I've introduced legislation w/ @BernieSanders to make college tuition-free for most Americans. We have to address student loan debt.— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) May 12, 2017 She's 100% running. You don't f*&^ Willie Brown with the idea of stopping at just "senator."
If she starts knocking on doors in Iowa, I'll believe you. But I still don't see her running in 2020.
Has Ron Wyden ever ruled himself out? I'd like to see him run. He seems to be one of the most visible Dem senators out there lately, and he seems to be saying the right things on a lot of issues. I'd have to do some research into his voting to decide if I'd back him over other strong candidates, but at first glance he seems pretty well aligned with my positions.
Your certainty actually fills me with confidence. I volunteered for the Iowa caucus on behalf of @BarackObama in 2008. A chance encounter there changed my life.https://t.co/T4z2PCVKq8— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) January 11, 2017
A lot of people want her to run and when you want something to be true, you generally find evidence to support your wish. But nothing they cite persuades me. And certainly not knocking on doors for Obama in 2008. Puh-leeze ...
Yes, that's obviously the only bit of evidence. Definitely nothing to note re: the fact that she's rushing to partner up with Bernie on legislation, which is, of course, something all democrats just trip over themselves to do. But hey, trust your gut. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article149309374.html
I saw that article when it came out. It's completely overblown, and there's no there there. You're not reading tea leaves. You're reading a Rorschach test. You want her to run. So does the activist that sets the tone in the middle of that piece. But there's no real evidence she's going to run. Only a lot of wishful thinking.
If you're so certain Harris is running, then ... Show. Me. The. Evidence. As it is, you've only presented wishful thinking. And ad hominem.
Don't be wilfully obtuse, even though that's your brand – you know it's too early in the cycle for "evidence." Or you should, anyway.
Nothing I've seen cited distinguishes her from any other senator in Washington. Oh, she's speaking at her alma mater. That means she's running! Oh, she's sponsoring legislation. That means she's running! Oh, she's speaking at various forums. That means she's running! Oh, she's crafting relationships with other politicians. That means she's running! Gimme a break. She has not given any indication that she is running or wants to run. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, you have to assume she's not planning to run and is not going to run. For this conclusion you brand me obtuse. Bullshit.
You're mad online. Relax. The relationships she's crafting are different than what we're seeing from, say, Cortez-Mastro. Her outspoken-ness on Kelly is notable, as is the legislation she's sponsoring, as are a number of other aspects of how she's conducting herself very, very early in her senatorial career. She's also not out there saying "I'm not running!" a la Gillibrand.
These are all throwaway lines without any real content. You still have nothing to support your wishful thinking.
You lack the capacity to distinguish between "wishful thinking" and "critical analysis." Que sera sera, I guess.
Critical analysis? What the fcuk is that even supposed to mean here? Critical analysis of what evidence? Geez ... If you had something solid or even mildly convincing you wouldn't be peppering your posts with ad hominem attacks because I refuse to squint my eyes and tilt my head just right to interpret the Rorschach test as you do.
Obtuse is your brand, my dude. Gonna be a fun thread to dig up in 24 months and see how wrong you are.
You've done nothing but attack me. And for what? For not agreeing with your view that it's patently obvious that Harris will run for president. Do you realize how bizarre you're acting?
I've poked fun at your misanthropy and terrible analysis of the potential democratic field. You take personal offense when anyone points out how silly your conclusions are, and have made a broad-based assertion – "she's done nothing that indicates she's running!" – without providing any analysis of what she could do to convince you. Basically: This whole thread was your attempt to troll, and I am amused by it. I will continue to be exactly that.
You never asked me that. Maybe I would have answered. Further, I actually think I did provide a partial answer to this at one point earlier in this thread. So you're attacking me now for failing to answer a question that wasn't asked -- and which I actually partly answered anyway! Instead you just decided to attack me personally for daring to disagree with you. Your behavior on this thread has been abhorrent.
And, you know what, I will follow up on that with more. I listened to the podcast linked above (linked again here) listening for "tea leaves," and there was a definite spot when those tea leaves should have appeared: the question asked at 1:09:20. If she was running or thinking about running, then she would have had an answer to that. Not only an answer, but a good, practiced, clear answer. But she had none. None. She fumbled around and then bullshitted the whole thing, not even answering the question. If she had answered that question as you'd expect of someone thinking about running in 2020, then I'd take that as evidence that she was at least thinking about it. No such evidence was there. Indeed, the evidence pointed in the opposite direction.
Funny how you ignored my answer in favor of insulting me. Talk about trolling. You've been utterly disgraceful on this thread.