Kamala Harris - new post
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Let’s say it happens and she is the nominee. Who do you pair her with ? Not another pasty white guy, I hope. |
Anonymous
Lincoln was an ambulance chaser? Clinton? Obama? One thing about lawyers, they know what the Constitution is. |
Anonymous
Not really, you only have to take one con law course and that usually devolves into politics at the big name schools. The bar exam tends to focus on technical details about evidence admission, search and seizure, that type of thing. And constitution has lost a lot meaning over the years thanks to the Supreme Court. Expansion of the commerce clause during FDR being the worst. |
Anonymous
This is not true. Don't forget that Hillary actually got more votes than Trump. She lost because of the Electoral Collage which as far as I know, was not put in place to prevent a woman from becoming president. |
Anonymous
If lawyers know the Constitution and most of the state and federal lawmakers (read: Congress and the State Houses) are packed with lawyers, then how do you explain them attempting to pass so much unconstitutional legislation and backdooring clear constructs in the Constitution, such as the Equal Protection Clause, the Vesting Clause, Separation of Powers and divided government, Originalism, Private Property Rights, and others that are spelled out in the Constitution? |
Anonymous
The electoral college had nothing to do with preventing a woman from becoming president. /facepalm/ It was put in place so that population centers could not run roughshod over less densely packed locales. See tyranny of the majority. |
Anonymous
Sure, Jan. |
Anonymous
So you don't like Trump? Because he has mush for brains and always has. |
Anonymous
So tyranny of the minority is better? Because that’s what we got. |
Anonymous
|
I love Kamala Harris. She’s a fantastic politician, a strong administrator, and a sharp prosecutor. I genuinely believe she’d make a great president.
But she’s also deeply unpopular—for reasons that are messy, divisive, and often have little to do with her actual record. That unpopularity creates noise and distraction that MAGA types are all too eager to exploit. I was one of the few Black women who didn’t want Kamala to be VP—not because she wasn’t qualified, but because I knew how ugly the commentary would get. The misogyny. The coded attacks. The way people would pick her apart in ways they never would a man. I’ve lived that dynamic in white, male-dominated spaces. It’s real. She’s arguably more respected on the global stage than she is at home—and honestly, that’s part of why I admire her. But this isn’t a moral appeal or a manifesto about how Americans should pick their leaders. It’s just… messy. That’s all I’m saying. Especially when so many of the standards we used to expect in a presidential candidate—qualifications, political experience, emotional intelligence, honor, basic decency—have become optional. We’ve watched the American public normalize chaos and dishonesty that would’ve been disqualifying not long ago. So what’s the path of least resistance now? Probably to just eat crow (as good people often do in service of the greater good) and back someone with a low-friction profile—a young white male. Maybe paired with a blonde white female VP for broad, mass-market reassurance. Then staff the Cabinet with diverse, capable professionals. Use the Trump-era precedent—reducing the “status quo” by about 50%—to rebuild a functional bridge between political optics and actual presidential responsibility. I’m tired of being politically homeless. I’m also tired of sitting in the back for short-term wins. Democrats need a winning strategy that understands the nuances of MAGA and makes space for politically homeless conservatives, too. The 48th Cabinet might look like Ken and Barbie on the surface—but it better be powered by a leadership team with real geopolitical insight, public policy fluency, national security foresight, and business acumen. Symbolism alone won’t cut it anymore. We need balance, brains, and strategy—everywhere we can get it. 🇺🇸, Independent |
Anonymous
Not PP, but just to clarify—the Electoral College was never a neutral mechanism. It was originally structured to give disproportionate influence to white, landowning men—particularly those in rural and slaveholding regions—by shifting power away from population centers. This wasn’t about preventing “tyranny of the majority.” It was about ensuring that certain voters (wealthy, white, male) had outsized control over national leadership. And for centuries, that translated into the systematic suppression of Black voices and the exclusion of women from political relevance altogether. By removing the legal weight of a true popular vote, administrations were never required to prioritize the needs of underrepresented populations. That’s the legacy we’re still grappling with. Which brings me to the present: It’s 2025, and America is still deeply resistant to the idea of a woman president. Not just politically—but culturally. There are deeply entrenched stereotypes about women in leadership—particularly Black and South Asian women—that many voters haven’t begun to interrogate. What’s striking is that this discomfort is largely American. Globally, Kamala Harris enjoys far more respect and likability. Her leadership is viewed through a different lens—one that values competence, diplomacy, and experience more than the ever-shifting metrics of domestic likability or media spin. That contrast says a lot. 🇺🇸 |
Anonymous
They would first have to support the genocide. Right? |
Anonymous
NP. So let her run—and raise the bar. Let Kamala make the AIPAC fight public. Most of the general public isn’t even aware of how much influence it wields behind the scenes. Whether people like her or not, she does have relevant popularity. And if she stood up and said, “No AIPAC. We don’t support any form of genocide. We’re doing things differently now”—that kind of clarity could shift the conversation in a big way. It would also silence the tired critique that she lacks backbone. That boldness of that move alone would prove otherwise. Bonus, other candidates running are able to adjust accordingly in their campaigns to meet the needs of the majority. Does MAGA support genocide? |
Anonymous
Not everything is about Israel, give it a rest. This about supporting a strong black woman to bring some justice to OUR COUNTRY. |
Anonymous
How so? |