...and dropped out first four years ago, but somehow, she's the democratic nominee for president...
Why aren't democrats pissed about this. None of you voted for her. None of you wanted her, but the democrat party installed her, and you are complying.
Why aren't you all pissed off that you have no vote and no say in any of this? How can you all be so compliant?!
I don't get it.
Doesn't matter if Kamala Harris did or not. Donald Trump didn't participate in one debate during the primaries and he won the nomination anyway. Biden dropped out of the race after the primaries were done so of course Kamala Harris is the ideal choice to run for President since she is the Vice President to President Joe Biden. No other challengers such as Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, or any other Democrat wanted to run for President. Joe Biden passed the torch to Kamala Harris.
shareI'm not asking about trump. this post has NOTHING to do with him.
I am asking why democrats are so compliant with having NO SAY AT ALL in who their presidential nominee is.
You had NO CHOICE and NO SAY at all. Yet you don't care.
Democrats can't just say who they want their nominee to be if there are zero other challengers to run against Vice President Kamala Harris. Like I have already said, Kamala Harris who is the Vice President would be the most ideal to run for President since she is the Vice President to President Joe Biden and that's exactly what she is doing. Joe Biden passed the torch to Kamala Harris, but other challengers could have stepped up, but they didn't. If Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, or any other Democrats had stepped up to say they would challenge Vice President Kamala Harris, then voters would get the opportunity to say who they want their nominee to be and there would have been a primary. So of course Democrats are going to go for Vice President Kamala Harris since there was no one else who wanted to challenge her.
shareThey were not given a chance to step up because she was simply GIVEN the delegates that JOE BIDEN won. Again, she was GIVEN something that she DID NOT earn. She was just handed those delegates, and you happily complied with her nomination despite not being able to vote for it.
It's obvious that you don't care about your freedom of choice. It's obvious that you will just surrender (like you willing did) your freedoms to anyone who has a D in front of their name on the voting ticket. Who the person is does not matter to you. The only thing that matters is that they are a democrat.
This whole thing is actually blowing up in the Democrats face because like it or not, this woman is simply not winning in November and Trump is already ahead in early voting and you can deny it all you like, but he is. She can't do interviews, she doesn't have the confidence and when someone like CNN is punching holes in her, that's never good
shareYou must be talking to TV guy right?
shareYeah, I was. Sorry
shareNothing to be sorry about. I figured you were responding to that person, but your reply was connected to mine. So, I didn't know for sure.
I'm amazed that democrats aren't pi$$ed off about this. At this point it's obvious that whoever rules over them doesn't seem to matter to them as long as the person is a democrat.
They completely surrendered their voting rights and are happy about it. It's insane.
I can still like her and support her as a candidate, whether I had the opportunity to vote for her in a primary or not.
By the time my state’s primary is held, there’s always only one candy left. I still votes for the person I want, but that’s simply my reality every four years.
Fine you like and support her, but you had NO SAY in her nomination. You just accepted it.
It's bizarre that it didn't bother any of you. You had no say and no opinion. You couldn't even think about who you wanted. You were just given someone and told to comply... and comply you did.
It's baffling to me how all of you could be so compliant and be happy that you had NO SAY in ANYTHING!
First of all, Iowa and New Hampshire usually determine who the nominee is. The other 48 states have virtually no say.
Second, the moment she was picked as Biden‘s VP, there was a pretty decent chance that she was going to be the next Democratic nominee.
Third, of course, there will be some candidates I prefer over others, but in the last 20 years, I don’t remember seeing a Democratic candidate that honestly made me say, “Nope!” Plenty of Republicans, but I don’t remember Democrat.
I think you’re living in an ideal world where you’re going to find the ”Perfect” Candidate. That person doesn’t exist, so I don’t really get what you’re bitching about.
I'm not "bitching". I am stating facts. You obviously don't like those facts and therefore you view solid facts as "bitching". You are allowing YOUR feelings get in the way of actual factual information.
There are presidential nomination procedures that have been put in place. They have been there since the founding of this country. Those procedures were completely ignored and as a result Kamala was installed as the presidential nominee for the democrat party. This is not "bitching" these are facts- NOT FEELINGS, just facts.
Also, I am not talking about republicans that you don't like. Nowhere in my post history (in this thread at this point in time) have I brought up republicans- you (and others) did. This is not about them. This is about someone who was installed as the democrat party's nominee for president. A person who COMPLETELY sidestepped having to clinch the nomination in order to run for president. A process that EVERYONE prior to her had to go through. Therefore, she HAS BEEN installed. YOU (yes YOU) had no say in who you wanted. You were just fed someone, and you said "Fine. I don't care if I have ABSOLUTELY ZERO SAY in the "democratic process". As long as there is a D in front of the person's name, they are good enough for me. As long as she is not a Republican, I am fine with it."
There was no democratic process initiated for her to be given the nomination. That is what dictatorships do. They install people as leaders and the citizens of the country have no say- sound familiar.
Democratic countries DO NOT do that. Dictatorships DO.
As for Kamala having a pretty decent chance of clinching the nomination if she had run this time around is immaterial. She didn't run. She was handed the nomination so we will NEVER know if she would have clinched the nomination.
I suggest that you look up past vice president/presidential nominee Dan Quayle and see how well he faired when he ran for president...
