Kamala Harris 2020 campaign megathread

[Calthrina950]

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.

[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.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Oh, phew. Stay calm everyone, Cal didn't make a blatantly libelous claims about Gillibrand- only about Harris!

[Zaybay]

And Cal has started another fight because of something incredibly stupid he said, and wont admit. Some things never change.

[Calthrina950]

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.

Oh, phew. Stay calm everyone, Cal didn't make a blatantly libelous claims about Gillibrand- only about Harris!

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

And Cal has started another fight because of something incredibly stupid he said, and wont admit. Some things never change.

It was not I who instigated it. Other posters (i.e. Parrotguy, Invisible Obama) escalated this beyond where it should have gone. This happens routinely.

[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.

[Calthrina950]

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.

Why am I even responding to you? I've had you on my ignore list for a considerable time, and it would be advisable for me to return to it.

[DrScholl]

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.

If someone were to say that about a Republican woman running for office you were be singing a totally different song. Rumors like that have no place in political discussion unless there is actual evidence.

[Calthrina950]

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.

If someone were to say that about a Republican woman running for office you were be singing a totally different song. Rumors like that have no place in political discussion unless there is actual evidence.

Not true. Everything should be laid out on the table, regardless of the party. And Harris's relationship with Willie Brown is no secret.

[DrScholl]

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.

If someone were to say that about a Republican woman running for office you were be singing a totally different song. Rumors like that have no place in political discussion unless there is actual evidence.

Not true. Everything should be laid out on the table, regardless of the party. And Harris's relationship with Willie Brown is no secret.

This is exactly why Trump will lose.

[Zaybay]

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.

Oh, phew. Stay calm everyone, Cal didn't make a blatantly libelous claims about Gillibrand- only about Harris!

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

And Cal has started another fight because of something incredibly stupid he said, and wont admit. Some things never change.

It was not I who instigated it. Other posters (i.e. Parrotguy, Invisible Obama) escalated this beyond where it should have gone. This happens routinely.

Cal, you implied, and still are, that Harris used sexual favors to gain political power. That is disgusting behavior that needs to be addressed, but then again, you are one of the most partisan Republicans on this forum, so this should be expected.

Seriously, just apologize for it and move on instead of playing this victim card that it was the other posters dragging this out of proportion.

[Calthrina950]

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.

Oh, phew. Stay calm everyone, Cal didn't make a blatantly libelous claims about Gillibrand- only about Harris!

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

And Cal has started another fight because of something incredibly stupid he said, and wont admit. Some things never change.

It was not I who instigated it. Other posters (i.e. Parrotguy, Invisible Obama) escalated this beyond where it should have gone. This happens routinely.

Cal, you implied, and still are, that Harris used sexual favors to gain political power. That is disgusting behavior that needs to be addressed, but then again, you are one of the most partisan Republicans on this forum, so this should be expected.

Seriously, just apologize for it and move on instead of playing this victim card that it was the other posters dragging this out of proportion.

I've said over and over again that I am a registered unaffiliated voter, and I had an Independent avatar until I was compelled to change it. But that has been ignored. I don't agree with Republicans on everything, but nor do I agree with Democrats on everything. To suggest otherwise is a distortion of my beliefs. And Harris is by no means the first politician to rise up through means that are less than honorable. As I've said, the same could be said about the Clintons and about Trump.

[Zaybay]

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.

Oh, phew. Stay calm everyone, Cal didn't make a blatantly libelous claims about Gillibrand- only about Harris!

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

And Cal has started another fight because of something incredibly stupid he said, and wont admit. Some things never change.

It was not I who instigated it. Other posters (i.e. Parrotguy, Invisible Obama) escalated this beyond where it should have gone. This happens routinely.

Cal, you implied, and still are, that Harris used sexual favors to gain political power. That is disgusting behavior that needs to be addressed, but then again, you are one of the most partisan Republicans on this forum, so this should be expected.

Seriously, just apologize for it and move on instead of playing this victim card that it was the other posters dragging this out of proportion.

I've said over and over again that I am a registered unaffiliated voter, and I had an Independent avatar until I was compelled to change it. But that has been ignored. I don't agree with Republicans on everything, but nor do I agree with Democrats on everything. To suggest otherwise is a distortion of my beliefs. And Harris is by no means the first politician to rise up through means that are less than honorable. As I've said, the same could be said about the Clintons and about Trump.

