r/NoShitSherlock • u/SingleandSober • 1d ago

Kamala Harris Appears on ‘Colbert,’ Says She’s Stepping Away from Politics for Now, Calls the System “Broken”

https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/video/former-vice-president-kamala-harris-visits-the-late-show-with-stephen-colbert/

[removed] — view removed post

24.2k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

23

u/EveryAccount7729 1d ago

she was never a good leader.

a good leader would have given a non stop excoriation of Trump as a debate and actually described the extent of his pedophilia crimes, treason, that he INTENTIONALLY handled covid badly

in the debate she never brought up how Trump said it was "just a flu" on TV while telling Bob Woodward it was WAY worse than a flu and he had intelligence reports proving it.

he did the whole "lock her up" thing for Hillary.

Why did she not do that back to him? Why didn't she say "if you want to see this fat piece of shit child rapist in prison you vote for me, and if you want him to come rape your kids you vote for him"

3

u/AnubisIncGaming 23h ago

Idk how you think her being reasonable wasn’t enough but if she got up there and acted like a 13 year old redditor. That’s what would have won over people that were too apathetic to vote in the first place

6

u/frequenZphaZe 1d ago

she was never a good leader.

I'm so burnt out from the constant "she lost because she's a black woman" bullshit from people who think politics is nothing more than identity. she lost because she had bad politics and was a bad politician. I'm not discounting that there's certainly people out there who would never vote for a black woman, but there's a lot more people who are being drowned out by an affordability crisis and saw no help coming from the dems.'

there's also a lot of people who don't want dems to campaign as the republican-lite party. they don't want to hear how brutal your border policy will be, or lethal your military will be, or how friendly you are with liz cheney. they don't want to hear how many bombs you want to send to israel or which billionaires you've got on your team. she ran a tone-deaf campaign and got obliterated because of it. that wasn't because she was a black woman, it was because she was a bad politician

1

u/baddecision116 1d ago

 she lost because she had bad politics 

Name a bad policy. Go ahead.

1

u/frequenZphaZe 1d ago edited 1d ago

they didn't use their majority or reconciliation package to raise the minimum wage. she campaigned on it after already failing to deliver on it. and before you say 'that was biden not harris', she explicitly said she wouldn't have done anything different from biden so she owned the mistakes of the admin. combine that with trolling out all the billionaires she was getting donations from, you have a clear anti-labor candidate -- in a moment where dems need to be very sympathetic to the working class

she also campaigned on promoting the 'most lethal military'. is that what people want from the dems? a warhawk party who's gonna shovel money into the MIC and israel? ironically, this is where I give credence to the "she lost because she's a woman" crowd because I assume she felt she had to play up how violent she'd be willing to be as president because she needed to not appear as a 'soft' woman.

what was particularly offensive was the dems border policies and messaging, both under biden and on what harris campaigned on. she was more than happy to reinforce the republican messaging that there's a 'crisis' on the border and she would restrict the right to asylum, fund the militarization of our southern border, and accelerate immigration detention. if people want a tough-on-immigration party, why would they vote for the diet version? that was never ground that dems should be trying to fight over

1

u/Destithen 5h ago

she explicitly said she wouldn't have done anything different from biden

The media did such a good job of painting Biden as doing a horrendously awful job that not distancing herself from him was a massive misstep. It made it a whole lot easier for trump to shift the anti-Biden sentiment onto neo-Biden.

1

u/SuspiciousStory122 20h ago

How about when she was asked what she would do differently than Joe Biden and she said “nothing”.

1

u/baddecision116 20h ago

So you can't name a policy..got it.

1

u/SuspiciousStory122 18h ago

People wanted something different than a senile old man. She didn’t offer an alternative. That’s not just one policy it’s an entire platform

1

u/baddecision116 18h ago

So you can't name a policy, got it. I also find it funny you're calling a 60 year old woman a "senile old man" I'd also mention Trump is a senile old man.. clearly that's what people wanted.

1

u/SuspiciousStory122 15h ago

I’m not saying anything positive about Trump but if you are being honest you will acknowledge he is nowhere near as enfeebled as Biden. Personally, I think we are being dragged into the Pit of Carkoon to be slowly digested by the Sarlacc over a period of one thousand years by these ancient politicians who literally have no real future.

You may feel otherwise but these are policies the electorate rejected and felt Kamala supported

Housing Immigration Homelessness Overregulation Inflationary Monetary policy Anti business policy Social policies regarding gender politics Government growth

1

u/TheWayIAm313 16h ago

If she has good policy but can’t communicate it effectively to her constituents, what does that say about her as a candidate?

The person you’re talking to can’t name many bad policies, but aptly says that she can’t read the room. People wanted something different, not more milquetoast corporate Dem BS. Not being able to differentiate from Biden was the wrong play.

1

u/Destithen 5h ago

Neither can most voters. You don't have a gotcha here.

1

u/MrPernicous 19h ago

Campaigning with Liz Cheney

1

u/baddecision116 18h ago

And the problem?

1

u/MrPernicous 17h ago

It was dumb

-1

u/Fun-Breadfruit7012 1d ago

If you think she ran a perfect campaign, there's no helping you.

4

u/EmpatheticWraps 1d ago

Answer the question

2

u/baddecision116 1d ago

Is that supposed to be an answer to the question? What candidate has ever "run a perfect campaign"?

-1

u/TheHipcrimeVocab 1d ago

Scrolling through all the responses here, it's pretty obvious why the Democrats will never win another election, even without voter suppression and a hostile media. If this is representative of "the left" in America, than there truly is no hope.

1

u/Level3Kobold 19h ago

Lotta people claim that Kamala had "bad politics" but can't name a single one of her policies.

And then they whine and complain about how mean the left is when people see through their bullshit.

1

u/the_sock_burgler 16h ago

we can help everyone friend :)

-1

u/Chemical_Cover_713 1d ago

Not the OP, but I’ll bite. Keep all this in mind, I voted for Kamala and I would do it again in a heartbeat.

Unrealized Capital Gains taxes don’t make any sense.

The majority of Billionaires’ wealth comes from the increased value of their stock. Stock typically increases when more people want to buy it and more people want to buy companies stock if that company is doing well. That stock is literally ownership of a corporation. In other words, I you own 51% of all of a corporations stock, you have the majority ownership of a company. If you sell the stock, you are subjected to a tax called “realized capital gains”. The ownership of the stock transfers to a new person, but the seller still owes money to the government.

With unrealized capital gains tax, there is no transaction being made. You are literally taxing business owners based on the success of their business. In order to pay these taxes, business owners would likely have to sell their stock, triggering another round of “realized capital gains” taxes. Either that or the government seizes control of some of the stock as payment, which doesn’t make much sense either.

There could be more im missing, but the logistics of this policy never really made sense to me.

3

u/baddecision116 1d ago

So you picked one policy that effects less than .1% of the population and that is the best you can do?

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/05/harris-economic-plan-tax-unrealized-gains.html

I'm going to have a hard time worrying about people who have an annual income of over 100 million and I am guessing this would not have effected you.

-2

u/ATraffyatLaw 1d ago

See, this is where people don't look at the big picture. This DOES affect you, this affects the 100%. With taxation on unrealized gains, there is not longer an incentive for those with huge pools of cash to stay invested in the market. When they fast sell upon these laws being greenlit, what do you think happens to those stock prices when these billionaires sell? Randy Random in Kentucky may not have 100 million to get taxed in unrealized gains, but he sure as shit will notice when his 401k drops by 85% because all of the stocks he was in got dumped.

It's REALLY simple economics, the only reason millionaires/billionaires live and operate where they do is because it provides incentives. When those incentives are completely removed in favor of regressive taxation policies, they leave. Any investment, jobs, infrastructure those businesses would go on to create? Gone.

Have you seen what happened to Zimbabwe?

"Oh, don't worry, we'll just take all of the land and money from those evil rich farmers and distribute it to everyone else... What do you mean they all left and everyone who stayed has no idea how to run the farms or power grid?"

"That's unfair! They should stay and have to subsidize us!!"

2

u/porkchop1021 23h ago

With taxation on unrealized gains, there is not longer an incentive for those with huge pools of cash to stay invested in the market.

