Katie Porter’s viral interview video

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a horrible interviewer. Her answers were excellent. Sorry people are offended by a woman who is confident and assertive.

How dare a journalist ask follow up questions! The nerve!

She only badgered the women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys just can’t handle a smart, sassy, sexy woman who doesn’t apologize for her curves, her temper, or her potatoes.

Someone(s) so obsessed with the debunked potatoes. Should we now add Porter Derangement Syndrome to Trump's list of made-up metnal illnesses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, she is truly awful.

^^Republican talking point

They want to cut the gas lines before she hits speed.

Californian here. Nobody thinks she is going to hit speed. She doesn’t do anything for her constituents.

If you're a Democrat, which Democrats are doing really well by their constituents, and why?

NP. Gavin Newsom. He’s a Fox. Plus, twenty years of back to back governors (who are more similar than different) has helped California grow its economy, be a leader in trade, innovation, higher education, technology development, medicine, agriculture, and manufacturing. Strong economies don’t happen due to luck. It’s planning, it’s marshaling troops, pushing programs through government, having a vision and getting people on the same page.

California has benefited from having pretty sensible leadership. Even if some of our mayors and legislators are a little out there. From the looks of things, most states have that same problem.

I’m a Californian and I completely disagree with you on Newsom. But I think we have had and still do have some good politicians, they just have to work around Newsom. Newsom, no, though. Life has become worse across the board during his tenure.

Also he is definitely not a fox.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why the Dems are a mess. You dislike Trump (as I do) because he's such a monster, but it's OK if your Dem candidate is another kind of monster cause...well Trump is one? That kind of logic is not logic. It's desperation and lack of imagination.

Who we need is someone good. Good as in talented politician without being a terror. Of course nobody is perfect and most politicians esp. great ones are no saints. But you know how they are good and great? Because they aren't complete morons who look like blatant __. To be someone nobody wants to work for - that's not being good at anything. If you can't figure out how to get people to do stuff without them hating you - you must suck as a politician. I don't know much about her but I know I wouldn't want her running my state.

Trump needs to be defeated by someone not like him. He needs to be defeated by someone better. Katie is not any better, maybe different but not better. Trump is on the wrong side of pushing hate and fear but nevertheless, he's clear about his messages and so he does it very well. Dems suck. They suck at just about everything having to do with marketing/comms. They cannot sell ice in the desert. And someone like Katie isn't even someone who should be selling because whatever she's selling, people will come to hate it. People like her aren't good in anything because they are mean spirited folks who are all about themselves. Sooner or later, Trump and her will both find their way to the same place.

I worked with a lot of right wing crazies in my day and while I disagreed completely with their politics, like wanted to barf anytime I heard them talk, they were however personally down to earth no joke shockingly remarkably decent folks. You cannot imagine how well they treated people by way of manners and ethically doing right by their staffs and those who they mingled in the work place. The fact that they believed in horrible ideas was ugh, but they always had support in part because as a human being, you didn't mind they were around. I sure as hell don't want to be around Katie! That is a huge difference.

Kamala Harris was good. Almost the total opposite of Trump, in fact. But she lost. Not that Katie Porter would do any better, but it's been proven that taking the virtuous route is not a winning plan.

It’s their chorus.
I would vote for a woman, just not that woman.
I would vote for a woman, just not that woman.
I would vote for a woman, just not that woman.
I would vote for a woman, just not that woman.
I would vote for a woman, just not that woman.
I would vote for a woman, just not that woman.
I would vote for a woman, just not that woman.
I would vote for a woman, just not that woman.

Ma’am you are talking about the state that repeatedly elected Dianne Feinstein.

And Barbara Boxer.
And Kamala Harris.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think she has mental health issues.

I think she has a personality disorder. She is as ugly and nasty on the inside as she is on the outside. You can tell a lot about a person based on how they treat others, especially when no one is looking.

Dude, you can't accuse her of behaving "this way" (however you want to characterize it) when nobody is looking. She literally knew she was on camera.

She's not soft or simpering. For heaven's sake, she's a politician. You knew that. It doesn't come with a retiring or kittenish personality.

She put hot mashed potatoes on her ex husband's head ...

Well, he alleged it as part of divorce proceedings. He later said he regretted doing so.

Are you unfamiliar with what happens in divorce court?

She didn't deny it.

Do you lie because you have nothing else?

Those include allegations made during her divorce with ex-husband Matthew Hoffman, such as him accusing her of dumping boiling potatoes on his head. Porter has denied those accusations and filed a restraining order against Hoffman, accusing him of abuse as well.

https://www.newsweek.com/katie-porter-abuse-allegations-resurface-after-interview-outburst-10850086

Oh, great! Glad she doesn't have a temper after all.