I dont understand. You are still pushing this idea that is the reason posters are criticizing you, a false assumption that is rather insulting and low-brow. Not only that, but you still believe that you are a moderate, independent voter when every action you have made on this forum has been through a Republican lens. You are famous here for defending reputably terrible Republican actions and criticizing the Democrats for simple "bad manners". But that isnt the subject at hand. What is your gross comments that the mods(rightfully) deleted, and your playing of the victim card, that these "scary, rude, Red Posters are coming after innocent me" when you clearly made a rather poor comment.

Seriously, just apologize. Its not that hard.

[Calthrina950]

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.

Oh, phew. Stay calm everyone, Cal didn't make a blatantly libelous claims about Gillibrand- only about Harris!

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

And Cal has started another fight because of something incredibly stupid he said, and wont admit. Some things never change.

It was not I who instigated it. Other posters (i.e. Parrotguy, Invisible Obama) escalated this beyond where it should have gone. This happens routinely.

Cal, you implied, and still are, that Harris used sexual favors to gain political power. That is disgusting behavior that needs to be addressed, but then again, you are one of the most partisan Republicans on this forum, so this should be expected.

Seriously, just apologize for it and move on instead of playing this victim card that it was the other posters dragging this out of proportion.

I've said over and over again that I am a registered unaffiliated voter, and I had an Independent avatar until I was compelled to change it. But that has been ignored. I don't agree with Republicans on everything, but nor do I agree with Democrats on everything. To suggest otherwise is a distortion of my beliefs. And Harris is by no means the first politician to rise up through means that are less than honorable. As I've said, the same could be said about the Clintons and about Trump.

I dont understand. You are still pushing this idea that is the reason posters are criticizing you, a false assumption that is rather insulting and low-brow. Not only that, but you still believe that you are a moderate, independent voter when every action you have made on this forum has been through a Republican lens. You are famous here for defending reputably terrible Republican actions and criticizing the Democrats for simple "bad manners". But that isnt the subject at hand. What is your gross comments that the mods(rightfully) deleted, and your playing of the victim card, that these "scary, rude, Red Posters are coming after innocent me" when you clearly made a rather poor comment.

Seriously, just apologize. Its not that hard.

I have no reason to apologize. Other users on here, on the other hand, have far more reason to do so.

[DrScholl]

Everyone else who has reservations about Harris pointed to actual policy issues or even regional issues, which are fair assessments even if everyone doesn't agree. What is not appropriate is cheap gossip that is rooted in nothing.

[Zaybay]

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.

Oh, phew. Stay calm everyone, Cal didn't make a blatantly libelous claims about Gillibrand- only about Harris!

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

And Cal has started another fight because of something incredibly stupid he said, and wont admit. Some things never change.

It was not I who instigated it. Other posters (i.e. Parrotguy, Invisible Obama) escalated this beyond where it should have gone. This happens routinely.

Cal, you implied, and still are, that Harris used sexual favors to gain political power. That is disgusting behavior that needs to be addressed, but then again, you are one of the most partisan Republicans on this forum, so this should be expected.

Seriously, just apologize for it and move on instead of playing this victim card that it was the other posters dragging this out of proportion.

I've said over and over again that I am a registered unaffiliated voter, and I had an Independent avatar until I was compelled to change it. But that has been ignored. I don't agree with Republicans on everything, but nor do I agree with Democrats on everything. To suggest otherwise is a distortion of my beliefs. And Harris is by no means the first politician to rise up through means that are less than honorable. As I've said, the same could be said about the Clintons and about Trump.

I dont understand. You are still pushing this idea that is the reason posters are criticizing you, a false assumption that is rather insulting and low-brow. Not only that, but you still believe that you are a moderate, independent voter when every action you have made on this forum has been through a Republican lens. You are famous here for defending reputably terrible Republican actions and criticizing the Democrats for simple "bad manners". But that isnt the subject at hand. What is your gross comments that the mods(rightfully) deleted, and your playing of the victim card, that these "scary, rude, Red Posters are coming after innocent me" when you clearly made a rather poor comment.

Seriously, just apologize. Its not that hard.

I have no reason to apologize. Other users on here, on the other hand, have far more reason to do so.

Quit your deflecting and victim card. You clearly made the poor comments, you are the only one who needs to apologize. I dont care how "mean" other posters or I am being to you right now, you said something atrocious, that Harris and other female politicians advanced through sexual favors, I dont understand why you just cant apologize and move on.

[Calthrina950]

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.

Oh, phew. Stay calm everyone, Cal didn't make a blatantly libelous claims about Gillibrand- only about Harris!

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

And Cal has started another fight because of something incredibly stupid he said, and wont admit. Some things never change.

It was not I who instigated it. Other posters (i.e. Parrotguy, Invisible Obama) escalated this beyond where it should have gone. This happens routinely.

Cal, you implied, and still are, that Harris used sexual favors to gain political power. That is disgusting behavior that needs to be addressed, but then again, you are one of the most partisan Republicans on this forum, so this should be expected.

Seriously, just apologize for it and move on instead of playing this victim card that it was the other posters dragging this out of proportion.

I've said over and over again that I am a registered unaffiliated voter, and I had an Independent avatar until I was compelled to change it. But that has been ignored. I don't agree with Republicans on everything, but nor do I agree with Democrats on everything. To suggest otherwise is a distortion of my beliefs. And Harris is by no means the first politician to rise up through means that are less than honorable. As I've said, the same could be said about the Clintons and about Trump.

I dont understand. You are still pushing this idea that is the reason posters are criticizing you, a false assumption that is rather insulting and low-brow. Not only that, but you still believe that you are a moderate, independent voter when every action you have made on this forum has been through a Republican lens. You are famous here for defending reputably terrible Republican actions and criticizing the Democrats for simple "bad manners". But that isnt the subject at hand. What is your gross comments that the mods(rightfully) deleted, and your playing of the victim card, that these "scary, rude, Red Posters are coming after innocent me" when you clearly made a rather poor comment.

Seriously, just apologize. Its not that hard.

I have no reason to apologize. Other users on here, on the other hand, have far more reason to do so.

Quit your deflecting and victim card. You clearly made the poor comments, you are the only one who needs to apologize. I dont care how "mean" other posters or I am being to you right now, you said something atrocious, that Harris and other female politicians advanced through sexual favors, I dont understand why you just cant apologize and move on.

This thread has become yet another example of the left-leaning ideological bias that seems to dominate this forum. Hopefully, others keep on fighting the good fight to break the ideological conformity here.

[Zaybay]

This thread has become yet another example of the left-leaning ideological bias that seems to dominate this forum. Hopefully, others keep on fighting the good fight to break the ideological conformity here.

*yawn* get some new material. The Left dominating the forum isnt the reason people are upset about you saying Harris gave sexual favors to advance her career, its because decent people heard you say Harris gave sexual favors to advance her career. You cant deflect blame of this on "The Left", you made the comments, its your words, not anyone elses.

[Calthrina950]

This thread has become yet another example of the left-leaning ideological bias that seems to dominate this forum. Hopefully, others keep on fighting the good fight to break the ideological conformity here.

*yawn* get some new material. The Left dominating the forum isnt the reason people are upset about you saying Harris gave sexual favors to advance her career, its because decent people heard you say Harris gave sexual favors to advance her career. You cant blame this on "The Left", you made the comments, its your words, not anyone elses.

Don't know why I took you off my ignore list. Arguments like these lead nowhere and result in the production of much more acrimony. Might as well desist from this one, and turn my attention elsewhere.

[Zaybay]

This thread has become yet another example of the left-leaning ideological bias that seems to dominate this forum. Hopefully, others keep on fighting the good fight to break the ideological conformity here.

*yawn* get some new material. The Left dominating the forum isnt the reason people are upset about you saying Harris gave sexual favors to advance her career, its because decent people heard you say Harris gave sexual favors to advance her career. You cant blame this on "The Left", you made the comments, its your words, not anyone elses.

Don't know why I took you off my ignore list. Arguments like these lead nowhere and result in the production of much more acrimony. Might as well desist from this one, and turn my attention elsewhere.

you may be the first ever person I put on my ignore list, but Id rather watch what lengths you go to in the future to deflect blame and play the both sides game. Its entertaining, TBH.

You should still apologize for your comments, but since it appears you wont, I guess that just reflects on you #moderate #independent character.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Why are y’all passionately debating a known troll?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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.

snip

Well, you'll never get a girlfriend with that attitude.

[Mr. Morden]

Harris's campaign says they raised $1.5 million in the first 24 hours since the announcement:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/426436-kamala-harris-raised-15-million-in-a-day-after-announcing-2020-presidential

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Harris's campaign says they raised $1.5 million in the first 24 hours since the announcement:

Is that a lot?

[Mr. Morden]

Harris's campaign says they raised $1.5 million in the first 24 hours since the announcement:

Is that a lot?

It matches the one day total of Sanders from four years ago:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-raised-dollar15-million-online-in-just-the-first-day-of-her-campaign

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also:

You must be logged in to read this quote.