Harris has history....BUT kamala kicks some ASS

www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/08/1...ing-mate-2020-393885


The good,the bad and the ugly of Harris......read on

ScienceChic wrote:
Choosing Harris sends the strongest message possible that Biden selected someone who is experienced, charismatic, strong-willed, articulate, intelligent, embraces law enforcement (no defunding the police accusations can be made now), and that he is willing to work closely with someone who will speak up and question his decisions.

But you forgot the much more important two factors which have nothing to do with experience, charisma, or intelligence.... it's he gender and her skin color. Biden had a small handful of qualified candidates to pick from and they were all black women. He's been pressured to do so for months and it really amazes me that so many can't see how wrong that is. Not because they are black or that they are women, but because those traits were a requirement. Harris is very likely going to be president if she and Biden win, another non-secret anyone with a brain can see. So he picks the most phony candidate on the Dem stage who stands for absolutely nothing. Pretty much all of her stances have changed depending on which way the wind is blowing, so the American people really have no idea what she would do as president. She would have to side with the lunatic Bernie/AOC agenda because those are the loudest screams and they are also the cancel culture virus that so many are afraid of. You may think Harris is some principled strong woman, but I guarantee she will bend the knee to the mob when they come demanding weaker police forces, government run health care, and all the other stupid ideas like the green new deal.

My only hope is that there are enough Americans left that do understand how radical these people are becoming and how fast they could take this country down. My guess is that Trump will get more black votes than any Republican in history because black people have been used for so many decades. Look at how many years the Democrats have supposedly been taking care of black Americans then ask yourself what black Americans have gotten for all that loyalty to the party. Just like Biden's 50 years in "service" to the country, he added very little if anything to the American cause, so now we will FINALLY see him come through and accomplish great things. Yeah, right.

She had me at "so OK U don't remember"when she kicked Kavanaugh in the groin...her line of questioning
was OUTSTANDING...I would rather have a STRONG,NO backing down female at the table, than an all
talk and no action (or convoluted stance)...the birther thing is getting really old...is that ALL THE KING HAS?

It’s not a “birther” thing. It is a question that should have been decided decades ago. What does the term natural born citizen mean in the Constitution? Most, including me, interpret it as simply being born in the US. Some say that is not the case and that at least one parent must be a citizen. It does need a quick look by the Supremes to clarify then we can move on without questions.

Pony Soldier wrote: It’s not a “birther” thing. It is a question that should have been decided decades ago. What does the term natural born citizen mean in the Constitution? Most, including me, interpret it as simply being born in the US. Some say that is not the case and that at least one parent must be a citizen. It does need a quick look by the Supremes to clarify then we can move on without questions.

There are MANY items in the Constitution that need clarification,that is why the king is "prostituting" the
position of POTUS. A "quick look" is NOT the answer, a complete and detailed examination of HOW THIS COUNTRY was intended to govern itself is what is required....the king has screwed with a set of regs
that were intended to,not perfect,but to GUIDE this nation on a path of solid ground....we are in QUICKSAND
AND SINKING UP TO OUR NECK. JMO

homeagain wrote:

Pony Soldier wrote: It’s not a “birther” thing. It is a question that should have been decided decades ago. What does the term natural born citizen mean in the Constitution? Most, including me, interpret it as simply being born in the US. Some say that is not the case and that at least one parent must be a citizen. It does need a quick look by the Supremes to clarify then we can move on without questions.

There are MANY items in the Constitution that need clarification,that is why the king is "prostituting" the
position of POTUS. A "quick look" is NOT the answer, a complete and detailed examination of HOW THIS COUNTRY was intended to govern itself is what is required....the king has screwed with a set of regs
that were intended to,not perfect,but to GUIDE this nation on a path of solid ground....we are in QUICKSAND
AND SINKING UP TO OUR NECK. JMO

Watch the video under the Biden VP pick post. There are already challenges from Judicial Watch taking place.

Pony Soldier wrote: It’s not a “birther” thing. It is a question that should have been decided decades ago. What does the term natural born citizen mean in the Constitution? Most, including me, interpret it as simply being born in the US. Some say that is not the case and that at least one parent must be a citizen. It does need a quick look by the Supremes to clarify then we can move on without questions.

It was decided decades ago. This was written yesterday by Heather Cox Richardson, an historian from Boston College.

The Supreme Court answered this question definitively in the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision. The Supreme Court evaluated the Fourteenth Amendment’s first clause, which says that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The justices decided the clause established that anyone born on U.S. soil is an American citizen regardless of the nationality of their parents.

When it reaches the Supreme Court we shall see.

HEARTLESS wrote: When it reaches the Supreme Court we shall see.

Why would it need to reach the Supreme Court? It's already been decided. In 1898.