Kamala Harris 2020 campaign megathread

[Boobs]

Why were my posts deleted? Is it out of place to point out the flaws inherent with this woman's candidacy. Or are we not allowed to do that? I guess not.

Because of what you were implying. I had a post deleted for referencing the line of attack that some people are planning to use against Harris, because it was deemed inappropriate. It is clearly an inappropriate line of attack.

Is it really? Given what was said about both Clintons (and justly so), and given Trump's controversies, it's not far-fetched, But I guess that such criticisms can't be levied against the favorite candidate of the moment.

No, it's not legitimate to imply that in any way because you have 0 proof. There's a reason libel is illegal.

But there's no use discussing this with you, because it's clear- the only reason to imply that about a candidate soley because she's a woman (just like Trump, who implied the same about Kirsten Gillibrand) is being a mysoginistic a trash of a human being, and as Invisible Obama correctly said- that's putting it mildly.

Many times, I laugh at the nonsense posted on the Internet, but especially some of the nonsense that gets posted on this forum. I saw your rant against Fuzzy Bear the other day, effectively calling him a "bad man" because of his sincere religious beliefs on issues such as gay rights and abortion. It's not surprising that you would do that again here. I've no respect for people who take advantage of others and give themselves up to advance their own political careers. And that holds true regardless of gender or of status. Harris and Gillibrand are both opportunists, and neither has a substantive policy agenda that would address the issues we are facing. A more serious candidate such as Klobuchar would be the best one for Democrats to nominate.

the most ludicrous thing I've read so far is the insinuation that you have ever posted anything of value to this forum – it's always either ridiculously meaningless hand-wringing about "decorum" or some sort of elementary-level political "analysis" that's actually just parroting basic observations about an election instead of actually providing any meaningful insights. At least now you've moved on to something interesting, attempting to defame political candidates with insinuations of exchanging sexual favors for political gain, but, once again, this is probably something most people don't really care to read. The most hilarious thing, however, is now that you so fully believe these unsubstantiated rumors that you claim that both Harris and Gillibrand are inadequate candidates because they slept their way to the top, proving once again that you may actually have the worst political instincts of anyone on this forum.

I don't believe attacking Parrotguy is going to be very fruitful for you, either, since he's actually made an attempt at making friends around here. Apparently you're supposed to be 100% alright when people invalidate your existence as long as their beliefs in doing so are sincere and religious. So, from the core of my sincere, religious beliefs: you are the densest person to have ever had the misfortune of stumbling onto this website.

[Boobs]

Why were my posts deleted? Is it out of place to point out the flaws inherent with this woman's candidacy. Or are we not allowed to do that? I guess not.

Because of what you were implying. I had a post deleted for referencing the line of attack that some people are planning to use against Harris, because it was deemed inappropriate. It is clearly an inappropriate line of attack.

Is it really? Given what was said about both Clintons (and justly so), and given Trump's controversies, it's not far-fetched, But I guess that such criticisms can't be levied against the favorite candidate of the moment.

No, it's not legitimate to imply that in any way because you have 0 proof. There's a reason libel is illegal.

But there's no use discussing this with you, because it's clear- the only reason to imply that about a candidate soley because she's a woman (just like Trump, who implied the same about Kirsten Gillibrand) is being a mysoginistic a trash of a human being, and as Invisible Obama correctly said- that's putting it mildly.

Many times, I laugh at the nonsense posted on the Internet, but especially some of the nonsense that gets posted on this forum. I saw your rant against Fuzzy Bear the other day, effectively calling him a "bad man" because of his sincere religious beliefs on issues such as gay rights and abortion. It's not surprising that you would do that again here. I've no respect for people who take advantage of others and give themselves up to advance their own political careers. And that holds true regardless of gender or of status. Harris and Gillibrand are both opportunists, and neither has a substantive policy agenda that would address the issues we are facing. A more serious candidate such as Klobuchar would be the best one for Democrats to nominate.

the most ludicrous thing I've read so far is the insinuation that you have ever posted anything of value to this forum – it's always either ridiculously meaningless hand-wringing about "decorum" or some sort of elementary-level political "analysis" that's actually just parroting basic observations about an election instead of actually providing any meaningful insights. At least now you've moved on to something interesting, attempting to defame political candidates with insinuations of exchanging sexual favors for political gain, but, once again, this is probably something most people don't really care to read. The most hilarious thing, however, is now that you so fully believe these unsubstantiated rumors that you claim that both Harris and Gillibrand are inadequate candidates because they slept their way to the top, proving once again that you may actually have the worst political instincts of anyone on this forum.

