Nobody likes Kamala Harris lmao

[Landslide Lyndon]

The New York Times and their "anonymous sources". The obsession with people hating Kamala Harris is very weird. I've never seen this much obsession over a VP. Personally I like a qualified VP that isn't seeking attention or privately running the White House (Dick Cheney).

do you think the stories are lies/exaggerations and they just hate her for whatever reasons or that the stories are generally true and you just think allies like the New York Times and Democratic aides should keep their mouths shut about any negatives Harris may have?

Calling the NYT an "ally" of the left, the Democratic Party, or the Biden-Harris admistration is a gross oversimplification. Sometimes what the NYT publishes aligns with or benefits one or.more of those groups. Often it does not.

The NYT has become a joke and bears great responsibility for Trump's rise to power. Their bothsiderism has become comical.

BTW, why is it always female politicians who are accused of being "bad bosses"? Why have we never seen an article for example about all those congressmen who were later accused of sexually harassing their staff?
Doesn't that kind of behavior make someone a bad boss?

[Landslide Lyndon]

When you keep failing-up thanks to your race/gender, you will eventually reach the point where everyone realizes it was all a charade. 

Please note:  there are plenty of accomplished Black and/or female politicians who deserve the success they've achieved, but KH is not really among them.  What has she ever achieved other than being a diversity hire?   

LOL, as if you wouldn't trash any black female officeholder as a diversity hire. You people still believe that Obama was a nincompoop who got lucky.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The point that is being missed is that a lot of women politicians are the subject of likability tests in ways that male politicians are not.

no, we saw it and there are two problems with this "point":
1.our retort of "she hasn't done anything, and what she has done before becoming VP, wasn't very good" is a very good one, we can tell, because there has never been a response to this that wasn't more of the same

I don't remember anyone of your ilk asking that question when failed governor Mike Pence was running for VP in 2016 and 2020.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The point that is being missed is that a lot of women politicians are the subject of likability tests in ways that male politicians are not.

no, we saw it and there are two problems with this "point":
1.our retort of "she hasn't done anything, and what she has done before becoming VP, wasn't very good" is a very good one, we can tell, because there has never been a response to this that wasn't more of the same

I don't remember anyone of your ilk asking that question when failed governor Mike Pence was running for VP in 2016 and 2020.

if Pence was running for President and there was a group of people here defending him, you'd have a mediocre point.  Since those things are not true, you have a very bad point.

Funny you'd say that because right now Pence is running for President while Harris isn't.

[Landslide Lyndon]

if he is, and this is the first I'm hearing of it, nobody funking cares.  I promise you if someone starts a negative thread on him and a group of posters defends him, I will calmly explain why they are wrong/make fun of them too.

Yeah, knowing who you are I won't be holding my breath.

Unless of course Pence comes out in favor of gun control. Then you'll go after him with everything you got.

[Landslide Lyndon]

if he is, and this is the first I'm hearing of it, nobody funking cares.  I promise you if someone starts a negative thread on him and a group of posters defends him, I will calmly explain why they are wrong/make fun of them too.

Yeah, knowing who you are I won't be holding my breath.

Unless of course Pence comes out in favor of gun control. Then you'll go after him with everything you got.

What a pathetic post. He proved you wrong so you automatically fall back on moronic strawmen that are completely disconnected from the subject at hand. It’s like you’re mentally incapable of contributing positively to this forum.

The moment a Libertarian avatar starts praising me, I'll start thinking what I did wrong.

[Landslide Lyndon]

It's amusing that you hate Trump so much. Your coping mechanisms for when you make a mistake are very similar. Never admit you're wrong-- just distract with ad hominems, non-sequiturs, and whataboutisms.

Ok hater.

[Landslide Lyndon]

the previous VP was a failed governor for 4 years

Fixed.

[Landslide Lyndon]

This isn't a real thing. It was an effective attack line against Trump because his lack of prior public service was lived down to by his complete inability to understand or care about the way the federal government functions or what constitutes an appropriate balance of power within in, but in a broader historical context the "qualified" thing is a complete red herring. If all you needed to be a good President was a beefy résumé, students of American history would always be hearing about wise elder statesman James Buchanan and his successor, feckless pooch-screwer Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln might have lacked experience relative to other presidential candidates but he more than made up for it with character and intellect. Trump had neither of those things to counterbalance his other flaws.
Not only was he ignorant, he was also incurious, if not outright dismissive of anyone who tried to explain to him how things work, and was under the delusion that he was the smartest person in the room.

[Landslide Lyndon]

To add on to my previous post, the extreme hostility we see toward Kamala Harris (on this forum, but also elsewhere online) is interesting to me. It's unclear how specifically she's "unqualified" or how she's demonstrated "incompetence" when she has a job with no power and no responsibilities and (as mentioned previously) her background is similar to that of other vice presidents. The obvious difference here is the idea that she got her job just based on the identity boxes she checks off.

The people who feel this way have obvious justification in that they can point to what the Biden campaign actually said. I don't recall these sorts of criticisms of Kamala Harris being leveled in the same way when she ran for president, because then she was running against a bunch of candidates who weren't black women whom she would have to defeat. It may have been strategically useful for the Biden campaign to say that it was going to choose a black woman as its running mate, but doing so preemptively destroyed the credibility of anyone who might be chosen.

Sometimes you see the suggestion that Biden should have chosen a different black woman instead of Kamala Harris and that would have been better. I find that hard to believe. My recollection is that the other candidates who were regularly mentioned were Val Demings, Stacey Abrams, and Susan Rice. None of those three have ever won a statewide election and only Demings has ever been elected to a higher position than state legislator. Does anyone really believe that any of them would be seen as less of a token selection?

Suppose that the Biden campaign had chosen Kamala Harris without announcing that it would select a black woman and after suggesting that a variety of Democrats of different backgrounds would be considered. This wouldn't change the issues that Kamala Harris has had as vice president in terms of being disconnected from her base and lacking strong allies in Washington, but I think that there would be less hostility toward her in general because she wouldn't be seen in the same way as having been advanced without merit.

Almost every VP is chosen because he checks some boxes which are irrelevant to his ability to govern.
Pence was chosen because as an ultra-conservative Christian would assuage Evangelicals.
Biden was chosen because he was an old white guy who would balance Obama.