Kamala Harris 2020

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

She was in Florida recently (I noticed her shoes like others did on the election thread!), I had seen that because I check her twitter every couple of days. She's done some virtual stuff too. Not sure what the strategy is.

[SydneyCarton 49325]

9 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

She was in Florida recently (I noticed her shoes like others did on the election thread!), I had seen that because I check her twitter every couple of days. She's done some virtual stuff too. Not sure what the strategy is.

Yeah, I saw that. It was also like the first time someone had posted anything, even a tweet or comment from her, in weeks. 

[Fozzz 152]

The fucking Jeb Bush of the 2020 Dem nomination couldn't be more gleeful about her upcoming installation as President.

 

[Red Five 41596]

I wonder why that clip is only four seconds long. Probably not because to include what came after would also include her correcting her brief slip of the tongue.

You fucking people and your inconsequential stupid harmless little gaffes. 57 states! Meanwhile Trump shits all over himself daily, and silence. 

[Fozzz 152]

2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I wonder why that clip is only four seconds long. Probably not because to include what came after would also include her correcting her brief slip of the tongueKinsley gaffe.

You fucking people and your inconsequential stupid harmless little gaffes. 57 states! Meanwhile Trump shits all over himself daily, and silence. 

Fify

[BradInATX 9208]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

I mean, as far as I can tell she's been quiet AF in terms of the campaign trail. Hope I'm just not seeing it. 

Laying low and letting Trump continue to flail and implode has been the strategy the whole time. Joe will go give some red meat speeches at union plants and that type of deal, but they're not going to do anything risky that could give Trump something to play offense against. Trump can only attack, it's all he knows how to do. Giving him nothing to attack has him flailing in the wind looking increasingly like a pitiful, desperate sociopath by the day. It's working. Kamala carries some risk being out there as a strong-willed and vocal woman from a very liberal coastal state. She has one job and that's to attack Trump and attack Pence while Biden sits back and plays the "aw shucks" guy role. She'll ramp it up as we get closer to November.

If you're looking for her or Joe to really be out there in the limelight at any time between now and November you'll be disappointed. It's pretty clear at this point that their strategy is to stay out of the light.

Edited September 16, 2020 by BradInATX

[Hank Kingsley 21598]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

Yeah, I saw that. It was also like the first time someone had posted anything, even a tweet or comment from her, in weeks. 

This is a positive. It means any attacks from GOP and Trump on Kamala aren't sticking, and we're not hearing much bitching from the left either. 

[High Plains Drifter 11161]

On 8/12/2020 at 10:22 PM, Dahobbs said:

Wait, didn't he die? Are folks still posting on his profile? 

Also, my father in law informed my wife that Kamala had a botched face lift, so you can't find recent pictures of her. I sent him her speech from today recorded on CSPAN and said she seemed fine. I don't think I'll get a response. 

 

As opposed to the multiple plastic surgeries that the entire dOTarD clan has had? Melania the Alien, DotArD jr, and Eric the Retarded can't even fucking smile, they've had so many surgeries.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Less than 2% of her own parties nominating votes...  says it all about her as a candidate.

[Fozzz 152]

23 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Less than 2% of her own parties nominating votes...  says it all about her as a candidate.

At the very least, she'll have more influence within the administration than mush-brained Biden and there's a good chance Biden will either step down or die before completing his term.  This is why there was such a power struggle (more so than in 2016) within the party to be selected as VP.  

[BradInATX 9208]

40 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Less than 2% of her own parties nominating votes...  says it all about her as a candidate.

What abject stupidity. What percentage of primary votes did Pence get in 2016?

[totallynotabuttpirate 5477]

Fozzz feelin extra salty today.Taking a break from watching Fox News 24/7 might be in order. 

[RomaVicta 30501]

32 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

At the very least, she'll have more influence within the administration than mush-brained Biden and there's a good chance Biden will either step down or die before completing his term.  This is why there was such a power struggle (more so than in 2016) within the party to be selected as VP.  

Do you believe Donald Trump is more intelligent or competent to be president than Joe Biden?

