The Catholic Message Board

According to sources close to Obama, he opposes Kamla Harris because he thinks she is "incompetent and stupid", and that "she will not fare in a debate against Trump, she will say something stupid and humiliate herself."

How could Obama say this about the greatest orator of our time?

Here she is talking about "the significance of the passage of time"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS0yBgZrVas

"We were talking about the significance of the passage of time, the significance of the passage of time, if you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time"

When I was in high school and I was asked to write an essay I never had any idea what to say, this is the kind of thing I wrote. except I would include phrases like "thus", therefore", "and so", "for instance", and "so in conclusion" (usually said about 3 times in an essay before I actually ended it.

But hey, at least the passage of time is finally getting the recognition it deserves.

More Kamala Harris gems in the days to come!

This is why I don't get stuff about some voters. How is your clip any more credible about character than demonstrated in Trumps many clips?

https://youtu.be/OsBOWSjOLsE?t=19

If any of us were in a position to have everything that came out of our mouths recorded, we would find we sound stupid sometimes.

I've been in the same room as Kamala Harris. She was well-spoken both on the podium and off the podium. I still have the video on my phone of much of it, I can try to upload it to my YouTube channel sometime.

She is also going to make blunders. If a public person never made some funny or cringy mistakes, I'd worry they were not at all human.

Now, when a person gets up and rambles for hours on end without making much sense, that is concerning, but, I understand that here we do not criticize the MAGA man because he is all things bright and beautiful.

I think Doom was being tongue-in-cheek. Yes?

We shouldn't oppose Kamala Harris because she's unintelligent or isn't good at expressing herself, but because her views are abhorrent. Hope this helps.

anawim wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2024 9:21 am I think Doom was being tongue-in-cheek. Yes?

Would it be allowable here to post a similar thread The Wit and Wisdom of Donald Trump though to show there is no bias with political humor?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn283OjPb1g

It is time for everyone's favorite new Game Show "Elmo or Kamala", where we give a quote and have to decide which of the nation's two most beloved experts in baby talk said, Elmo from Sesame Street or Kamala Harris.

Today's quote:

"Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia is a powerful country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine. So basically that's wrong."



That might sound like a quote from Elmo, but it is actually by Kamala Harris,it is difficult to tell them apart, but you can tell it was not a quote by Elmo because it didn't begin with the phrase "Me Elmo" :FYI:


Join us next time for our next episode of "Elmo or Kamala"

peregrinator wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2024 11:32 am We shouldn't oppose Kamala Harris because she's unintelligent or isn't good at expressing herself, but because her views are abhorrent. Hope this helps.

Satire, mockery and ridicule have been part and part and parcel of political, philosophical, and other discussions for as long as the human race has had the ability to verbally communicate. From the sarcasm and ridicule and ridicule in the Bible (including Our Lord's often quite sarcastic diatribes against the Pharisees), to writers such as Juvenal, Lucian, Dante, Erasmus, Jonathan Swift, Mark Twain or any of 1,000 other writers throughout history. Satire is probably the most effective possible way to convey a point, that is why it is used so often.

Obama is certainly not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But Kamala Harris possibly is the dullest knife in the drawer. I get that the internet can often focus on things that are negative and put people in a bad light. But I have yet to see anything in her entire career that would make me think she could run a cookie booth, much less a country.

Stella wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2024 7:01 pm

anawim wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2024 9:21 am I think Doom was being tongue-in-cheek. Yes?

Would it be allowable here to post a similar thread The Wit and Wisdom of Donald Trump though to show there is no bias with political humor?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn283OjPb1g

But Stella, you can find plenty of coherent, lucid, thoughts from Trump. And his optimistic view of humanity is certainly optimal. There is NO such thing for Harris. There is nothing at all optimistic of her, unless it involves doing wrong to improve your personal stake. And her mental capacity is pretty darn low.

Kage_ar wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2024 8:06 am
Now, when a person gets up and rambles for hours on end without making much sense, that is concerning, but, I understand that here we do not criticize the MAGA man because he is all things bright and beautiful.

