Contrasting Harris and Trump
1. Kamala Harris was a respected prosecutor
Trump is a disreputable actual criminal felon
2. Prosecutor Harris is highly educated and demonstrably intelligent
Trump is... not
3. Prosecutor Harris prosecuted sexual predators
Trump IS a sexual predator
4. Prosecutor Harris prosecuted the owners of scam colleges that ripped off students
Trump WAS the owner of a scam university that ripped off students - until he was stopped by law enforcement
5. Attorney General Harris helped win a settlement against five banks that helped homeowners harmed by those banks
Property owner Trump defrauded homeowners and was caught and forced to repay nearly all the money from the defrauded victims of his crime
6. Harris has released her tax records and been transparent about her business dealings
Trump has famously never released his tax records and been intentionally vague and obtuse about his wealth and business dealings, beyond boasting boorishly about how wealthy he is
7. Harris supports women's rights to self-determination as it regards health care decisions and pregnancies and would work to restore women's rights on this front
Trump boasts that he caused the overturning of Roe v. Wade
8. Harris is a stellar role model for women, girls and all good people
Trump is a stalker of women and girls and just not a good man - Trump boasts and laughs about sexual assault and abusing his wealth and privilege to ogle teenaged girls while they were dressing
9. Harris would not try to deport "all" undocumented immigrants, nor would she refer to them crassly as "the illegals"
Trump has promised to try to deport all undocumented immigrants as soon as he wins (IF he wins), never mind the shattering economic impact such a policy would have on average US families and employees
10. Harris has zero instances of her being indicted or convicted of crimes and no impeachments on her record
Trump, as we all know, was impeached twice and in the last four years has had dozens of indictments against him, resulting (so far) in 34 actual felony convictions
Additionally, so far as I can tell, Harris has no criminal colleagues or close allies in her coterie
Trump surrounded himself with many corrupt people resulting in at least 9 criminal convictions of his allies and staff (or former staff)
To be clear, I have policy disagreements with Harris and I hope she has learned from some of her policy mistakes in the past... Harris does not speak with the overwhelming fluid, compelling elegance of the Obamas... She (like the rest of humanity) is a flawed person running for an important office. But from all appearances and given the known data, there's just no contest between Harris and Trump as to who the better, more intelligent, more decent candidate is.
We'll see where this goes.
20 comments:
The maturity of in-house Democratic disagreement is also a model for the country. Relevant to Ms Harris: she never called her Presidential running mate “cultural heroin” or “the first American Hitler,” quoting from Mr Vance’s own words about Trump. Ms Harris simply called out generational blindness to systemic racism. Which Mr Biden later agreed with.
(AOC, btw, did not call for Biden to step down. She and other members of the righteous posse cited his accomplishments as major.)
And a plus: Ms Harris didn’t need 6 bankruptcy claims just before getting into a Presidential run.
I'm rather proud of the Democrats on how mature and helpful they've mostly been. This is a moment for them to remember and the Republicans, who regularly eat their own, should learn from.
Dan
Right now we have no normal candidates. Donald Duck as a write-in would be closest to normalcy.
Your hyperbole is a bit overly-strained.
Normal is, of course, subjective. But Harris is a reasonable, normative candidate.as the post notes, she's not a convict, not given to crazy over-the-top hyperbole, a legal expert who has prosecuted criminals, etc, etc. She has no weird baggage that her opponent has.
Conservatives will disagree with her policies, which are too progressive for them. But that doesn't make her weird, just more progressive than you.
Any comments with any substance?
Dan
This might make your brains explode, Dan, but the comment that I left describes the reality of our situation perfectly. The best you've got to offer is a shallow candidate who appeals to debased celebrities and cackles like a hyena.
Jesse, your blog is named Rational Christian Discernment. Assuming you have those qualities, I have to imagine that you know that your comment is pointless, without substance or support. It is soporific in its bland inanity.
The comment you left (which I no longer see for some reason - it was not deleted by me) is here:
The best you've got to offer is a shallow candidate who appeals to debased celebrities and cackles like a hyena.
You included three juvenile, slobbering points:
You personally don't like her laugh.
You personally think Harris is a "shallow candidate."
You personally think that she appeals to debased celebrities.