Do you believe Donald Trump is a man of better character than Joe Biden?

Do you believe Donald Trump is more intelligent, competent, or of better character than Kamala Harris?

I'm asking because I'm wondering if all you have are attacks on the Dems.

Please don't claim to be neutral.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34079]

2 hours ago, Fozzz said:

The fucking Jeb Bush of the 2020 Dem nomination couldn't be more gleeful about her upcoming installation as President.

 

[Fozzz 152]

In any pluralistic electoral system, there is going to be a party that represents the interests of the ruling class.  Hating Republicans for being that party in our system is kind of ridiculous to me - of course they're bad, they represent the interests of people who want to take as much from you as they can get away with, and they will use any means necessary to do so.  Politics is real life, it's not a game where everyone is required to play according to a set of agreed upon rules.  Unless you prefer a single party state there will always be Tories, Republicans, etc.  However, in a functioning pluralistic system, there should be a party that represents the interests of people who are not part of that ruling class.  Currently, this is where nominally the democrats enter the picture.  They are the ones who are supposed to be on "our" side, so it's reasonable to expect more from them than from the Republicans who are our enemies by definition.  This is why I criticize dems.  

Edited September 16, 2020 by Fozzz

[wildcat09 29556]

4 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

In any pluralistic electoral system, there is going to be a party that represents the interests of the ruling class.  Hating Republicans for being that party in our system is kind of ridiculous to me - of course they're bad, they represent the interests of people who want to take as much from you as they can get away with, and they will use any means necessary to do so.  Politics is real life, it's not a game where everyone is required to play according to a set of agreed upon rules.  Unless you prefer a single party state there will always be Tories, Republicans, etc.  However, in a functioning pluralistic system, there should be a party that represents the interests of people who are not part of that ruling class.  Currently, this is where nominally the democrats enter the picture.  They are the ones who are supposed to be on "our" side, so it's reasonable to expect more from them than from the Republicans who are our enemies by definition.  This is why I criticize dems.  

Every word of this most up to the last sentence is completely reasonable and the last sentence is a complete lie.

[Fozzz 152]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Every word of this most up to the last sentence is completely reasonable and the last sentence is a complete lie.

You can believe what you want.  I've stated my rationale, which you find to be reasonable.  I'm always consistent in my posts and if my intent were merely to troll and get a rise out of people on here then that would not be the case.  

[Longhorn_Fan68 34079]

[SydneyCarton 49325]

2 hours ago, Fozzz said:

In any pluralistic electoral system, there is going to be a party that represents the interests of the ruling class.  Hating Republicans for being that party in our system is kind of ridiculous to me - of course they're bad, they represent the interests of people who want to take as much from you as they can get away with, and they will use any means necessary to do so.  Politics is real life, it's not a game where everyone is required to play according to a set of agreed upon rules.  Unless you prefer a single party state there will always be Tories, Republicans, etc.  However, in a functioning pluralistic system, there should be a party that represents the interests of people who are not part of that ruling class.  Currently, this is where nominally the democrats enter the picture.  They are the ones who are supposed to be on "our" side, so it's reasonable to expect more from them than from the Republicans who are our enemies by definition.  This is why I criticize dems.  

Hey dipshit, politics, and especially real life are literally a game where everyone who is born has to show up and play according to a set of agreed upon rules. It's called Society. There are laws, there are social mores, there are expectations. There's a justice system, there's a tax code and tax law, and there's things like homicide and pedophilia which are punished. 

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is an agreed upon set of rules, as is the scope of work in the three branches of government. There are always rules. Say anything otherwise is just bullshit. 

[Bateshorn 9989]

Wait, wait, wait, wait.  Hold fucking on.  Just slow down.

 

Foz actually believes Harris is the real power behind the thrown?  She faded and backed out of the primaries before the first vote, and Biden cycled through literally everyone else in the party except Bernie before finally settling on her (probably because Jill hasn't forgiven her), and this was the plan all along?  Radical Moderate Kamala Harris?

Dude, I gotta get whatever good shit you are snorting.

