Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What Should We Call Kamala Harris?
A short time ago, anticipating that Kamala Harris might be Joe Biden’s vice-presidential pick, the Associated Press altered their stylebook, to rule out refering to her as Willie Brown’s onetime “mistress.” We are now to call her his “companion.”
I like that. In ancient Greek, the feminine version of the word for companion is hetaira. It is — how shall I say? — a euphemism; and like many another euphemism the connotation eventually replaced the denotation and the word came to mean “whore.” In time, the truth will come out.
Someone should interview Willie Brown’s wife. Her comments on Ms. Harris would make interesting reading.
Published in General
I doubt you ever selected Trump.
The Dems have already brought all her flaws to the fore. She quit the race for pity’s sake.
Paul,
Brown was married. She was his mistress. That is clearly an accurate description. She benefitted immensely from the relationship. When she had ridden on Brown (sorry for the analogy) as far as she could go she looked for something more. She found somebody who had a lot of money. This time she wanted the marriage certifiicate$.
This is not a nice girl.
Regards,
Jim
The Ugandan Giant?
(wait, nevermind. This has been a weird week for Kamala’s)
I did not, but a plurality of the party did under our stupid “plurality wins all delegates” rule.
So Trump cheated on Wife #1 with Wife #2, then cheated on Wife #2 with Wife #3, and sponsored a photo shot with naked Wife #3, and then cheated on Wife #3 with a porn star and Playboy Playmate of the year who was a kept woman. Trump is estopped from raising the issue of Willie Brown.
Trump lives by the same rules as — well I think it was — Jimmy Goldsmith: When you marry your mistress you automatically create a job opening.
As for Melania: When some fool asked her if she would be with Trump if he were not wealthy, she said something like, “Maybe not, but would he be with me if I were not beautiful?”
Kamala Harris: Preferred by the FBI?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/08/05/tulsi-gabbard-kamala-harris-democrats-campaign-2020-primary-debates-column/1916454001/
Kamala Harris: Introducing a faked confession isn’t outrageous prosecutorial misconduct.
“Doinked?”
Nobody cares about Trump’s infidelity. There’s a palpable difference when a person benefits from her sexual improprieties. You fail to understand: she slept to her position.
Headline: “Biden Taps Harris for VP”
Whoa.
We’ve never had a President who didn’t have warts . . .
As one pundit put it, “She [Harris] slept her way to the bottom.”
So many jokes…
It must be very lonely where you are.
Given the marital fidelity issues on both sides, it would be a mistake for the Trump campaign to focus on Kamala Harris’s dalliance with Willie Brown. Only Mike Pence appears to be totally clean in this area, but even then, who knows what demons may lie in the distant past?
Trump may not be in a position to attack Willie Brown for his infidelities. But his supporters can certainly attack Kamala Harris. She will be paraded by the Dems as a champion of women. But when it came to another woman’s husband and the financial and political advantages that could accrue to her if she were his “companion,” how much concern did she show for the welfare of women?
There was a time, not so very long ago, when married women were united in their contempt for the sort of women who tried to snag their husbands. Female solidarity turned — and in many cases still turns — on a tacit contract to stay away from the husbands (and boy friends) of other women.
There are two issues here — straightforward corruption (the use of public funds to reward one’s “companion”) and an infringement on the unwritten rules of female solidarity.
One thing to consider, when contemplating how to talk about Kamala Harris, is whether or not one should use the word “baggage” (see Entry #2) to describe the encumbrances that the lady may bring with her to the campaign. As I just suggested in comment on a member feed post, it’s possible that putting the word “baggage” too close to the name “Kamala Harris” might be considered a microaggression of the sort roundly proscribed in the recent “We Have Her Back” letter sent out by a bunch of
Lefties“powerful women activists and leaders,” instructing the press on the proper way to report on a female vice-presidential nominee.Jim Mc,
Gary is incredibly flexible. He goes by the old aphorism, “How can you be two places at once when you’re not anywhere at all.”
Regards,
Jim
She was, er, positioning herself for being able to claim whichever of “the victim of a patriarchal and misogynestic system” and “a strong woman who made the system work for her on her own terms” seems better at the moment/
Who didn’t elect you to dictate what they can and can’t say.
Eye bleach! Eye bleach!
“She has baggage” or the more archaic “she is a ‘baggage’?”
Onlc,
Gary is Emperor of the Republican Party. If the foolish Republican primary voters “did the wrong thing”, Gary has no intention of allowing them to get away with it. No matter how corrupt the Dems, no matter how insane their policy desires, Gary will purge this nation of its evil Trumpism by destroying the Republican Party and electing the hideous Democrats.
I know it makes no sense but Gary is sure it is the right thing to do.
Regards,
Jim
Every criticism and truth needs to be laser and surgically precise.
Use their criticisms of each other, to show how they will destroy anyone who gets in their way, including those who might cast a vote for them.
Why are we? This is not a court of law. And if the Republicans want to point out what’s clearly true in this woman’s background, who are you to tell them they can’t?
OTOH, from your lips to God’s ears, if it means that the Democrats are also “estopped” from saying one more thing about Trump’s moral failings between now and election day and beyond.
PS: I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but the legal definition of “estoppel” and what it’s for doesn’t seem to comport with your expressed understanding of it here.
Once again, you say it more clearly with less abrasiveness than me. Amen.
A friend out here on the Left Coast asked me after she found out Kamala is the choice, “What do I do now? I despise Trump, but I won’t vote for that thing.” All I could say was, “Now you know how I felt in 2004, 2008, 2012. No way would I vote for any of those GOPe losers, and I despise Democrats. So I voted for the Constitution party candidate without even knowing his or her name.”
Madam Vice Dictator?