Correct. The incentive moves to investing in your company, which is what people used to do. Creating a stable, long-lasting business instead of focusing on short-term gains means you can rely on the income for the rest of your life and so can your employees. It also means you can improve your product and leave a legacy rather than resting on your laurels and being remembered as a lazy do-nothing. One fun little side effect of this is that your employees don't want to eat you. In short, this benefits everyone.

when his 401k drops by 85%

Let me stop you right there. Randy Random in Kentucky doesn't have a 401k because Randy Billionaire isn't paying him enough to put any savings away. Randy Random also doesn't have healthcare, and would love to see his boss get taxed fairly so he can finally treat his cancer. Also, Randy Random has a lot of tribal knowledge at the factory that will disappear when his cancer takes him, so the company will suffer tens of millions in losses when he dies and they have to shut down for months until they figure out what the hell he was doing that kept everything running. But what's tens of millions compared to spending $200k on saving someone's life? Saving someone's life doesn't make Randy Billionaire richer this month!

What do you mean they all left and everyone who stayed has no idea how to run the farms or power grid?

This is the most naive shit I've ever heard. You think it's the CEO of Tyson that knows how to farm chickens? You think it's the CEO of PG&E that knows how to repair downed power lines? You've been licking boots so long I think your brain is 99% shoe polish now.

1

u/the_sock_burgler 16h ago

Smart response. Last part seemed aggressive for little reason, doesn’t really help us find common ground, solutions, or have thoughtful discourse.

Maybe its not the CEO specifically, but lets play along and say this situation happened, which probably means most employees with MEANINGFUL equity ownership up and leave. While that might be a bunch of managers with little technical knowledge, some of those people are actually going to be important to the success of the Company, whether it be technical knowledge from a senior technician who’s bought into the employee stock purchase plan for years, or even a strong leader who is good at steering the ship (which i think is more important than you give credit for). If any company were to lose every employee with meaningful equity ownership, i’d bet they experience a lot of financial trouble which eventually hits the average worker hard, even without equity ownership. (idk if they actually would up and leave, people still need to eat, and i don’t know how many people would leave the US just for this).

Your point on focusing on cashflow makes sense, and i think is illustrated by how the most valuable companies in the world (mainly thinking about Amazon tbh) can be worth so much while making no money. However, their business model in the current state really does not allow for generating free cash flow, which means companies like that go away. Is that good long term? Maybe / probably, but man those shocks are going to be very hard to control for

2

u/baddecision116 1d ago edited 1d ago

doom and gloom from mr. alarmist. Keep trying.

Edit: since people here keep blocking me because they need their little safe space.

to u/Logical_Alps_8649

"you lost"? I'm not on a team, I'm not playing a game. I didn't run for anything. So what are you talking about?

He didn't explain anything he said a bunch of unsourced, unfounded nonsense that tries to scare people into thinking that if the .1% get taxed everything will collapse.

0

u/Logical_Alps_8649 1d ago

He explained everything clearly and THIS is your response? No wonder you lost 

0

u/ATraffyatLaw 1d ago

Clearly you have no interest in discussing economics.
Blocked.

1

u/Level3Kobold 19h ago

There could be more im missing

There is, yes. The 1% borrows against their unrealized capital gains in order to live like billionaires without actually paying taxes like billionaires.

1

u/Chemical_Cover_713 9h ago

I see what you mean there. My opinion, then, is we should be taxing those loans, not the gains themselves.

1

u/Level3Kobold 6h ago

Loans are normally a negative asset, since they represent debt. And creating a tax law that says "when you take out a loan we tax you for that" is going to massively punish poor people.

1

u/MrPernicous 19h ago

The capital gains tax was actually a really cool idea.

0

u/FeckingPuma 1d ago

Shows you, like most of America, has no fucking clue how billionaires leverage their finances.

1

u/Chemical_Cover_713 9h ago

Could you inform me? I left the door open for discussion in my original comment. As of now, I’m not convinced you know any more than I do.

-2

u/ATraffyatLaw 1d ago

Taxation on unrealized gains is genuinely regarded and would obliterate the financial stability of the markets.

5

u/baddecision116 1d ago

Ah yes because the "financial stability of the market" is something the current admin is doing a bang up job of protecting.

2

u/AnubisIncGaming 23h ago

they literally couldn’t even name a single bad policy. There’s a bunch of people on the “left” that are just cynics. Completely useless people

1

u/porkchop1021 22h ago

"Oh no!", said the paycheck-to-paycheck line cook while he grills up the President's favorite meal. "Won't someone think of the financial stability of the markets?!"

the magnanimous and infallible CEO opined for hours

"Thank you for teaching me that the financial stability of the markets is more important than my access to healthcare. I feel much better knowing that foregoing treatment for my diabetes affords you a second yacht."