[Texaspython 231]

3 hours ago, Fozzz said:

In any pluralistic electoral system, there is going to be a party that represents the interests of the ruling class.  Hating Republicans for being that party in our system is kind of ridiculous to me - of course they're bad, they represent the interests of people who want to take as much from you as they can get away with, and they will use any means necessary to do so.  Politics is real life, it's not a game where everyone is required to play according to a set of agreed upon rules.  Unless you prefer a single party state there will always be Tories, Republicans, etc.  However, in a functioning pluralistic system, there should be a party that represents the interests of people who are not part of that ruling class.  Currently, this is where nominally the democrats enter the picture.  They are the ones who are supposed to be on "our" side, so it's reasonable to expect more from them than from the Republicans who are our enemies by definition.  This is why I criticize dems.  

Do you ever ask yourself why we lose so many elections? I’m so tired of this bs from “allies”.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

40 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Wait, wait, wait, wait.  Hold fucking on.  Just slow down.

 

Foz actually believes Harris is the real power behind the thrown?  She faded and backed out of the primaries before the first vote, and Biden cycled through literally everyone else in the party except Bernie before finally settling on her (probably because Jill hasn't forgiven her), and this was the plan all along?  Radical Moderate Kamala Harris?

Dude, I gotta get whatever good shit you are snorting.

I think what Fozz is getting at is what many, including myself fear.  That Kamala is being positioned to take over after Biden. The same forces that strategically carried Biden through the primaries will do the same for Harris once she’s been VP.  The primary process isn’t very democratic and it’s easy to manipulate with enough money, strategy, and collaborating candidates to go along with a plan.  That’s not rigging, it’s just exploiting the weaknesses in the process. 

Like the electoral college, the primary system is flawed, it’s heavily influenced by weird voting schedules, schemes, and corporate media coverage.  It would take some real magic for a non-establishment candidate to overcome those challenges. Incredibly difficult to do but not impossible. 

Like you said, Kamala Harris is not a strong candidate for the presidency but neither was Biden his first few times around and IMO he’s still a weak candidate but here we are. This country loves dynastic power.  I personally hate it.  

Edited September 16, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[washparkhorn 9967]

4 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Do you believe Donald Trump is more intelligent or competent to be president than Joe Biden?

Do you believe Donald Trump is a man of better character than Joe Biden?

Do you believe Donald Trump is more intelligent, competent, or of better character than Kamala Harris?

I'm asking because I'm wondering if all you have are attacks on the Dems.

Please don't claim to be neutral.

No

No

No

Voting for Biden

He is a caretaker choice to steady the ship. Not a bad idea when the nation is "pearling it hard."

 

 

[BradInATX 9208]

17 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This country loves dynastic power.  I personally hate it.  

You've spent the last four years stanning and defending Hillary Clinton.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

You've spent the last four years stanning and defending Hillary Clinton.

True but I always contended her biggest liability was Bill Clinton, both for nepotism and scandal reasons.  I also acknowledge her other flaws.  She was a bad candidate but would have made a decent leader in the presidency.  Much better than Donald Trump and I will die on that hill. 

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

You've spent the last four years stanning and defending Hillary Clinton.

I don't know what stanning means but there are a lot of good reasons to defend Hillary Clinton. Reason number one being that she wasn't wrong about a basket of deplorables. In fact she was being kind. One might say she was downplaying it. 

She was also right about Trump being Putin's puppet. 

Frankly, I'd say she was also right way back when she alleged a vast right-wing conspiracy organized against Bill and her. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

50 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Foz actually believes Harris is the real power behind the thrown?  She faded and backed out of the primaries before the first vote, and Biden cycled through literally everyone else in the party except Bernie before finally settling on her (probably because Jill hasn't forgiven her), and this was the plan all along?  Radical Moderate Kamala Harris?

Dude, I gotta get whatever good shit you are snorting.

*throne*

I do not believe this was a coordinated long term plan.