You state these personal opinions with no support.
If, indeed, you are a rational adult you can see
1. No one cares if you don't like her laugh. How sublimely irrelevant.
2. You may think in your own head that she's a "shallow candidate," but you didn't even begin to explain why. Is it her law degree that she accomplished, as well as passing the bar? No small feat, that.
Is it that she served as a prosecutor putting criminals in jail for ~20 years? THAT makes her "shallow..."?
Is it because she was elected in the largest state in the US as the attorney general for four years, then re-elected for another three, when she was elected to the Senate? Do you imagine that makes her "shallow?" Becoming vice president??
Seriously, do you realize how utterly inane and entirely weightless these literally empty and unsupported claims are?
In other words, EVEN IF you imagine these things in your head, that doesn't make them factual nor does it mean a single thing other than you personally hold opinions about Harris laugh and substantive career.
I mean, how many state offices have you held? How many federal offices?
What have you done in your life to compare to Harris' impressive resume?
Jesse, you are welcome to act like someone with good reasoning and offer reasoned, supported commentary here. But unsupported personal feelings and emotional distastes that you personally may hold are - and I want you to understand this fully - entirely meaningless and irrational.
"I personally think she has a bad laugh."
Do you even WANT to be taken seriously?
White men criticizing black women with absolutely NO support or rational base for criticizing them has long been accepted in our world and our nation.
No more.
Grow up, little man. Argue like an adult or go away.
No one cares that your feelings were hurt because you don't like the way an actual adult laughs.
Lord, have mercy!
It sounds like I have hit a nerve. I'd suggest you gaze at a looking glass before you lecture others on how to behave.
"hit a nerve..." "might make your brains [sic] explode..."
I'm trying to treat you like a rational adult in a respectful conversation. I'm letting you know, if you don't, that making empty claims with no support are just that: Empty claims.
IF you want to comment here, THEN you will need to engage in respectful dialog and support your personal prejudices.
For instance, IF you want to comment here, you now need to answer these questions:
Do you seriously think the way a person laughs makes them not a serious candidate for office?
IF so, do you recognize what a juvenile reason that is?
For starters. And I'm fine with people expressing an opinion that a person intelligent enough not to just complete college, but to get a law degree and pass the bar... and who went on to serve in a series of high prestige, high pressure complex offices... that such a person somehow isn't qualified for the office, BUT, it's a rather outstanding claim and as such, would need SOME data to support it.
Like, yes, she attended college but only graduated because her daddy was rich (but that was Trump, not her).
Or yes, she attended and graduated from college, but it was a sham college (but again, that was Trump who operated sham colleges and was found guilty of it, thanks to prosecutors like Harris pursuing con artists like Trump).
Or, yes, she has worked her way up to the office of Vice President, but it's only because she's a woman (instant rational fail - misogynistic claims are losers to begin with).
In other words, IF you want to make unbelievable, almost certainly false claims, THEN the burden is on you to present data to support your claims.
Claims with no data to support them are just so much garbage.
You aren't "hitting a nerve" by making empty claims [rolls eyes]. Rather, I'm patiently and respectfully explaining to you why you need to be a more rational and respectful adult commenter if you want to add something substantive.
Jesse, you are free to comment here again when you can offer reasoned, adult conversation and claims with support.
"She laffs funny and is bad" is simply not adult conversation.
I'm glad you've been to school and proclaim to be a Christian. Act like it, son.
Jesse, in a now deleted comment, said:
I wasn't trying to actually debate, but troll, Dan. I also make an effort to keep my comments concise, which has its limitations.
?
You're admitting your only trolling? Do you also get involved in giving people wedgies?
This is a respectful, rational adult blog. I go out of my way to make for polite, reasonable conversation about a variety of topics, but no, NO trolling will happen here.
I thought you were older than a ill-mannered 13 year old. Move on, little Jesse.
But good for you for at least admitting you had nothing serious to say.
[rolls eyes]
Marshal, unsupported opinions from you posted here will not remain. You may THINK in your head that the talented Ms Harris is less intelligent or moral or reasonable than Trump, but you can't make those sorts of comments here without either:
1. Making clear that it is your own, baseless opinion
or
2. Providing hard data to support that kind of claim.
You can't just make false claims here, Marshall. Because of your history of false claims with no support (because they're obviously, stupidly false), YOU must provide dat ato support these sorts of opinions from you.
Failing that, move on.
All I'm asking for is respectful, rational, adult conversation... reason WITH data to support the reasoning.
Marshal, in abusive, disrespectful, grade school language said...
I could shred each of your 10 non-facts with incredible ease, but you'd only delete, demanding evidence of a degree you never come close to providing
Yes, you COULD IF you had any data.
That you rarely even try to support your claims is evidence that you can't. Anyone rational reading these pages can see that.
For instance, I noted the reality that Harris not only graduated college, but went on to pursue a difficult law degree. Trump, on the other hand, had his daddy pay for his schooling and his teachers who have spoken out have made it clear that Trump is not an academic type.
Academically speaking, then, Trump is just less intelligent than Harris, with no serious dispute of the matter.
Now, I realize that academic success is not always a reliable predictor of wisdom, but it DOES speak to a good degree of intellectual curiosity and determination to stick with that kind of law program to complete it.
Beyond that, we have the wording and Harris engage in while speaking. Trump has been assessed to speak at a 4th grade level. Obama and Jimmy Carter, in contrast, spoke at 9th and 10th grade levels.
Now, anytime a public speaker does a speech, good speakers will not talk terribly far above the audience's level, because you want your words to be accessible. But a 4th grade level vs 9th grade level? That's significant.
Now, maybe some of you all would like to make the case that Trump speaks using such childish language because that's what his supporters/fan base best understand... but I would not presume to be so insulting to his fan base.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-fire-and-fury-smart-genius-obama-774169
We don't have that same examination yet of Harris, but I took the time to look at what some of her far right critics are citing as far as her not being intelligent. Here's one paragraph I've seen cited multiple times by rightwing critics complaining of her "word salad" speeches:
So I think it’s very important — as you have heard from so many incredible leaders — for us, at every moment in time, and certainly this one, to see the moment in time in which we exist and are present, and to be able to contextualize it, to understand where we exist in the history and in the moment as it relates not only to the past, but the future.
Now, compare that to a typical word salad speech from Trump (and there are SO many to choose from)...
“I never understood wind, I know windmills very much, I have studied it better than anybody. I know it is very expensive. They are made in China and Germany mostly, very few made here, almost none, but they are manufactured, tremendous — if you are into this — tremendous fumes and gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right?”
“So the world is tiny compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything. You talk about the carbon footprint, fumes are spewing into the air, right spewing, whether it is China or Germany, is going into the air,”
Just look at the two.
Yes, this one paragraph in a off hand remarks from Harris are a bit jumbled and rambling, but there's no mistaking what she's saying. At least, I understand it clearly. Harris is clearly saying:
I think it’s very important for us, at every moment in time, to see the moment in time in which we exist and are present and to be able to contextualize it, to understand where we exist in the history and in the moment as it relates not only to the past, but the future.
Trump, on the other hand, has never used "contextualize" in a sentence and it's doubtful that he would know how. And what she's saying there, albeit awkwardly in these off-the-cuff remarks, is a very wise, reasonable thing to understand: We NEED to have a solid grounding in history and recognize where we are now in the context of history. We need to recognize how the past impacts the future, and how OUR present will impact the future.
This is solidly conservative (the good kind), rational thinking. Understand the past, make wise choices for the future. Boom. Obviously a wise position to take, whatever your political leanings.
Trump, on the other hand, is truly doing word salad speaking about a topic he clearly doesn't understand. He's in over his head, in spite of his ridiculous claim...
I know windmills very much,
I have studied it better than anybody.
So, not only is it idiotic sounding, but he's making multiple stupidly false claims in the way of spewing these nonsense and false words/claims.
You DO recognize the reality that Trump certainly does NOT "know windmills very much," and that he has NOT "studied it better than anybody..."?
You don't for one second take this nonsense word salad serious, once you cipher out what he's saying? You don't believe these nonsense claims, do you?
Do you REALLY think Dr Trump has studied oncology and wind turbine technology to know what he's talking about when he says, "Windmills cause cancer, they say..."?
