Right after Joe Biden announced Kamala Harris as his running mate, Donald Trump called her nasty, his catch-all word for any woman he doesn't like.
Right after Joe Biden announced Harris as his running mate, Eric Trump gave a thumbs up to a tweet calling Harris a "whore". The tweet implied she was a whore because the poster said she was a "whorendous" choice.
So this is the criticism of Harris from the right? She's nasty and a whore?
I like to think that criticism of Harris would be based on her record rather than prepubescent name calling.
Is this the best that Team Trump has got?
Did you see that now the right wing is promoting a birther story? Apparently they think Harris isn’t qualified because of something to do with her parents.
This just the beginning, the President borders on a foundation of misogyny with his attacks. He and his son have already engaged in vulgar and coarse name calling that certainly can't help Trump with the female vote this fall.
Here's how Trump and his campaign described her. Apparently, the campaign sent this out to his supporters, soliciting donations.
"the meanest, the most horrible, most disrespectful of anybody in the U.S. Senate."
His quote in its context. Trump referred to her demeanor, not her person.
"Donald Trump said that Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic vice presidential nominee, called her “nasty” for the way that she questioned Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and said that he was surprised that Joe Biden picked her as his running mate.
“I was surprised that he picked her,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday. “I have been watching her for a long time. I was a little surprised. She was extraordinarily nasty to Brett Kavanaugh — Judge Kavanaugh then, now Justice Kavanaugh. She was nasty to a level that was just a horrible thing the way she treated now-Justice Kavanaugh, and I won’t forget that soon.”
He also called her “the meanest” and “disrespectful.”
It isn't the right wing. It's a story in Newsweek. A left leaning magazine.
Newsweek hatched a birther story?
The birther thing came from a publication called Judicial Watch and a writer named Tom Fitton. So, very right wing, as usual.
https://www.newsweek.com/editors-note-e … sm-1524800
Here is an editor's note from Newsweek about the op ed article in Newsweek about Kamala Harris's ineligibility to hold the office, by his understanding of the meaning of the guidelines in the constitution.
Call me right wing, for pointing out a truthful fact. At least you aren't posing as a far right conspiracy theorist anymore.
That was a nice catch. I haven't followed this issue, or this thread, but I can see how your link derails the claim of the comment that started it.
Not sure how that derails calling her nasty and a whore. Further, not sure how it derails the race-based argument that Harris is not eligible because her parents were foreigners and she owes her allegiance to another country. This is the same right-wing garbage we got with Obama. He’s not a real American. Harris isn’t a real American.
You must have me at a disadvantage Sychophantastic, because I have not followed this issue beyond this thread.
At this point, Live to Learn's explanatory link made sense to me. There is no "controversy" or "conspiracy" regarding Harris' birth eligibility, there is only an ongoing scholarly debate about the Constitutional aspects of the "citizen" issue—which has been ongoing well before Harris hit the scene.
You are completely twisting the debate issue to follow an agenda that is ridiculous. And any 'Right-wing' folks that consider this a real issue are idiots too.
My comment, and the point of this thread it addressed, have nothing to do with name-calling. That's on you.
Live to Learn's link does completely derail the claim that a Newsweek article, (which factually described wasn't a reporting article but was instead an opinion piece), claims there is a Right-wing birther movement against Harris.
Isn't it interesting that there are only three right-wing birther so-called "issues" - all started by or amplified by Trump. The first, of course, is Trump's assault on Obama (black). Next was Trump's assault on Ted Cruz (Latino-sounding last name), and now Harris, who is black and Asian and a woman.
Why didn't he pick on his wife, or himself since he said daddy was born in Germany.?
Everything is not about race. Those who refuse to allow a credible question to advance simply because there is a person of color involved are, to me, the most racist of all. What was the intent of that section in the constitution? How do we apply it in the modern world? It's a complex question we need to answer. They asked the same thing about,who was it? Ted Cruz? Why is it ok to ask questions as long as a minority isn't part of the equation?
Kamala is a politician. She has said unkind things, herself. She has unfairly demonized people with twisted facts, herself. Give us all a break. Wait for a real reason to run to her defense, if one happens. This one's a non starter.
Everything is not about race? Says who? You? Thankfully, what is and is not about race does not get determined by little, old white ladies. Ask a little old white lady if something is about race and her answer is likely to be no because her experience of the world is that things aren't about race. However, ask a little old black lady if something is about race and she's much more likely to say yes. Probably because her entire life is about race.
You actually made my point. You seem to think this is a legitimate question that should be advanced, except that when it was used on Ted Cruz, it was dismissed as not credible.
So why is it coming up again with Harris? The obvious answer is because there's a need to paint her as "other". She's not one of us. She's not American. She's from somewhere else.
These are dog whistles for the right-wing. The color of Harris's skin and where her parents were born is clearly an issue for them and they're making something of it. Birthplace is a big deal to some. It certainly was to Donald Trump. Despite all evidence to the contrary, he perpetrated a lie about Obama's birthplace. Interestingly, I haven't seen him do that with a white person. He certainly didn't seem to care too much where Ted Cruz was born.
How you can assert that it isn't about race is beyond me.
Here's a link that addresses the controversy well:
https://www.vox.com/2020/8/14/21368317/ … ala-harris
And I'll throw you a bone here too. I agree that not everything is about race. However, I'm a little, old white lady too. I tend not to have racial issues in my life. So, I tend not to see them all over the place. It's just that I acknowledge that others have different experiences than I and they deserve consideration.
"How you can assert that it isn't about race is beyond me."
