Reply to Kamala Harris

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Kamala Harris - new post"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]https://bsky.app/profile/kamalaharris.com/post/3lv7csevhp22j

Kamala just posted this message. She is not running for governor of California. She did not rule out a presidential run. Reading between the lines, it does not sound to me like she will run. But most people in comments seem to think otherwise.

Unpopular opinion here, but I thought she was a great candidate, considering the circumstances. Trump already told us he cheated, but even if he didn’t, she only lost by 1.5 percentage points. After a whirlwind 100 day campaign and people pissed off from the get-go that she wasn’t primaried and refused to vote for her for that reason - which is no fault of her own. Sitting VPs historically do not have successful presidential campaigns.

Anyway, I would like to see what she is capable of as a candidate with a full campaign. She is, perhaps, the most qualified person in history to run for president. [/quote]

I believe that Hillary was theclvmost qualified person to run for president but we have learned is that no woman , irrespective of race, can be elected president in the US.   [/quote]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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]
So tyranny of the minority is better? Because that’s what we got.[/quote]

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.

🇺🇸 [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics