Tonight's debate, why wouldn't Harris answer a simple question?

Forums: 2020 Election
Email this Topic • Print this Page

When directly asked if a Biden administration intended to pack the Supreme Court if the democrats didn't get their way on the Barrett nomination, Kamala Harris dodged the question.

Just like Biden did in the first debate.

Also, why did Harris keep mentioning that she's black and a woman?

1) What does that have to do with anything?
2) Does she think that Americans are blind and can't see that with their own eyes?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 4 • Views: 1,421 • Replies: 29
Topic Closed

She was probably distracted by the fly buzzing around the piece of **** she was supposed to be debating with.

2 Replies

@FreedomEyeLove,

These are all quite interesting inquiries.

The only way to accurately know the answers would be by speaking with Harris.

When it comes to the possible expansion of The Supreme Court, it could well be that she felt that this is an issue more suited for Mr.Biden to respond upon.

As to questions, why is it that the mannequin-like Pence, never showed any true sign of life when the fly made a landing on his pasted down hair? The normal reaction to such, would be to casually take a few fingers up to move it along. It could even have served as a way to show a sense of wit or humor by making a comment about it. Instead he came across as stiffer than Al Gore.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

True. So true. Flies are known to land on crap regularly.

1 Reply

Pence is Trumps Renfield.

0 Replies

@Sturgis,

I think it was returning home.

0 Replies

@FreedomEyeLove,

Harris was not being bated by Pence's concentration on something past. The election is about our present and our future, nothing to do with assertions about somekind of past .

APPARENTLY THE GOP IS THE PARTY OF THE PAST. eh?

1 Reply

@FreedomEyeLove,

Quote:

Kamala Harris dodged the question

In my more objective opinion, Pence was the master "dodger" some questions he nver even adressed.

And the part of "once upon a time Obama did something..."

One really important thing is that OBAMA left Plump with a happily recovered and humming economy. I think Plump, in his resignation to a complete wipe-out, will attempt to take the economy down even lower than it is going now.

Hes a scorched earther.

0 Replies

@FreedomEyeLove,

FreedomEyeLove wrote:

When directly asked if a Biden administration intended to pack the Supreme Court if the democrats didn't get their way on the Barrett nomination, Kamala Harris dodged the question.

Just like Biden did in the first debate.

She answered a ton of questions, you disingenuous hypocrite. Answering far more questions than super dodgy, prude stuck in 1950s closet, Pence.

FreedomEyeLove wrote:

Also, why did Harris keep mentioning that she's black and a woman?

2) Does she think that Americans are blind and can't see that with their own eyes?

And you're accusing Democrats of being blind?! For ****'s sake. She has the right to flex considering she's the first (demographic wise) in the history of the US to reach this part of the political process.

2 Replies

@tsarstepan,

Quote:

She answered a ton of questions

What does that have to do with what I said about the specific question I mentioned? Also, I disagree.

Quote:

you disingenuous hypocrite

Why the name calling?

Quote:

And you're accusing Democrats of being blind?!

Where did I say this?

Quote:

She has the right to flex considering she's the first (demographic wise) in the history of the US to reach this part of the political process.

WTF does being a wha-man of colors have to do with the ability to lead a country?

Oh, that's right... the dems are all about identity politics. "Vote for me because I'm a woman and black!"

Nevermind what her actual policies or plans for the country are ...

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

the fly buzzing around the piece of **** she was supposed to be debating with.

Insult and ad hominem, the only thing that progressives do.

Because progressives know that they have no way to win an argument based on the actual facts.

0 Replies

@FreedomEyeLove,

FreedomEyeLove wrote:

Quote:
She answered a ton of questions

What does that have to do with what I said about the specific question I mentioned? Also, I disagree.

Quote:
you disingenuous hypocrite

Why the name calling?

Bull ****! I refuse to believe you don't know exactly that claim means.

If you are going to ask hyperbolic stupid questions like...

FreedomEyeLove wrote:

When directly asked if a Biden administration intended to pack the Supreme Court if the democrats didn't get their way on the Barrett nomination, Kamala Harris dodged the question.

Do you mean the literal way Trump has been doing for the past 3+ years? Across the judicial system? Packing all the courts as possible? Do ******* brain damaged Republicans really think that a Democratic president won't appoint and confirm as many judges and Supreme Court judges as they can? Ya know... do the LITERAL job described in the US Constitution?

The entire question is nonsense because it literally forgets what your own side has been doing the past 4+ years (well before Trump's presidency including the time that Mitch has derailed so many tons of Obama federal court judges not failing to mention Merrick Garland's stolen Supreme Court seat).

Kamala Harris didn't have to engage in such utter garbage of a hypocritical question.