That's pretty easy, for Trump never did mention her Harris's race. Only that he had heard that someone was questioning her constitutional right to run for the office. Even your link says that the president did not mention race, although it DID suddenly come up with it on their own, attributing it to the "right" without giving any evidence that it was from anyone but themselves.
As usual, it is the left that is changing Trump's words to something they were not, in this case adding the whole topic of race when he never mentioned it.
As far as the law professor that DID make the statement that there MIGHT be a problem, he didn't mention race, either. Only question whether Harris, as a child, was subject to the jurisdiction of the US when her parents were not citizens.
This, to me, seems to be splitting hairs and is rather ridiculous, but it does NOT indicate anything about race. Not even after others immediately claimed it WAS about race (much the same "splitting hairs" to make that claim).
This is incredibly naive. Just because race isn't explicitly mentioned doesn't mean that race isn't the main factor in bringing it up.
Did Trump ever mention Obama's race when making his birther claims? No, he never explicitly said "this black man shouldn't be president". But the implication is that by emphasizing otherness (which is race), these people aren't "real" Americans.
Please don't do yourself a horrible disservice by asserting that unless something is explicitly stated that it isn't relevant. It's anti-intellectual.
When Louie Gohmert got up in front of supporters and said "Kenya hear me" was that about race? There was no mention of it.
When right-wingers transpose Obama's face on a chimpanzee, is that about race?
Go read Lee Atwater's remarks on race. He basically outlines that because conservatives can no longer say ni**er, they have to use code phrases. You're arguing that the code phrases mean that suddenly they're not talking about race. It's just so ridiculous it's almost not worth discussing.
"Just because race isn't explicitly mentioned doesn't mean that race isn't the main factor in bringing it up."
Possible, but neither does it mean that it is. THAT is purely on the reader that reads something into a statement that was never there. A reader that puts their OWN racism and feelings ahead of that of the speaker, that puts their OWN interpretation, based on their OWN desires ahead of that of the speaker.
As I continue to state, if you LOOK for offense you will find it, whether it is there or not, whether it was intended or not. Just like Lee Atwater's assumption (based on his own racism) that if you don't use "bad" words it means you are merely substituting something else. Never that you don't mean offense but that you still mean it but without the specific term. Because that's what you look for and will determine is there whether it is or not.
Not the right, a journalist that wrote an article for News Week... Seems odd you think anyone on the right bought into the story. I have seen very little media coverage on the story. Other than a press person asking the president about the article. And he said he knew little about the article other than the journalist John Eastman, professor of law at Chapman University. He made no comment on its content... Other than that media is not covering the article in question. No one is promoting the story on any respectable media outlet.
I think Kamala Harris has a lot of things going against her that team Trump can use against her and Biden. This video link proves that
Damn it, Joe.
Here we are screwing up fresh out of the starting gate.
Joe and his entourage have had adequate time to vet these candidates properly knowing that desperate Republicans would dig deep into their bags of dirty tricks to win. This is our screwup.
Considering the crap the GOP put Obama through and Harris' background, I would have anticipated this concern and would have made sure that she was legally eligible without question or select another candidate. It is just another area of contention that we cannot afford right now.
These guys are not on the ball, and this is how we lose in 2020.
If I did not know better, I would say that the Republicans are surreptitiously selecting our candidates with a built in poison pill.
Joe, please spend less time pandering and more time doing the job right.
"If I did not know better, I would say that the Republicans are surreptitiously selecting our candidates with a built in poison pill."
Or you are beginning to find out just how poisonous the top of the "progressive" party really is....
No matter how poisonous, it is still better than the worst President in history.
Also, neither Biden nor Harris is all that progressive.
Obviously, you haven't a clue as to what progressive democrats are, otherwise you would not have said this.
If the progressive wing of the party were in fact running things, you would have different candidates.
Those in control of the party apparatus are, unfortunately, no sot progressive
I have no problem if they want to attack Harris on issues.
Bottom line though, Trump's name calling is a defensive mechanism used my many with his type of mental illness. They have to do it to overcome their deep-seated sense that they aren't good enough.
by Becki Rizzuti 3 years ago
Why do people resort to name-calling when making a political argument?I find this behavior highly offensive and have to stop myself from responding with the same tone of the original poster. I've always believed that people use name-calling as an argument when they cannot support their point of...
by crankalicious 4 months ago
After promoting a power situation that left many Texans freezing to death and those with power, facing bills that would bankrupt them while ridiculously blaming clean energy as the cause, Texas Governor Greg Abbott decided he needed to kill a few more Texans, so he lifted the mask mandate for the...
by Randy Godwin 3 years ago
After many times stating he looked forward to being interviewed by Mueller, Trump's lawyers are now looking intently at the possibility of it being a perjury trap and are pulling back on his testifying at all. After chastising others who plead the fifth it, now looks as if the Bozo-In-Chief is...
by Don Shepard 2 years ago
http://web.archive.org/web/199908210834 … nton2.htmlExcerpt:"On the second count, that the President is 'just like the rest of us', he is the most powerful man in the world. If you and I fall into bad moral habits, we can harm our families, our employers and our friends. The President...
by Larry Horton 9 years ago
Why is it when you disagree with the Left, they resort to name calling and foul language?
by JAKE Earthshine 2 years ago
The right wing nut case republican’s dangerously lame tactics are backfiring tremendously on Bozo Trump, Mutt McConnell and the rest of the Russian republicans in congress because these criminal pipe bomb attacks on patriotic progressive democratic legends are only firing Up the DEMS past 10 and...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|