THAT, Jesse and Marshall, is what I mean by supporting your claims. There is no evidence that I've seen that Harris is not intelligent (beyond the typical rants of racists and misogynists who don't want to have a black woman in charge of things).
There are Trump's own irrational, nonsense words and clearly endlessly false claims to show he simply doesn't know what he's talking about most of the time and that he literally speaks like a fourth grader.
IF you have data, Marshal, and can make a polite, reasoned argument, you can comment. Otherwise, just move on.
Jesse, in a now-deleted comment, due to the vulgarity and the complete lack of substance...
have been called names like ************, *******, ***** before. Yet, never have I acted like a stupid crybaby as you do.
Says the guy who's fussing because I merely respectfully asked him to not troll on my blog in the manner of an ill-mannered adolescent... Who's fussing because I merely asked him to comment with some substance.
I wonder if such folks even see themselves or what they're doing in these sort of light-weight nothing comments?
No trolling, young man. Find some middle schoolers to heckle, if you must, but no, really, don't do that, either. Just move on.
And to be clear, I've called you no vulgar names of the sort that you chose to try to pollute my blog with. I've noted a grade school trolling comment is a grade school trolling comment. That's not an insult, it's a legitimate observation.
Why in the world would a rational adult want to "troll" blogs?
Are you even a real person, Jesse?
(Don't bother answering. You've said enough: You're a self-confessed troll. Move on.)
"stupid crybaby." snort.
Fact Check: Has Trump declared bankruptcy four or six times?
“You’ve taken business bankruptcies six times.”
–Hillary Clinton
“On occasion – four times – we used certain laws that are there.”
–Donald Trump
THE FACT CHECKER | Clinton is correct.
Trump’s companies have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, which means a company can remain in business while wiping away many of its debts. The bankruptcy court ultimately approves a corporate budget and a plan to repay remaining debts; often shareholders lose much of their equity.
Trump’s Taj Mahal opened in April 1990 in Atlantic City, but six months later, “defaulted on interest payments to bondholders as his finances went into a tailspin,” The Washington Post’s Robert O’Harrow found. In July 1991, Trump’s Taj Mahal filed for bankruptcy. He could not keep up with debts on two other Atlantic City casinos, and those two properties declared bankruptcy in 1992. A fourth property, the Plaza Hotel in New York, declared bankruptcy in 1992 after amassing debt.
PolitiFact uncovered two more bankruptcies filed after 1992, totaling six. Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts filed for bankruptcy again in 2004, after accruing about $1.8 billion in debt. Trump Entertainment Resorts also declared bankruptcy in 2009, after being hit hard during the 2008 recession.
Why the discrepancy? Perhaps this will give us an idea: Trump told Washington Post reporters that he counted the first three bankruptcies as just one.
Trump University (also known as the Trump Wealth Institute and Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC) was an American company that ran a real estate training program from 2005 to 2010. It was owned and operated by The Trump Organization. A separate organization, Trump Institute, was licensed by Trump University but not owned by The Trump Organization. In 2011, amid multiple investigations, lawsuits and student complaints, it ceased operations.
Despite its name, the organization was not an accredited university or college. It conducted three- and five-day seminars (often called "retreats") and used high-pressure tactics to sell them to its customers. It did not confer college credit, grant degrees, or grade its students. In 2011, the company became the subject of an inquiry by the New York Attorney General's office for illegal business practices, which resulted in a lawsuit filed in August 2013. An article in the National Review called the organization a "massive scam".
[National Review is classic conservative magazine]
Trump University was also the subject of two class actions in federal court. The lawsuits centered around allegations that Trump University defrauded its students by using misleading marketing practices and engaging in aggressive sales tactics. The company and the lawsuits against it received renewed interest due to Trump's candidacy in the 2016 presidential election. Despite repeatedly insisting he would not settle, Trump settled all three lawsuits in November 2016 for a total of $25 million after being elected president.
In 2022, two Trump Organization companies were found guilty on multiple charges of criminal tax fraud and falsifying business records connected to a 15-year scheme to defraud tax authorities by failing to report and pay taxes on compensation for top executives.
The Trump Corp. and Trump Payroll Corp. were found guilty on all charges they faced.
I agree with little Jesse that Ms Harris is not a normal candidate. She’s fairly extraordinary.
Post a Comment