads of state and working with domestic and international corporate chiefs on economic programs.
On the same day Trump and his daughter dined with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago in Florida in April 2017, China awarded her three preliminary trademark approvals for jewelry, handbags and spa services. In all, she has obtained more than a dozen Chinese trademarks since entering the White House, ensuring her access to the world’s second-largest economy if she goes back into business.
Time and again, Trump’s children have blurred the lines of family, nation and business — essentially the charge the president makes against the Bidens as he battles a House impeachment inquiry focused on whether he improperly pushed Ukraine to investigate his political rivals for what he claims were shady dealings.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-10/trumps-adult-children-do-business-overseas-as-president-slams-biden
Counter-arguments, Pie. Counter-arguments. You really have been handling them with more grace than usual lately, so this snowflakey decision to censor them is…disappointing.
No one is “censoring” Mr. Souza. Post Scripts grants him a voice but we are not obligated to post anything or everything he says much less his incessant, insulting, repetitive and long-winded bloviations. We reserve the right to edit or refuse comments for whatever reasons we see fit but in the particular case of Mr. Souza those that abuse the spirit of what Post Scripts is all about or violate NorCal Blogs guidelines. Post Scripts is a place for civil discourse, not offensive and abusive internet trolls who try to hijack the comments section and waste our time with lengthy, repetitive harangues full of personal attacks that add nothing to that discourse. If Souza does not like this I would remind him that no one is forcing him to post here.
Moreover, Mr. Souza seems to think Post Scripts is obligated to “debate” him. We are not. Post Scripts is a place where Jack, Tina and now I through their gracious invitation express our points of view, relate our experiences and write about things that interest us. We allow and encourage others to do the same in the comments section. Jack and Tina have also allowed commenters front page space to express themselves.
This is not a debate society and Mr. Souza has repeatedly demonstrated by violating nearly every logical fallacy known to man and so thoroughly mangling classical rhetorical practice that he is not much of a debater. I suggest Mr. Souza take a few classes, join a formal academic debate team and get some skills if he is so hungry for debate.
You are, of course, under no obligation to post any of my comments. I’m just confused why you chose to censor that one. Nothing in it was abusive or insulting to you. It did say some bad things about the president, but they were no worse than the bad things you also said about him in the comment I was replying to. If you don’t want people to be able to discuss the character of the president in ways you disagree with here, say so. It seems right now that the policy is that you get to say negative things about him, but others don’t if you disagree with the particular criticisms expressed.
Now who is the liar? You may discuss your views and you have been granted such. Re-read my comment and reflect.