She may have issues but I don’t think the husband thing is it. There were allegations he was violent towards her so that puts it in context. Plus she got the kids. If she were truly the violent one, I think that would not have happened.
She still doesn’t seem great. Then again, I’m a very nice person and would never be in a position to run for governor. Most politicians z seem to have some personality flaws. Normal people don’t really want that job.

Agree with your last point. Republicans have made their peace with that.

+1 as have Democrats

Except the ones on this thread who just can’t get past what a meany Katie Porter is.

Multiple posters actually from California (which you are not) have posted about Porter’s poor performance record and disliked policy positions. You have no substantive response to that (because you are one of the ones who only knows about Katie Porter’s performance in hearings), so you are stuck at this childish level of response. Meany? Grow up and come back when you have something of substance to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys just can’t handle a smart, sassy, sexy woman who doesn’t apologize for her curves, her temper, or her potatoes.

Someone(s) so obsessed with the debunked potatoes. Should we now add Porter Derangement Syndrome to Trump's list of made-up metnal illnesses?

Nothing has been debunked. Of course she would publicly deny it. Seems like an awfully specific incident for her ex-husband to just out of the blue, and it fits with her general pattern. Sorry, the potatoes won’t away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys just can’t handle a smart, sassy, sexy woman who doesn’t apologize for her curves, her temper, or her potatoes.

Someone(s) so obsessed with the debunked potatoes. Should we now add Porter Derangement Syndrome to Trump's list of made-up metnal illnesses?

Nothing has been debunked. Of course she would publicly deny it. Seems like an awfully specific incident for her ex-husband to just out of the blue, and it fits with her general pattern. Sorry, the potatoes won’t away.

She denied it, he withdrew it. You are obsessed with it. All of this tracks.

Carry on with the weak sauce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is an anonymous forum. “I’m from California” carries no weight. You could very well be from rural Idaho for all we know.

None of the dim Porter cheerleaders know anything about her actual record and policies and/or her actual constituents. They are obviously not Californians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an anonymous forum. “I’m from California” carries no weight. You could very well be from rural Idaho for all we know.

None of the dim Porter cheerleaders know anything about her actual record and policies and/or her actual constituents. They are obviously not Californians.

What has she ever done for Maryland, DC, or Virginia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an anonymous forum. “I’m from California” carries no weight. You could very well be from rural Idaho for all we know.

None of the dim Porter cheerleaders know anything about her actual record and policies and/or her actual constituents. They are obviously not Californians.

What has she ever done for Maryland, DC, or Virginia?

😂😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an anonymous forum. “I’m from California” carries no weight. You could very well be from rural Idaho for all we know.

None of the dim Porter cheerleaders know anything about her actual record and policies and/or her actual constituents. They are obviously not Californians.

It’s a DC message board, big surprise there are non-Californians on here. It is a bit odd that the discussion is as active as it is, especially when the primary is months away. Seems like misogynist right wing trolls to me but I’m sure you Californians think it’s about policy.

[Anonymous]

Awful personality is what we need about now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an anonymous forum. “I’m from California” carries no weight. You could very well be from rural Idaho for all we know.

None of the dim Porter cheerleaders know anything about her actual record and policies and/or her actual constituents. They are obviously not Californians.

What has she ever done for Maryland, DC, or Virginia?

She’s voted for policies that helped us. This is such a dumb argument. We’re all affected by who’s in Congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an anonymous forum. “I’m from California” carries no weight. You could very well be from rural Idaho for all we know.

None of the dim Porter cheerleaders know anything about her actual record and policies and/or her actual constituents. They are obviously not Californians.

It’s a DC message board, big surprise there are non-Californians on here. It is a bit odd that the discussion is as active as it is, especially when the primary is months away. Seems like misogynist right wing trolls to me but I’m sure you Californians think it’s about policy.

Still no substantive answer. What has Katie Porter done for her constituents that means she should be California governor, such that we Californians should ignore this behavior when we vote?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an anonymous forum. “I’m from California” carries no weight. You could very well be from rural Idaho for all we know.

None of the dim Porter cheerleaders know anything about her actual record and policies and/or her actual constituents. They are obviously not Californians.

What has she ever done for Maryland, DC, or Virginia?

She’s voted for policies that helped us. This is such a dumb argument. We’re all affected by who’s in Congress.

She’s running for governor of California. Do you understand that?