I do not believe in 'dynastic' power. That is a recipe for all sorts of up-to-no-goods no matter the party or organization. I do, however, believe in mentoring and diversity. Diversity of thought and perspective and backgrounds. It is the hybrid vigor that makes humans reach for the unreachable. At this point in time, the Democratic Party is ahead in that regard. The GOP is clinging to a platform of "what was" while plotting to go further back in time to a rather feudalist existence that favors some and punishes many.

[BradInATX 9208]

Just now, WhatTheBuck said:

I don't know what stanning means but there are a lot of good reasons to defend Hillary Clinton. Reason number one being that she wasn't wrong about a basket of deplorables. In fact she was being kind. One might say she was downplaying it. 

She was also right about Trump being Putin's puppet. 

Frankly, I'd say she was also right way back when she alleged a vast right-wing conspiracy organized against Bill and her. 

My point was that saying that you "hate dynastic power" and then being a Clinton's biggest cheerleader is quite the contradiction. The Clintons and Bushes and Kennedys are the very definition of dynastic power.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I can hate dynasties but also cheerlead for FDR because he’d make a better president than Herbert Hoover or any other GOP alternative.  

Both can be true simultaneously.  It’s not a contradiction. A person’s bloodline to previous power can be considered a negative but it doesn’t have to be a dealbreaker.

[Fozzz 152]

2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is an agreed upon set of rules, as is the scope of work in the three branches of government. There are always rules. Say anything otherwise is just bullshit. 

If that is true, then why does every administration invariably break federal law and/or run afoul of the constitution?  Do you believe it's constitutional for US Presidents to assassinate US citizens without due process?  Do you think it's constitutional for the US to snatch people up and hold them indefinitely in detention without charging them of a crime?  How about PRISM and its use by federal law enforcement?  

It's hard to have functioning "rules" when those rules are often vague/unintelligible as written and are interpreted and enforced by the players themselves.  

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

28 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

My point was that saying that you "hate dynastic power" and then being a Clinton's biggest cheerleader is quite the contradiction. The Clintons and Bushes and Kennedys are the very definition of dynastic power.

Oh bullshit. What about the Adams' or Roosevelts? Hell, give me more Kennedys. I'll give you the Bushes but if we had to suffer through two Bush presidencies then I thought a second Clinton presidency didn't seem like a bad idea. I thought it was only fair. Especially since the first Clinton presidency was better than both Bush presidencies. It's not like Chelsea was ever going to get a job as special advisor to the president with a White House office, staff, and budget like Ivanka has.

Hillary would be a lot more capable president than George W. Bush and the fact that that idiot won the presidency, (possibly thanks to the machinations of his brother Jeb who coincidentally happened to be the governor in the key battleground state of Florida, speaking of dynasties that outsize the Clintons by a magnitude of about a hundred,) shouldn't be used as an argument for why she shouldn't be president. 

Edited September 16, 2020 by WhatTheBuck

[BradInATX 9208]

Just now, WhatTheBuck said:

Oh bullshit. What about the Adams' or Roosevelts? Hell, give me more Kennedys. I'll give you the Bushes but if we had to suffer through two Bush presidencies then I thought a second Clinton presidency didn't seem like a bad idea. I thought it was only fair. Especially since the first Clinton presidency was better than both Bush presidencies. It's not like Chelsea was ever going to get a job as special advisor to the president with a White House office, staff, and budget like Ivanka has.

Hillary would be a lot more capable president than George W. Bush and the fact that that idiot won the presidency,(possibly thanks to the machinations of his brother Jeb who coincidentally happened to be the governor in the key battleground state of Florida, speaking of dynasties that outsize the Clintons by a magnitude of about a hundred,) shouldn't be used as an argument for why she shouldn't be president. 

 

We're not debating whether or not dynasties are good or bad, or whether or not Hillary was a bad or good candidate. We're debating whether it's hypocritical to say you hate dynastic politics and then vote for a dynastic candidate, which of course it is.

I don't disagree with anything you have said about Hillary's capacity to be president.

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

6 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

We're not debating whether or not dynasties are good or bad, or whether or not Hillary was a bad or good candidate. We're debating whether it's hypocritical to say you hate dynastic politics and then vote for a dynastic candidate, which of course it is.

