Kamala responds to Pro-Palestinian hecklers at book event: "I'm not the President right now, there's nothing I can do."
- Thread starter Ozymandeas
- Start date
Ozymandeas
Veteran
Exactly, on the bolded. They know what type time Trump is on.
They are mentally ill
O.T.I.S.
Veteran
ExactlyI'ma say Jill Stein was nowhere that close to beating the orange, but you already know that. Jill Stein fell out the paint like the loser that she was breh.
Should she be out here speaking out? Hell yeah, but she wasn't shyt and ain't nobody give a fukk about her anyway. For better or worse the only one who had a shot to overthrow agent orange is Kamala Harris. She didn't, because of the American populace, but she was definitely equipped enough to call out all types of bullshyt. Even if she didn't win in the end, by a smaller margin.
People were like “we didn’t get to choose
“Like, who tf else did you have to choose from? Believe it or not, at the time, she was your best bet. It was either another DEI white guy, or someone else not as experienced or qualified… being a VP does qualify as experience.
I’m not a huge fan of her either. I actually don’t have a positive or negative opinion about her. What I do know is that she is 100x’s more qualified than what we have now, had a much better VP, and had some kind of plan that she would’ve had the power to actually enforce this time.
I honestly think Biden shouldn’t have been convinced to drop out. Ride the Biden wave (who had to spend the first 4 years digging the country out of the mess that was the first Trump term) and wait for him to kick the bucket so she could get the presidency or THEN we could try to vote on someone better IF she did/was doing a shytty job.
And when it comes to certain shyt, I don’t even care if she is a “wench”. I actually feel like that hurt her more than it helped, because white men have NEVER out right just liked being led by a black woman. When I have seen it in real life, it was definitely earned.
I personally don’t have an issue with it because whoever is the most qualified for getting the job done, thats who I follow.
But maybe, what is meant to be will be. Propaganda worked on these racist idiots out here.
Ozymandeas
Veteran
I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I'm starting to really think Republicans planned this entire Government takeover from top to bottom. They suppressed voters, had the Supreme Court dragging their feet to decide on Trump's case, had the Red Pill social media gurus influencing the young white males, the faux pro black channels influencing black people about Kamala being a cop, had the algorithms showing Gaza every 2 minutes influencing people that Kamala and Biden were allowing genocide to occur. My Tiktok was FLOODED with Gaza shyt. Now you might see something once every week or two. Before you just inundated with it. If I was an evil white man with billions of dollars at my disposal, I would've done all this shyt. I would've paid all those influencers to push a right wing agenda, I would've preyed on black people feeling like Dems haven't done enough for them. I would've done all that shyt and I'm starting to think that's what happened.
desjardins
Veteran
Yea the "she's not the president" angle is strange
Presumably these are democratic voters pulling this stunt, why would they go to Trump events?
It's like getting mad if a black organization doesn't go to Trump for reparations
. It's a waste of time and would likely get twisted by republicans in a bad faith manner (ie: Ice Cube platinum plan, opportunity zones, etc)You push the party you vote for in the direction you want them to go
And they don't need to be in power, people always complain that voters don't get politically engaged until election season now a group is keeping that energy years before an general election and nikkas still got a problem with it
Democrats are being constantly reminded that a large portion of their electorate cares about this issue.
1. The “Capitulation” Critique: A Weapon Aimed at Everyone But Herself
Harris’s central, and most media-friendly, argument is her rage against the “capitulation” of elites—the “billionaires lining up to grovel,” the media companies, the law firms. She describes this as her great unforeseen disappointment. “I always believed that if push came to shove, those titans of industry would be guardrails for our democracy,” she tells Maddow.This is the core of the Harris critique, and it is perfectly tailored for MSNBC audiences who want to hear that the problem is cowardly billionaires and not the political strategy of the party they just voted for. It externalizes the enemy. The threat is no longer just Trump; it’s the fecklessness of other powerful institutions. This is a comfortable analysis because it requires no self-examination. It allows Harris and her supporters to channel their anger toward Jeff Bezos or the partners at Sullivan & Cromwell instead of asking why the Democratic ticket, with the power of the incumbency, failed to convince enough voters.
Notice who is absent from her list of capitulators: The Democratic Party itself. There is no critique of the campaign’s message, its failure to connect on economic issues, or its strategic choices. The capitulation she bemoans happened after the election she lost. It’s a safe critique, a lament about the behavior of others in the face of a defeat for which she bears a significant share of the responsibility. It’s complaining about the fire department’s response after your own faulty wiring burned the house down.