To put It bluntly, BS, Republicans are under no illusions about Trump. But we also understand why both the Democrats and the Republican elite have such a fanatical, unhinged personal hatred of the man, and it has nothing to do with his many personal flaws and has everything to do with what he represents, which is a large number of disenchanted people who believe both parties are the same, one big Uniparty, and that neither of them genuinely care about the country, or the people in the country.

They hate Trump because Trump is not one of the political class, he doesn't represent the Uniparty. This is what they mean when they say he is an "existential threat", he is an existential threat to the Political Machine that dominates both parties, this is why they see no contradiction both in saying that Trump "threatens democracy" and then employing anti-democratic means to stop him. To them, democracy only means a system that they control, if they don't control something, that something is by definition not legitimate, "preserving democracy" just means preserving the Uniparty.

Bernie Sanders represents the same kind of "existential threat" to the political class, except he comes from the Left, and he is different from Trump because he is a wimp who doesn't fight back even as the Democratic Party employed anti-democratic means in both 2016 and 2020, he just obediently played along. Bernie doesn't have any fight in him, his heart is not really in it.

Trump represents the grassroots right, and Bernie represents the grassroots left. Trump won the nomination and Bernie lost (twice!) because the Democratic Party is a lot less democratic than the Republican Party.

The Democratic Party is, as it has always been, a party run by Powerful Bosses behind the scenes who control the nominating process. If there is a candidate the Bosses find absolutely unacceptable, as they do Bernie, the Bosses can stop the process and hand the nomination to the candidate of their choice. This what happened in 2016, 2020 and is happening TWICE in 2024. The Democratic Party is designed to stomp on the Grassroots.

The Republican party has Bosses yes, but they are becoming far less powerful and influential while Republican voters have become saavy enough to notice when the Bosses are trying to annoint a candidate, as they tried to do this year, with Nikki Haley, and stop it.

Democrat voters simply do not have the power to tell the Bosses to go pound sand.


How is it that in 2004 we had a choice between one Yale Graduate who was a member of Skull and Bones and another man who was also a Yale Graduate (in the same graduating class!) and also a member of Skull and Bones? And yet somehow we are supposed to believe they didn't know each other in college? How is that possible? It isn't even credible. Even in 2004, I didn't believe the "official story from both camps that Bush and Kerry never met in college, how could that be? They were both there at the same time, and both part of the same elite Secret Society, how could they possibly not have known each other?

I'm done with "going along to get along", I'm done with supporting candidates I loathe just because they are supposedly better than the other fellow when the reality is that they are practically twins, joined at the hip.

I am definitely voting for Trump on November 5, but it is an open question whether I will ever vote again after that day. What's the point? I'm not going to support another candidate from the Uniparty. Whether I vote in 2026 or beyond depends on whether I have a real choice other than the Uniparty.

zeno wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2024 8:22 pm I am not sure why anyone would think this board is required to be without "bias." I am biased in favor of Truth and against error. As GK Chesterton said, "Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."

That said, in continuation of the way this board has been run since the original iteration came into being around 25 years ago, civil discussion and debate is allowed in the appropriate places within the board. If you want to insist up is down or 2+2=5, go ahead within the debate forums. There are plenty of people more than capable of setting the record straight. You won't be allowed to persist in your nonsense without end because that's just boring, and not in the General or Catholicism sections of the board at all because that is misleading.

Hope that information helps clear the air.

Zeno
Board Administrator

People are certainly free to criticize me or start another thread explaining or defending their views or even mocking my own. The more the merrier.

Doom wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2024 9:50 pm

zeno wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2024 8:22 pm I am not sure why anyone would think this board is required to be without "bias." I am biased in favor of Truth and against error. As GK Chesterton said, "Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."

That said, in continuation of the way this board has been run since the original iteration came into being around 25 years ago, civil discussion and debate is allowed in the appropriate places within the board. If you want to insist up is down or 2+2=5, go ahead within the debate forums. There are plenty of people more than capable of setting the record straight. You won't be allowed to persist in your nonsense without end because that's just boring, and not in the General or Catholicism sections of the board at all because that is misleading.