Also, there is no "perfect candidate". I never said that. You (and your FEELINGS) just assumed that that's what I was saying.
Not being an American, can you explain something to me. If you are a registered Republican or Democrat, can you vote in the other party's primaries? What if you aren't part of any party?
shareIt varies by state.
In my state, each party has a ballot. So when I walk in, they ask me which party’s ballot I want. No one will know who I vote for, but they will know which ballot I chose. That part is recorded, and it is public information. Some people who work for the state don’t want that information on record, because they fear it will affect their jobs.
I can choose an issue ballot, which means that I don’t vote for any candidates, I only vote for issues (Usually issues related to property taxes, or schools. Sometimes there are issues related to a new law or amendment.)
The primary system didn’t begin until the 1950s, and it didn’t really begin until the 1960s. Prior to that, each party simply chose their nominee.
I realize that being chosen as the VP candidate in the last election by no means guarantees her anything. I was simply saying that in many peoples minds, the fact that she was chosen at the VP candidate means that she was given an unofficial no that she would make a really good president the next time around.
I was in high school when Dan Quayle was VP, so I do remember him quite well. He was never anything more than a joke, so he kind of an example of the exception to the rule.
I do not believe I use the word, “feelings” even one time.
I was explaining why it didn’t bother me. You can throw as many facts and incorrect facts at me as you want. It’s not gonna change the fact that it didn’t bother me that she is the nominee.
I’m perfectly within my rights, not to be outraged.
Interesting question.
It does remind me of when a reporter asked Hilary Clinton, during the 2016 presidential election, what she'd like to see for the American people if she'd so win.
Clinton replied that she'd like a complacent populous. She repeated that statement twice.
I always thought that was an odd response.
I wish I could find the video, but it was just a question, on some random day while on the campaign; by what I presume, a local reporter.
You probably have a better chance of finding the Holy Grail than that clip at this point.
shareIt wouldn't surprise me at all that she said that.
Most politicians view themselves as gods. They believe that they are our overlords, and we should be compliant to whatever they want. Our opinions don't matter to them.
I simply cannot understand how democrat voters aren't up in arms about Kamalla being installed and not elected. That is what Dictatorships do- not democracies. In a dictatorship their leaders aren't elected. They are installed.
Fine, this isn't the presidential election, but she still sidestepped the primary. So, what is the next logical step that will eventually happen down the line? Eventually, there will be no voting at all, and this country (like dictatorships) will simply install a leader. The democrat party is obviously on its way toward doing that.
Politicians take a little at a time in the hopes that the populace doesn't notice it. Slowly they take away rights and freedoms and before people are aware of it, the country has become a dictatorship.
If this were going on, on the other side of the political fence I would be asking republicans, the same question.
For the life of me I CANNOT understand why democrat voters aren't up in arms about this.
It isn't pissing off Democrats. We are more united around Kamala Harris than we've been for any other non-incumbent nominee in decades.
shareI'm not a Democrat or Republican.
Most who say they are know nothing about politics and less about the point of the US government.
Democrats are typically teenage level thinkers worried about sexual issues and simplistic ideas like sexism, racism, etc with ever wondering why sexism and racism exist. That's child level thinking of good and bad.
Anyway, the democratic process means nothing to most Democrats, they just like that Kamala is "black" and female.
She's only been "black" for the past six months or so. Before that, she was "Indian".
shareHer father is black and in the US black people tend to identify as black if they are part black.
Meanwhile, I love Indian people, generally speaking, and so I see no issue with saying she is Indian.
They are typically hard working, educated, and have a great value system due to their culture, so why doesn't she say she's both?!
Whatever the case, many white people will vote for someone because they are black, although they don't associate with blacks, and most women will support a woman no matter how horrible she is as a person.
I know little about Harris so I don't know if she's a positive or negative type.
She won the primaries because she was on the same ticket as Joe Biden. How is this hard to understand and why does it seem like only Republicans and Jill Stein who have a hard time understanding?
shareShe did not win the primaries. Joe Biden did.
I am also not a republican.
So, you are WRONG on both counts.
I get it, you don't care about your freedom of choice unless it has to do with the "right" to murder babies.
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are the same ticket.
Okay so you're Jill Stein the Putin shill.
I'm not pro-choice. I would support a lot of Republican polices if they weren't just a cult for a grifter coup-leader and defended the fake elector plot.
"fake elector plot"
No such thing, you're parroting establishment propaganda. It's "alternate electors" and both sides have them.
Go read Podesta's "Transition Integrity Project" where he proposed sending an alternate slate of electors to the Electoral College in 2020 - something the Democrats now call "sedition"
Stop being dishonest. You can't just send random people to the capitol. Stop justifying a coup because you decided you "understand" law now.
shareSo you didn't read the TIP “Election War Game Scenario”
An alternative slate of electors is perfectly legal.
Its not alternative because they never got certificates or let the state know that they were were electors. Everyone knows this and Trump's legal counsel has explained this to him a million times.
Stop being bad faith and lying to everyone on this website.
Did you bother to research any of it?
Are alternate slate of electors legal? Yes or No?
Depends what you mean by "alternative slate of electors". What Trump did wasn't remotely legal and yes I did.
It takes 3 minutes to look this up. Stop being bad faith please:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/09/10/how-trump-and-his-allies-fake-electors-bid-compares-to-a-1960-case/70703750007/