I don't disagree with anything you have said about Hillary's capacity to be president.

I don't think two presidents from the same family necessarily constitute a dynasty. The Roosevelt name has occupied the White House longer than any other and I kind of have a hard time complaining about that. It's a goddamn shame that the Lincoln and Kennedy names didn't last longer. Eight years of George W. Bush, the idiot son of a mediocre president, was a disaster. But there's no greater threat to American democracy than a Trump dynasty. I'd take "Jeb!" over another Trump term, dynasties be damned. 

Hillary Clinton getting elected president would not have constituted a political dynasty. 

 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I don't know what stanning means but there are a lot of good reasons to defend Hillary Clinton. Reason number one being that she wasn't wrong about a basket of deplorables. In fact she was being kind. One might say she was downplaying it. 

She was also right about Trump being Putin's puppet. 

Frankly, I'd say she was also right way back when she alleged a vast right-wing conspiracy organized against Bill and her. 

"Stan" is a crazed, maniacal fan.  From the 2000 Eminem song of the same name, about a lunatic stalking fan named Stan.

[washparkhorn 9967]

"Simp" is probably the more appropriate term of art. 

But it's no-simp September. 

[BradInATX 9208]

8 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

The Roosevelt name has occupied the White House longer than any other and I kind of have a hard time complaining about that. It's a goddamn shame that the Lincoln and Kennedy names didn't last longer.

 

 

Well, that's fine. You don't have a problem with dynastic politics, then. Whether or not that's the right stance is a different thread. But none of that has anything to do with my original point. All good, though. We're picking nits, don't want to derail any further.

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

"Stan" is a crazed, maniacal fan.  From the 2000 Eminem song of the same name, about a lunatic stalking fan named Stan.

Google "Suzy Creamcheese."

[TwiceHorn 31987]

3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Google "Suzy Creamcheese."

If I didn't already know that, I think I would be scared to.

[staboner 5067]

5 hours ago, Fozzz said:

In any pluralistic electoral system, there is going to be a party that represents the interests of the ruling class.  Hating Republicans for being that party in our system is kind of ridiculous to me - of course they're bad, they represent the interests of people who want to take as much from you as they can get away with, and they will use any means necessary to do so.  Politics is real life, it's not a game where everyone is required to play according to a set of agreed upon rules.  Unless you prefer a single party state there will always be Tories, Republicans, etc.  However, in a functioning pluralistic system, there should be a party that represents the interests of people who are not part of that ruling class.  Currently, this is where nominally the democrats enter the picture.  They are the ones who are supposed to be on "our" side, so it's reasonable to expect more from them than from the Republicans who are our enemies by definition.  This is why I criticize dems.  

your shit posting is good. i get a kick out of it. the Dems aren't for the people except in marketing. been that way for 20+ years now. Bill ended that run and the party then started to operate like the R's. and thats the point. how they operate, who they take money from, and in turn what their policy work actually ends up being (not what they actually say). 

the modern failing point in American democracy is the late 90s when the 'government' switched from the Red Scare world to being overrun by special interests. we all know this. it took a decade to run its course and 9/11 just pandemic'ed it to its resting state more quickly. 

This biden mush brain shit is dumb. stop watching shit news and showing your ass. 

I am personally sad to see Harris. A fucking cop coming into a state with all kinds of militarized elements of society is just sad. its in he cards. Its the dems always reacting to the Rs hyper aggressive BS. always caught reacting.

I guess thats usually the way it goes, but every once in awhile, it goes the other way too

you homies have a good day 

Edited September 16, 2020 by staboner

[Huckleberry 34407]

1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

My point was that saying that you "hate dynastic power" and then being a Clinton's biggest cheerleader is quite the contradiction. The Clintons and Bushes and Kennedys are the very definition of dynastic power.

Disagree. Multiple generations make a dynasty. The Clintons are a political couple, not a political dynasty. 