Hope that information helps clear the air.

Zeno
Board Administrator

People are certainly free to criticize me or start another thread explaining or defending their views or even mocking my own. The more the merrier.

That was not directed at you. . Note the complaint about "bias" in the thread. I was trying to address that.

I know, I' 'm just saying that if someone doesn't like this thread, that person can create a thread more to their liking.

Doom wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2024 9:50 pm

zeno wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2024 8:22 pm I am not sure why anyone would think this board is required to be without "bias." I am biased in favor of Truth and against error. As GK Chesterton said, "Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."

That said, in continuation of the way this board has been run since the original iteration came into being around 25 years ago, civil discussion and debate is allowed in the appropriate places within the board. If you want to insist up is down or 2+2=5, go ahead within the debate forums. There are plenty of people more than capable of setting the record straight. You won't be allowed to persist in your nonsense without end because that's just boring, and not in the General or Catholicism sections of the board at all because that is misleading.

Hope that information helps clear the air.

Zeno
Board Administrator

People are certainly free to criticize me or start another thread explaining or defending their views or even mocking my own. The more the merrier.

The criticism was directed squarely at me Doom. For the record and this is truth, I don't speak nonsense, I'm not stupid, I'm always very respectful as a tenet of my faith and I would never mock your views as a tenet of my faith. I would only hope the same was returned to me.

Doom wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2024 9:48 pm unhinged personal hatred of the man,

Why is it that any criticism of Mr Trump's policies, vitriol, manner of speech, exact quotes are "unhinged personal hatred"?

I, personally, do not hate anyone. I pray for every person, I pray for every politician.

Can you allow people to present criticism without pouncing like my kitten when she sees my dog?

TDS is real but I don't think kage is suffering from it

Doom referred to the D and R elites having that intense personal hatred. No disrespect intended to Kage, but I don't think he meant to include her in that category.

I'm sure Kage doesn't have an unhinged hatred of Trump, even though I confess I don't see any sense to the "he's not perfectly pro-life" criticism that she's brought up a few times. It's even weaker than the "mean tweets" objection to Trump. At least that one makes a certain amount of sense. Yes, he can be kind of a jerk, it seems. Of course, I might echo Kage's point in this thread: if people were obsessively scrutinizing your social media and publicizing all of your worst moments, you might come off as a bit of a jerk, too. I don't mean you personally, anyone here, I just mean in general. So it's not all that clear that mean tweets really show Trump's personality in its fullness. But whatever. The point is that he does say mean stuff sometimes. Of course, the other side does, too, but never gets pounced on for it, even when it clearly helps to stir up literal attempts on the man's life. But we're talking about Trump here, and it's true he's posted some mean tweets.

His first administration, however, was stellar on its merits. It was just outstanding. The mean tweets are a red herring, and so is his failure to achieve a full grasp of the inner meaning of being pro-life. He's pretty darn good.

Any Democrat, Kamala, Biden, whoever, is going to be the antithesis of goodness in terms of policy.

And it is true that Kamala is kind of an empty pant suit, intellectually speaking. The word salad reputation is not just based on an occasional gaffe. Garbling the occasional sentence, occasionally getting yourself into a line of thought that peters out when you're thinking on your feet, saying the wrong word from time to time, etc, is all part of the story of extemporaneous public speaking. That happens to everyone. That's not really the thing with Harris. The thing with her is different. She often just has no idea what she's saying. Doom's analogy in the OP strikes me as right on target: she's oftentimes like a college freshman trying to BS her way through a paper she's given no thought to on a topic she doesn't grasp.

ETA: I don't think that means she's actually stupid. There's a long way between smart and stupid. I think she's a truly average person in way over her head, like certain Secret Service agents who may have been on a certain podium a little bit ago maybe more because of their demographic profile than because of their excellence at their chosen work.