What kind of rock?
Vice President Kamala Harris framed her likely upcoming fight against Donald Trump as one between a prosecutor and a criminal — describing, from her new campaign headquarters Monday, her experience taking on “predators,” “fraudsters” and “cheaters.”
Trump around the same time, meanwhile, took to Truth Social to call Harris “Dumb as a Rock.”
Hmm. I’d have thought the rockish quality would be more with Trump. Granted he has plenty of feral cunning, but he’s not overall intelligent in the way Harris is.
Trump, who during a rally in Michigan Saturday night called Harris “crazy,” “nuts,” and “Laughing Kamala,” is likely to turn to ad hominem attacks against her, while Harris is expected to lean into her experience as a prosecutor — and Trump’s status as a felon with wide-ranging legal problems.
Which kind of sums up their different levels and types of intelligence all by itself. Trump is good at insults, Harris is good at substance.
Speaking to campaign staff in Wilmington, Delaware on Monday, Harris distilled her case against Trump.
“I was a courtroom prosecutor. In those roles, I took on perpetrators of all kinds,” Harris said. “Predators who abused women, fraudsters who ripped off consumers, cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain. So hear me when I say, I know Donald Trump’s type.”
Quite an intelligent thing to say.
The next four months are going to be fun fun fun
He’s attacking the fact that Harris laughs! It reminds me of the criticism AOC received for *gasp* being filmed dancing barefoot while in college. What a dismally puritan* world the Republicans must inhabit.
*in theory only, of course.
I hate to say this, but being good at substance has never seemed to help a presidential candidate. Let’s hope Trump flames out in debates against her to the extent even his supporters turn on him. She obviously outclasses him, but that seems to be a negative in the eyes of too many voters.
ikn @3 I’m hoping so too. Trump lost the debates against Hillary in 2016 according to most accounts, and as a lawyer and prosecutor, I think Harris will shine in a debate situation. Hopefully Harris can beat him not only in the popular vote, but win and shut him down for good.
Nothing stopping Trump from running again in 2028 if he loses though, but if he does lose and run again in 2028, the Republican Party might as well disband. Can’t the R’s do any better than this turkey, ffs?
twiliter, this would fall into the “nice problems to have,” but it will be fascinating to see what happens to the GOP if Trump loses again.
I would think that a second loss (not even counting the disappointing midterms he presided over) would be enough for the GOP to move on, but then, I thought that about 2020 also. Of course, the Big Lie helped Trump a lot — once he got a number of high profile Republicans to commit to the position that Trump didn’t lose in 2020, then that was off the table as an argument against him. Most of his primary opponents tried to waffle about this and refused to say flat-out, “Donald, you lost. Joe Biden beat you fair and square, and if we’re dumb enough to nominate you again, you’re going to lose again, because you refuse to learn any lessons.” Not saying that would have worked, mind you.
If Trump loses to Harris, he will insist once again that he did not, in fact, lose, but it was stolen from him again.
Ironically, under his team’s legal theory in 2020, the person who unilaterally decides which Electoral College votes “count” would be… Vice President Kamala Harris! But then, a principled consistency is not the hobgoblin of Trump’s little mind.
I’m afraid you’re right Screechy, it will be interesting to see what happens. Apparently Trump is eager to debate Harris, and to him I would say be careful what you wish for. As far as I’m concerned, if Biden didn’t beat him in 2020, then Hillary did beat him in 2016, but that’s a lot of water under the bridge.
Screechy Monkey, #5.
Never mind the GOP,: what might happen to the country? Ohio state senator George Lang, while introducing JD Vance at a campaign event, made this rather unsavoury statement.
He later apologised for the remark, but as the old saying goes, it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/07/23/republican-calls-for-civil-war-if-trump-loses/
Forgive my pedantry, but it should be “ad feminam” not “ad hominem.” To insist on the latter would be another example of the erasure of women.
Nah, “hominem” [nominative “homo”] is person or human. “Vir” [accusative “virum] is man.
Anyway it’s Politico who said it, and I can’t correct them from here!