[Fozzz 152]

5 minutes ago, staboner said:

your shit posting is good. i get a kick out of it. the Dems aren't for the people except in marketing. been that way for 20+ years now. Bill ended that run and the party then started to operate like the R's. and thats the point. how they operate, who they take money from, and in turn what their policy work actually ends up being (not what they actually say). 

the modern failing point in American democracy is the late 90s when the 'government' switched from the Red Scare world to being overrun by special interests. we all know this. it took a decade to run its course and 9/11 just pandemic'ed it to its resting state more quickly. 

This biden mush brain shit is dumb. stop watching shit news and showing your ass. 

I am personally sad to see Harris. A fucking cop coming into a state with all kinds of militarized elements of society is just sad. its in he cards. Its the dems always reacting to the Rs hyper aggressive BS. always caught reacting.

I guess thats usually the way it goes, but every once in awhile, it goes the other way too

you homies have a good day 

I agree more or less with you although I think the turn began with Carter and his appointment of Volcker.  Bill was the completion of the transformation.  

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Well, that's fine. You don't have a problem with dynastic politics, then. Whether or not that's the right stance is a different thread. But none of that has anything to do with my original point. All good, though. We're picking nits, don't want to derail any further.

The Bushes and Trumps are much greater threats of imperialism in American politics than the Clintons ever have been or ever will be. 

Hillary Clinton getting elected president would not have constituted a political dynasty anymore than when John Quincy Adans was elected president. 

[Texaspython 231]

15 minutes ago, staboner said:

your shit posting is good. i get a kick out of it. the Dems aren't for the people except in marketing. been that way for 20+ years now. Bill ended that run and the party then started to operate like the R's. and thats the point. how they operate, who they take money from, and in turn what their policy work actually ends up being (not what they actually say). 

the modern failing point in American democracy is the late 90s when the 'government' switched from the Red Scare world to being overrun by special interests. we all know this. it took a decade to run its course and 9/11 just pandemic'ed it to its resting state more quickly. 

This biden mush brain shit is dumb. stop watching shit news and showing your ass. 

I am personally sad to see Harris. A fucking cop coming into a state with all kinds of militarized elements of society is just sad. its in he cards. Its the dems always reacting to the Rs hyper aggressive BS. always caught reacting.

I guess thats usually the way it goes, but every once in awhile, it goes the other way too

you homies have a good day 

Bill was necessary to win a presidential election which we hadn’t done in 12 years. 

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

If I didn't already know that, I think I would be scared to.

Okay, Google: "Vanilla Fudge Edgewater Inn mud shark"

And get your groove on. 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Okay, Google: "Vanilla Fudge Edgewater Inn mud shark"

And get your groove on. 

Racist, imo.

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Racist, imo.

Huh?

[TwiceHorn 31987]

10 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Huh?

I know that story too, but "mudshark" has acquired a different connotation since.  Akin to "coalburner."

In any event, Stan wasn't a sexually obsessed fan, just a Robert DeNiro The Fan fan.

[CooterBrown 18272]

My wife’s aunt tried to argue that Harris isn’t even black. She’s Jamaican and they don’t count as African Americans.

[RomaVicta 30501]

7 hours ago, Fozzz said:

In any pluralistic electoral system, there is going to be a party that represents the interests of the ruling class.  Hating Republicans for being that party in our system is kind of ridiculous to me - of course they're bad, they represent the interests of people who want to take as much from you as they can get away with, and they will use any means necessary to do so.  Politics is real life, it's not a game where everyone is required to play according to a set of agreed upon rules.  Unless you prefer a single party state there will always be Tories, Republicans, etc.  However, in a functioning pluralistic system, there should be a party that represents the interests of people who are not part of that ruling class.  Currently, this is where nominally the democrats enter the picture.  They are the ones who are supposed to be on "our" side, so it's reasonable to expect more from them than from the Republicans who are our enemies by definition.  This is why I criticize dems.  

I take it that you didn't see my questions? 

I'm not sure who you're addressing about hating GOPs because they are the party of "the ruling class." Seems like a dodge to me.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Meant to update this the other day, Kamala's been out and about but doesn't always get the press since it's VP.

She's in Utah at the moment. And look, a mask. Too bad Utah Senator Lee doesn't believe masks are helpful. Might've staved off the super spreader event.