2. The “Guardrails” Fantasy: A Naïve Faith in the Very Institutions That Failed
Harris’s entire political identity is that of an institutionalist. She expresses shock that the “guardrails” of democracy buckled. This shock is itself a form of malpractice. What is the value of a leader whose primary insight is that institutions she believed in turned out to be weaker than she thought? This is not a bold revelation; it is a confession of a fundamental misreading of the political moment, one that activists and scholars have been warning about for years.Her proposed solution is even more telling. She points to the public pressure that led to ABC reversing its decision to cancel Jimmy Kimmel as evidence that “when we fight, we win.” This is the extent of the Harris theory of change: grassroots pressure should be applied to convince corporate media executives to be less cowardly.
This is a catastrophically narrow vision. It reduces the struggle against a burgeoning authoritarian state to a series of PR campaigns aimed at shaming elites into having a conscience. It offers no material analysis of power, no critique of the economic systems that make this capitulation rational for the billionaire class, and no admission that perhaps the project of relying on these institutions as “guardrails” was always a doomed enterprise. It’s a politics of scolding, not of structural change.
3. The Controlled Burn: Criticizing Biden’s Staff to Protect Biden’s Legacy
Perhaps the most revealing part of the interview is Harris’s critique of the Biden White House. She is careful, diplomatic. She does not blame Joe Biden the man. Instead, she blames his staff for mismanaging the issue of his age. He was “absolutely capable of governing,” she insists, but not up to campaigning, and his team failed him.This is a classic political maneuver: criticize the palace guards to protect the king. It allows her to voice a widely held concern without taking the true responsibility that should fall on a Vice President. If the President’s fitness was a grave concern—a “reckless” situation, as she calls it—then her role as the second-in-command was to sound the alarm directly and forcefully. Her admission that she didn’t because it would seem “self-serving” is an admission of a failure of leadership. She is confessing that she prioritized the appearance of loyalty over what she believed was the existential need of the country. She then repackages this failure as a noble, if tragic, restraint.
This is the opposite of productive. It reinforces the very culture of insider caution and risk-aversion that she implicitly criticizes elsewhere. It says to the public: Even when your leaders know the ship is heading for an iceberg, their first instinct is to worry about protocol and their own reputations.
4. The Empty “Fight”: Supporting the Very Tactics That Erode Democracy
In a stunning moment, Maddow asks Harris about Democratic efforts to engage in aggressive gerrymandering in California to “fight fire with fire.” Harris enthusiastically endorses it. “I think this is a moment where you got to fight fire with fire,” she says, praising Governor Gavin Newsom.This is the ultimate contradiction. Harris’s entire book is a warning about the erosion of democratic norms. Yet, when presented with a chance to take a principled stand against one of the most destructive practices in modern politics—a practice she correctly identifies as part of the decades-long plan that led to Trump—she immediately capitulates to the logic of partisan warfare. There is no distinction here between fighting for a democratic vision and fighting to win. They are one and the same. The message is that norms are only important when the other side breaks them.
This endorsement reveals the hollow core of the “When we fight, we win” mantra. What are they fighting for? Not for a more democratic system, but for power within the corrupted system as it exists. It is a completely reactive politics, one that cedes the moral and strategic high ground and guarantees a continued descent into anti-democratic trench warfare where the side with the fewer scruples usually wins.
Conclusion: The Therapy Session as Strategy
The Kamala Harris presented in this transcript is not a leader formulating a path forward. She is a high-ranking official processing a trauma. Her analysis is therapeutic, not strategic. It is designed to make her and her base feel vindicated (“I told you so”) and righteous (“they were cowardly”) rather than to provide a usable plan.
By blaming everyone else—cowardly billionaires, bungling staffers, capitulating institutions—she absolves the Democratic establishment of its core failures. By offering a “fight” that consists of pressuring TV executives and gerrymandering districts, she offers a resistance that is palatable to corporate donors and party insiders but is utterly inadequate to the moment.
The greatest evidence that this entire narrative is counter-productive is the one thing absent from the conversation: a concrete, material critique of Trump’s policies and a compelling alternative vision for the people who voted for him. She mentions that he lied about bringing down prices, but this is an afterthought. The focus remains on process, on personality, on the internal drama of the Democratic Party. It is the politics of the insider, repackaged as the wisdom of the resistance. And as long as that is the offered alternative, the fight against Trump will continue to be a losing one.
When you have no power you attack those who don't have it either.
Who said Bernie was my boy
Shoehorning a New Deal is usually the tell
The 21.99 a month for chatGPT and you couldn’t condense this shyt?
imagine paying money for something you can do for free
Oh they definitely had a hand in the angst leading up to election date. That's one thing that I'll give them kudos for us that they play the long game well and they fall in line to get the results they want. They know they're demo and how dumb a lot of people are and played off people's emotions and aversion to doing their own personal research to swing the narrative
ORDER_66
I am The Wrench in all your plans....
cant hate the dems without being called a c00n... but dont say shyt when the dems sellout ya black ass... foh...
with these George Bush Admin Housing prices 
