Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

What did Arnold Schwarzenegger do that meant he should have been governor of California?

In 2003? Well over twenty years ago? I have no idea. I was too young. But if that’s your standard, you tell me. We are still waiting for some sort of substantive information on why Porter deserves to be elected to the position of governor, maybe you can help us learn by telling us about Schwartzegger since you know nothing about Porter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And I love that this is on CNN so that none of the usuals can bray about Fox News.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sorry - if Katie Porter was a Republican, you'd be having a field day with what a toxic person she clearly is. Sorry this triggers you.
DP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Do your own research, Mr. “Californian.”

Uh, if you want me to vote for her in the governor’s race, and have no substantive reason why I should, the obvious conclusion is that the Californians who have pointed out her serious substantive flaws in this thread are correct, and you are both wrong and ignorant.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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 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!

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Do your own research, Mr. “Californian.”

Uh, if you want me to vote for her in the governor’s race, and have no substantive reason why I should, the obvious conclusion is that the Californians who have pointed out her serious substantive flaws in this thread are correct, and you are both wrong and ignorant.

Here's what is obvious - there are no California voters looking at page 20 of a DCUM politics thread in order to decide whether or not to vote for Katie Porter.

You really don’t have any idea about any aspect of what Katie Porter has or hasn’t done for her constituents. Amazing.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

What did Arnold Schwarzenegger do that meant he should have been governor of California?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

What did Arnold Schwarzenegger do that meant he should have been governor of California?

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.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Do your own research, Mr. “Californian.”

Uh, if you want me to vote for her in the governor’s race, and have no substantive reason why I should, the obvious conclusion is that the Californians who have pointed out her serious substantive flaws in this thread are correct, and you are both wrong and ignorant.

Here's what is obvious - there are no California voters looking at page 20 of a DCUM politics thread in order to decide whether or not to vote for Katie Porter.

You really don’t have any idea about any aspect of what Katie Porter has or hasn’t done for her constituents. Amazing.

It is quite amazing that no one is willing to accept your invitation to waste time. A+ trolling, "California voter."

The trolling here is from all the people who obviously know literally nothing about Katie Porter but think it’s somehow unfair that her temper tantrum with news reporter is actual news. That’s just such an absurdly childish approach that it has to be trolling.

I hope Becerra or one of the others mops the floor with her. Good riddance.