Is Kamala Harris really Obama 2.0?
Am I alone in being terrified of Kamala Harris? Every time I see her or hear her, the only thing I can see is Obama 2.0 waiting for her chance to follow the trail he blazed.
President Trump wants to replace Justice Kennedy with one "...who are largely considered either textualists or strict constructionists when it comes to making constitutional judgements." (Fox News, 06/29/18)
To that, Harris says (and I quote): "We are looking at the destruction of the Constitution."
Mirriam-Webster defines textualism as "strict or rigid adherence to a text", and they define a "strict constructionist" as "one who favors giving a narrow conservative construction of a given document or instrument; specifically one who favors a strict construction of the Constitution of the United States".
So, according to Harris, strictly adhering to the Constitution is synonymous with destroying it.
This woman is getting far too much media coverage for my liking. I could destroy her political career with one Q/A session, if she'd ever be willing to go on the record with me with full live media coverage (so they couldn't edit the question and answer before airing them).
In early May, Gina Haspel (President Trump's nominee to head the CIA) was being questioned in her confirmation hearing, when Senator Harris repeatedly demanded a yes or no answer to the question: "Do you believe in hindsight that those [enhanced interrogation] techniques were immoral?"
Now, for starters, Harris was trying to make the most of her 15 minutes; she knew damn well when she asked the question that there is absolutely no way to answer this question with a simple yes or no.
If I were in Ms. Haspel's seat, I would have answered like this.
"Senator Harris, if you personally had the power to authorize enhanced interrogation techniques in August 2001, and the information you obtained in those sessions prevented September 11th from happening, would you have ordered them used?
If your answer to that is no, then you're saying that you're more comfortable with those 3000 people dying than you are water boarding a terrorist, correct?
But if your answer to that question is yes, would you say that your use of enhanced interrogation techniques--which saved 3000 lives and prevented multiple terrorists attacks--was immoral?"
God, this woman scares me. Anyone else see what I see, or is my paranoia on full display?
President Trump wants to replace Justice Kennedy with one "...who are largely considered either textualists or strict constructionists when it comes to making constitutional judgements." (Fox News, 06/29/18)
To that, Harris says (and I quote): "We are looking at the destruction of the Constitution."
Mirriam-Webster defines textualism as "strict or rigid adherence to a text", and they define a "strict constructionist" as "one who favors giving a narrow conservative construction of a given document or instrument; specifically one who favors a strict construction of the Constitution of the United States".
So, according to Harris, strictly adhering to the Constitution is synonymous with destroying it.
This woman is getting far too much media coverage for my liking. I could destroy her political career with one Q/A session, if she'd ever be willing to go on the record with me with full live media coverage (so they couldn't edit the question and answer before airing them).
In early May, Gina Haspel (President Trump's nominee to head the CIA) was being questioned in her confirmation hearing, when Senator Harris repeatedly demanded a yes or no answer to the question: "Do you believe in hindsight that those [enhanced interrogation] techniques were immoral?"
Now, for starters, Harris was trying to make the most of her 15 minutes; she knew damn well when she asked the question that there is absolutely no way to answer this question with a simple yes or no.
If I were in Ms. Haspel's seat, I would have answered like this.
"Senator Harris, if you personally had the power to authorize enhanced interrogation techniques in August 2001, and the information you obtained in those sessions prevented September 11th from happening, would you have ordered them used?
If your answer to that is no, then you're saying that you're more comfortable with those 3000 people dying than you are water boarding a terrorist, correct?
But if your answer to that question is yes, would you say that your use of enhanced interrogation techniques--which saved 3000 lives and prevented multiple terrorists attacks--was immoral?"
God, this woman scares me. Anyone else see what I see, or is my paranoia on full display?
Me dino really hates that I just had following inspiration~Bernard Goldberg I really hope you do not ever have reason to write~
A Slobbering Love Affair 2
The True (and Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Kamala Harris and the Mainstream Media.
https://www.amazon.com/Slobbering-Lov...
The only saving grace to this is that USA will NOT be a super power shortly, and I suspect other countries will take up the slack and hopefully be better than what the USA will become. USA will be venezuela V2.0
Kiss freedom goodbye.
Joe Biden appears to approve of using one to fire a warning shot.
But in the kind of world he also appears to approve of, I'd be arrested for using any gun to defend myself.
That already happens in some USA places.
Sweet home Alabama! At least that's the way my home is so far . . .
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cYZ8...
Literally every president since Reagan was hand picked by the deep state.
Yes, it is scary there are that many Stalin's useful idiots still parading about even though Stalin is long gone.
I have no fear this bimbo will become president. The Democrat party is on a swift road to destruction, veering crazily to left, and will find itself in a political ditch. Any sane voices are being drowned out by the loud voices of a hysterical base that demands open borders (even when over 60% of registered Democrat voters want immigration laws upheld), "free" healthcare and college, government-guaranteed jobs, and increased taxes to fund all of this idiocy.
What's telling is the growth of "Walking Away" videos by former Democrats who can no longer stomach the direction their party has taken. The Democrat party is headed to become this century's Whig party, destined for irrelevance. Expect the rise of the Libertarian party as the new loyal opposition, and then we might begin to see a return to honest debate on the future of our country.
The rest of the liberals are sneaky liars, like this excuse for a woman. They emotionally manipulate, tell half truths, change the subject when confronted. I , for one, dont even want to live in a world controlled by these "people".
Be afraid...
Hussein was apparently smitten by her.
Harris is a San Francisco democrat. Need to say anything more?
The fundraiser was a joint event with Senator Baldwin, who I have great respect for. What stood out is how Baldwin said she was happy President Trump agreed with her on some protectionist measure and now she needed him to follow through. I thought how dangerous it will be if many of Baldwin supporters and many of Trump supporters realize they want the same thing: gov't to use force to fix people's problems.
I can't tell what to think of Harris. President Obama, as politicians go, is the best president I can realistically imagine being elected. I don't know if she's the next generation of Obama. She came off as polished-- too much of Coastie for the Upper Midwest, but not so much so to keep her from winning in a national election.