I don't believe attacking Parrotguy is going to be very fruitful for you, either, since he's actually made an attempt at making friends around here. Apparently you're supposed to be 100% alright when people invalidate your existence as long as their beliefs in doing so are sincere and religious. So, from the core of my sincere, religious beliefs: you are the densest person to have ever had the misfortune of stumbling onto this website.

What you say about Parrotguy is false. He's no different from the vast majority of posters here, attacking anyone who does not adhere to a strictly liberal line on the issues. And far be it for you to say that I've made no "contributions of value" to this website. Even if I provided the best political analysis that could be offered anywhere, I would still be pilloried because I don't abide by everything that the majority of the people on this website believe in, and are passionate about. Moreover, "unsubstantiated rumors" is a phrase that could be said about the Clinton accusations, or the Trump accusations. Just the hint of impropriety, seems, to me, to disqualify an individual. And nowhere did I say that Gillibrand engaged in the same kind of behavior. I meant to say that she is a blatant opportunist, shifting her positions as the political headwinds dictate.

Please direct me to a single (1) post of yours that you believe actually contributed something of value.

[Boobs]

Why were my posts deleted? Is it out of place to point out the flaws inherent with this woman's candidacy. Or are we not allowed to do that? I guess not.

Because of what you were implying. I had a post deleted for referencing the line of attack that some people are planning to use against Harris, because it was deemed inappropriate. It is clearly an inappropriate line of attack.

Is it really? Given what was said about both Clintons (and justly so), and given Trump's controversies, it's not far-fetched, But I guess that such criticisms can't be levied against the favorite candidate of the moment.

No, it's not legitimate to imply that in any way because you have 0 proof. There's a reason libel is illegal.

But there's no use discussing this with you, because it's clear- the only reason to imply that about a candidate soley because she's a woman (just like Trump, who implied the same about Kirsten Gillibrand) is being a mysoginistic a trash of a human being, and as Invisible Obama correctly said- that's putting it mildly.

Many times, I laugh at the nonsense posted on the Internet, but especially some of the nonsense that gets posted on this forum. I saw your rant against Fuzzy Bear the other day, effectively calling him a "bad man" because of his sincere religious beliefs on issues such as gay rights and abortion. It's not surprising that you would do that again here. I've no respect for people who take advantage of others and give themselves up to advance their own political careers. And that holds true regardless of gender or of status. Harris and Gillibrand are both opportunists, and neither has a substantive policy agenda that would address the issues we are facing. A more serious candidate such as Klobuchar would be the best one for Democrats to nominate.

the most ludicrous thing I've read so far is the insinuation that you have ever posted anything of value to this forum – it's always either ridiculously meaningless hand-wringing about "decorum" or some sort of elementary-level political "analysis" that's actually just parroting basic observations about an election instead of actually providing any meaningful insights. At least now you've moved on to something interesting, attempting to defame political candidates with insinuations of exchanging sexual favors for political gain, but, once again, this is probably something most people don't really care to read. The most hilarious thing, however, is now that you so fully believe these unsubstantiated rumors that you claim that both Harris and Gillibrand are inadequate candidates because they slept their way to the top, proving once again that you may actually have the worst political instincts of anyone on this forum.

I don't believe attacking Parrotguy is going to be very fruitful for you, either, since he's actually made an attempt at making friends around here. Apparently you're supposed to be 100% alright when people invalidate your existence as long as their beliefs in doing so are sincere and religious. So, from the core of my sincere, religious beliefs: you are the densest person to have ever had the misfortune of stumbling onto this website.

What you say about Parrotguy is false. He's no different from the vast majority of posters here, attacking anyone who does not adhere to a strictly liberal line on the issues. And far be it for you to say that I've made no "contributions of value" to this website. Even if I provided the best political analysis that could be offered anywhere, I would still be pilloried because I don't abide by everything that the majority of the people on this website believe in, and are passionate about. Moreover, "unsubstantiated rumors" is a phrase that could be said about the Clinton accusations, or the Trump accusations. Just the hint of impropriety, seems, to me, to disqualify an individual. And nowhere did I say that Gillibrand engaged in the same kind of behavior. I meant to say that she is a blatant opportunist, shifting her positions as the political headwinds dictate.

Please direct me to a single (1) post of yours that you believe actually contributed something of value.

Why should I waste my time satisfying you? No matter what I produce, you would still adhere to the same positions.

Yeah, I couldn't find one either.

Libelous, how? You want me to kiss Harris's feet? I don't do that.

Repressing your foot fetish is only going to make things worse, Cal.