| Via the Free Beacon, I stand corrected. The best mystery on the news wires right now isnt why Mike Pences trip to New Hampshire was canceled or how a fresh In-n-Out burger ended up on a street 1,500 miles away from the nearest restaurant. The best mystery is why Tulsi Gabbard seems to have it in for Kamala Harris. This is the second time in two weeks that shes hit Harris surprisingly hard, first accusing her of acting in bad faith in challenging Joe Biden on busing and now claiming that she lacks the experience needed to be commander-in-chief.
Granted, longshot candidates tend to go after big-shot candidates in hopes of getting voters to notice them. But these arent business-as-usual criticisms. This is Gabbard essentially calling Harris a racial demagogue and now deeming her unfit to command the U.S. military. These are attack ads waiting to happen for the GOP in the general election if Harris is the nominee. There has to be something we dont know yet that explains the surprising animosity. A Twitter pal suggested that shes under deep cover, sabotaging the Democratic primary on behalf of Trump and his handler Putin. Ridiculous, bro. Everyone knows Tulsis a puppet of Assad, not Vlad.
What jumps out there is the reference to temperament. Its standard practice for candidates to question each others foreign policy experience; questioning their temperament is more personal, something you typically dont hear unless a candidate is known to have a temper (a la McCain 2008) or prone to crankery (a la Trump 2016). Trumps temperament was questioned repeatedly by his opponents, which is (a) understandable given what a loose cannon he is and (b) ironic considering that Trump has been more restrained militarily than some of the people who attacked him for his temperament likely would have been as president. But Trump was a sui generis candidate. Kamala Harris isnt shes a U.S. senator who rose through the ranks in California, an establishment figure. People like that dont typically get dinged on temperament grounds unless theres an obvious reason. Is Gabbard maybe referring to her race-baiting exchange with Biden at the last debate, suggesting that Harris is too willing to fight dirty to be trusted? Or is she referring to her sporadic outbursts of autocratic ambition?
Or to something else? Well know next week. Remember, thanks to the luck of the draw, these two will be onstage together at the CNN debate. Exit quotation from Gabbards appearance yesterday on The View: I think decriminalizing [illegal immigration] could lead to open borders. We need safe, secure borders in this country. Maybe she *is* a Trump plant. |
Poster Comment:
Gabbard seems to be creating her own brand and her own political lane in the primary race. There may not be enough of those voters out there for her to win, at least in the early primary states. New Hampshire would be her best shot at a win using this messaging.
#1: Hank Rearden To: Tooconservative (#0)
Because Humpin' Harris is literally a political whore.
Any hard questions out there that need answers?
Hank Rearden posted on 2019-07-24 00:26:17 Reply Private Reply
#2: Tooconservative To: Hank Rearden (#1)
I keep hoping in the middle of one of these debates, some other candidate will turn to her and say something like, "At least I didn't get my start in politics by spreading my legs for a pig like Willy Brown, the way you did, Kamala."
Or: "As we all know, you got your start in politics by letting Willy Brown use you like a whore. Did you get any of your other political jobs like California attorney general or U.S. senator by sleeping with any other scummy men like Willy Brown?"
It would be epic.
Really, how does a woman who slept her way to the top receive any respect at all in a presidential race, even in the Donkey party?
Tooconservative posted on 2019-07-24 07:02:09 Reply Private Reply
#3: A K A Stone To: Tooconservative (#0)
A K A Stone posted on 2019-07-24 07:20:50 Reply Private Reply
#4: Tooconservative To: A K A Stone (#3)
I think Gabbard may be running for VP. Or to set herself up for a Senate run or a serious run as prez in 2024 or 2028.
She's demonstrating nicely that she can be a VP attack dog by savaging Harris. And she might land a VP spot for Biden or Sanders, probably not for Warren (not gonna be the first two-woman ticket). So she takes out Harris, maybe helps to take out Warren too, well...she's looking not too bad as a female VP pick for whichever Old White Dude becomes the nominee.
We can pretty much assume the Dems will have a male nominee and that the VP pick will be a female. I think Gabbard wants to be that VP pick in 2020.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-07-24 08:22:55 Reply Private Reply
#5: Vicomte13 To: Tooconservative (#2)
Good heavens! Can you be suggesting that these Democrat debates are just one big donkey show?
Vicomte13 posted on 2019-07-24 08:31:27 Reply Private Reply
#6: Tooconservative To: Vicomte13 (#5)
I hope you can forgive me. : )
I'll try harder. I promise.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-07-24 09:42:37 Reply Private Reply
#7: Hondo68 To: A K A Stone, loves Willy Brown sluts (#3)
Hondo68 posted on 2019-07-24 10:27:40 Reply Private Reply
#8: jeremiad To: Hank Rearden (#1)
jeremiad posted on 2019-07-24 19:26:20 Reply Private Reply
#9: nolu chan To: jeremiad, Hank Rearden (#8)
Easily, if they get the votes. If born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, a child is a natural born citizen, and no reference is made to the status of the parents.
William Arthur, the Irish father of Chester Arthur, became a citizen 14 years after Chester Arthur was born. Chester Arthur's mother, Malvina Stone Arthur was citizen. Chester Arthur was a natural born U.S. citizen.
Tulsi Gabbard was born in American Samoa. The fact of birth in American Samoa makes one a national, but not a citizen, of the United States. However, Tulsi Gabbard's parents were citizens, and Gabbard acquired citizenship at birth in accordance with the federal law applicable at the time of her birth.
Kamala Harris was born in California. It does not matter where her parents were born. They could have been illegal aliens when she was born and that wouldn't matter either.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled specifically that Chinese, and everyone else born in the United States, acquired citizenship at birth, except only for those who enjoyed diplomatic immunity from U.S. jurisdiction.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At 694:
At 696:
At 698-99:
At 702:
At 704:
At 705:
At last count, court actions by birthers resulted in a record of futility of 0-226, with all cases dismissed in the pre-trial stage.
nolu chan posted on 2019-07-24 21:21:31 Reply Private Reply
#10: Vicomte13 To: nolu chan (#9)
Vicomte13 posted on 2019-07-24 22:48:16 Reply Private Reply
#11: A K A Stone To: Hondo68 (#7)
Maybe a tiny bit better.
A K A Stone posted on 2019-07-25 07:05:56 Reply Private Reply
#12: Hondo68 To: A K A Stone, Great Judicial Temperament, RBG replacenent, SCOTUS (#11)
Appoint this kid to replace RBG on SCOTUS
Hondo68 posted on 2019-07-25 10:33:42 Reply Private Reply
#13: Hank Rearden To: Tooconservative (#2)
Ya know, the idiot party with stick-up-their-ass uptight leftist nasty angry womyn wouldn't let her get past first base, but "Double Standard" is that shitty little party of parasites' middle name.
Hank Rearden posted on 2019-07-26 13:56:12 Reply Private Reply