Kamala Harris kicks off presidential campaign with Oakland rally

Her ignorance was fully on display for all to see.

 

Well, Trump got elected President with a constant "display of ignorance".

So? What is your point?

 

OK professor?

 

What Trump said resonated with the American people, what Harris said would resonate with the Venezuelan people. See the difference?

 

Did you or did you not support private prisons using slave labor?

 

I did NOT. I supported the Government compelling illegal immigrants to pay their own way, be it cash or labor. Tell us all why we should support them?

 

So when I posted: Her support of for-profit private prisons and their use of slave labor means she will never get my vote.

And you responded: If that's what's she is in favor of, she's got my vote!

Were you lying or just too ****ing stupid to understand what I was saying in my post?

My post had literally nothing to do with illegal immigration. I get you would want to deflect from your advocacy for slavery, but it’s really a sad response.

 

Sorry I wasn't very clear, "Her support of for-profit private prisons" was the portion I was responding to, forcing them to work to pay their own way isn't slave labor. They have a choice NOT to come here illegally. Immigrate the legal way and that won't happen.

 

It most certainly is slave labor when that work is used to profit private corporations.

Are you arguing only illegal immigrants are incarcerated in private prisons?

 

So why do you want the border wide open?

 

Why are you trying to deflect the topic to illegal immigrants? Nothing in my post is related to illegals.

 

We were discussing Kamala's policy stance weren't we?

 

She doesn't have an original thought.

 

She's like a big green Parrot trained to squawk out the left's talking points.

 

Specifically her stance regarding private prisons and their use of slave labor. Not illegal immigration.

 

So when he said he could shoot someone and people would still voted...that "resonated" with people? Or was it the part where he said that Mexico would pay for the wall??

 

Neither does Trump.

 

They can't be separated.

 

Sarcasm eludes you.

 

A very sensible formulation.

If you had a political party whose representatives at the highest level looked like America in all its diversity and another who drew theirs almost exclusively from a single demographic, which would seem the more likely to be focused on issues over race & gender?

 

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

You say that I have a very sensible formulation and yet ask me about the looks of political parties based on demographics based on skin color, gender etc etc with in each party? Interesting....

I wouldn't be looking at the demographics of either party. Here is what I would look out for in regards to the issue based on your question....Which party uses identity politics the most? Which one uses it less? I would favor the one that uses it less. Why? Because identity politics detracts from real issues. It instead focuses on race, gender, religion, and even age. By making identity politics an issue, you create needless issues, most of which causes division. The term "United we Stand, Divided we Fall" isn't just a slogan used by John Dickinson, it was a truism.

 

Because only illegal immigrants go to private prisons?

 

Sorry, I should have expanded on that. One party clearly doesn't care what background the person has, as long as they agree on the issues. Race, religion, gender etc. are clearly secondary to agreement on issues. The other seems to prefer to have one particular demographic represent them on the issues. One of these parties is clearly MUCH more focused on identity, unless there is something about the issues that one party is concerned about that means only one demographic can articulate them on behalf of all the others. This seems wildly unlikely.

It would be a truly bizarre interpretation of 'not caring about race, religion of gender' to decide that a party choosing to be represented almost exclusively by a group representing about one third of the population was the one that best embodied that concept. If that isn't the gold standard for 'identity politics' then the concept has no meaning. Look at outcomes and it is clear who is most strongly focused on 'identity'. Of course, if there is an implicit belief that being represented by white men is 'normal' or 'proper' or, bizarrely, 'colour blind' then we live in different universes.

 

Well articulated.

As I see it from the perspective of living in a blue state is that the socialistic benefits of European countries [Sweden/ Finland/ Norway, etc] are what we want especially considering that California is a much larger economy than any nation in Europe except Germany. Medicare for All/ no tuition community colleges/ economic justice/ extensive social services.