2 Replies

@tsarstepan,

Quote:

Do you mean the literal way Trump has been doing for the past 3+ years? Across the judicial system? Packing all the courts as possible?

Trump has been acting in accordance to the law and the system as it is set up.

Quote:

Democratic president won't appoint and confirm as many judges and Supreme Court judges as they can? Ya know... do the LITERAL job described in the US Constitution?

Except that the dems don't want to follow the actual constitution. They want to add ADDITIONAL seats the the supreme court as a way to throw a childish temper tantrum because they're not currently getting their way.

I don't think you know much about the constitution at all, because it's not the supreme court's job to create new laws. It's the court's job to enforce the constitution as it is written.

BTW, nowhere in the constitution does it mention a woman's 'right' to murder the unborn.

The dems want the court to be filled with nothing but activist judges. People with lifetime appointments who were not elected by the people, so that they can push through as many unconstitutional laws as they want without the American people having any say in it.

1 Reply

@FreedomEyeLove,

FreedomEyeLove wrote:

Quote:
Do you mean the literal way Trump has been doing for the past 3+ years? Across the judicial system? Packing all the courts as possible?

Trump has been acting in accordance to the law and the system as it is set up.

Quote:
Democratic president won't appoint and confirm as many judges and Supreme Court judges as they can? Ya know... do the LITERAL job described in the US Constitution?

Except that the dems don't want to follow the actual constitution. They want to add ADDITIONAL seats the the supreme court as a way to throw a childish temper tantrum because they're not currently getting their way.

Direct quote the US Constitution WHERE IT SAYS THE NUMBER of Supreme Court justices? Bullshit. You can't. Ergo. Your answer is bullshit. You can't make things up, especially out of thin air. There is no number written into the Constitution and you literally know that. It's been said several hundreds of different ways from constitutional experts that are not me.

And if you don't that fact? Your nearly political illiterateness should keep you from ever getting into political discussions ever again. You just made the poorly thought out constitutional argument that holds zero legality at all.

And if you do know this NOT SO SECRET fact? And you're still trying to get this lame argument across? That makes you the disingenuous hypocrite I initially accused you of being.

From the ******* White House website:

Source
From the text of the US Constitution.

Source
I can't see a number in this brief section of text that discusses our country's judicial system.

1 Reply

@tsarstepan,

Your response was bordering on unintelligible. Is English your second or third language? Because that was difficult to read and try to follow.

Not only do you not understand the laws of this country, you don't even seem capable of forming coherent thoughts.

I will make this short and simple.

There have been 9 justices on the supreme court since 1869, 151 years!

Only since Trump by random chance was put in a position to appoint a fair amount of conservatives to the court (completely following his right to do so), have the dems decided that they want to add additional justices, because they are losing the monopoly they once had.

It is not the supreme court's job to create new laws.

It is their job to interpret the constitution.

Activist judges work against the will of the American people, and those types of judges only seem to come from the left.

0 Replies

Tucker: Democrats will justify court-packing by citing diversity

0 Replies

'The Five' call Harris' lack of response on court packing 'unbelievable'

0 Replies

@tsarstepan,

tsarstepan wrote:

Bull ****! I refuse to believe you don't know exactly that claim means.

Your question was pretty aggressive. Even if you have a case for hypocrisy, there is definitely no evidence that FreedomEyeLove is being disingenuous.

And I really don't see any evidence of hypocrisy.

tsarstepan wrote:

Do you mean the literal way Trump has been doing for the past 3+ years? Across the judicial system? Packing all the courts as possible? Do ******* brain damaged Republicans really think that a Democratic president won't appoint and confirm as many judges and Supreme Court judges as they can? Ya know... do the LITERAL job described in the US Constitution?

Mr. Trump is not cheating. He is not expanding the number of seats on the courts so he can appoint more judges.

The Democrats are proposing to cheat by expanding the number of seats on the Supreme Court.

It is fair to condemn them for this.

tsarstepan wrote:

The entire question is nonsense because it literally forgets what your own side has been doing the past 4+ years (well before Trump's presidency including the time that Mitch has derailed so many tons of Obama federal court judges not failing to mention Merrick Garland's stolen Supreme Court seat).

That was justified payback for the Democrats' mass blocking of W's nominees in 2007-08.

Both sides are even now, if the Democrats don't start a new fight by cheating even more.

tsarstepan wrote:

Kamala Harris didn't have to engage in such utter garbage of a hypocritical question.

It is fair to confront the Democrats when they try to cheat.

0 Replies

https://cdn.creators.com/1054/288379/288379_image.jpg

0 Replies

https://michaelpramirez.com/uploads/3/4/9/8/34985326/cor-mrz100920-color-1-1mb_orig.jpg

0 Replies

Tonight's debate, why wouldn't Harris answer a simple question?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know