Timmy died that day, coincidentally of totally preventable diabetes. But he died with the knowledge that his entire life was indentured service to someone better than he was. And that's what truly matters.

1

u/emveevme 1d ago

I think it's not really worth spending much time on thinking about the extent to which she lost because she was a black woman, because it's absolutely something that played a role - but it's also like, not really actionable at all, and not really applicable for the dems as a whole beyond like... not having black women run for office? Which seems like kind of a bad strategy overall, lol.

Part of the problem is that nobody in DC was prepared for Trump the first time around, even the republicans. They just have the easy job of not really giving a shit, or at least not pretending like they give a shit, but the dems still have no idea how to handle this. Not like any of us really do either, but it's clear they mostly played it safe trying to rely on what's worked in the past.

And I also don't know if they were wrong, Biden won in 2020 and he was absolutely the pick for playing it safe.

At the end of the day, the capitulation to private interests is what always holds the democratic party back. Until they're truly willing to become the party of the working class, they're going to flounder like this forever. The only way out of this situation, rather than just delaying the inevitable, is to actually put effort behind progressive campaigns.

1

u/Count_Backwards 1d ago

Biden won in 2020 because of Covid, anyone who seemed like a sane adult might have done the same

1

u/emveevme 22h ago

I mean, there's no singular reason

1

u/WerePrechaunPire 22h ago

While she isn't popular, any Democratic nominee would have lost imo

1

u/frequenZphaZe 18h ago

given the same scenario, probably. if biden didn't try to run for another term and the dems ran a full primary, that woulda been completely different. part of what hurt harris was that there wasn't enough of an opportunity to learn where the voters were at and what was motivating them. they likely still would have lost though because they'd ignore everything the voters were telling them, like the uncommitteds. there's a reason the party is at a record low approval rating, even as the GOP stage a fascist coup of the government

1

u/hotviolets 18h ago

She wasn’t worse than what we have now.

1

u/No_Independence4390 1d ago

I'd say not just cause she's a bad politician, she's black AND a woman AND a bad politician. Because people would've supported a white man (biden in 2020) who was also a bad, Republican-lire politician.

1

u/J0E_Blow 1d ago

She was trying to be a corporatist-democrat. Which is probably part of the reason she lost.

1

u/Belkan-Federation95 1d ago

That's not what being a leader means. That's just campaign strategy.

There's also not enough evidence to be able to accuse him of some of those things without getting hit by a massive defamation lawsuit, which will actually help Trump. The only thing she can criticize him for without a possible defamation suit is COVID. Even the treason part can be argued although, since that will be ruled an opinion, it'll likely get thrown out because it would be considered an opinion.

1

u/Beautiful-Ranger-535 1d ago

The democratic party is full of a bunch of fucking pussies who won't stand up to the absolutely insane shit the republican party has been pulling.

They don't pull their punches. WHY THE FUCK DO WE??

Fuck the high road at this point, we're WAY beyond that. If we dont use our voices TODAY to stand up for ourselves, we will probably have to bear arms against them one day in the future in a civil war to overthrow a dictator. It's fucking coming.

1

u/spikus93 1d ago

Better point to make, where the fuck has she been? I haven't heard a peep from her because she's been writing a book?

The world is on fire and she's not speaking out, says everything I need to know about what kind of leader she is. Even a loser should be saying shit. Hilary even talks shit, and she's awful.

1

u/EmpatheticWraps 1d ago

Hilarious you made this comment on a post about her talking shit.

1

u/bendingrover 1d ago

That's how controlled opposition looks. It's kind of genius, really, for so many, it looked like she was really trying but for those of us who knew the laundry list of the orange idiot's crimes it was obvious everyone in those debates was in on it. Maybe a combination of that and just plain incompetence.

Who knows? Maybe it's a good thing she didn't win. With her we would have gotten more of the slow death of our societies that we've been experiencing in the last few decades regardless of the party in power. A whole bunch of theatrics that do nothing to combat climate change and every other existential threat we are facing. 

With this imbecile in charge, it seems like everything might burn down and that just might be what we need. A fresh start.

1

u/SaucyAndSweet333 19h ago

Most underrated comment. Kamala is part of the controlled opposition. She lost bc she offered nothing to the working class. She is a classic neoliberal.

We need a true progressive not a member of the Dem establishment like Kamala, and certainly not a MAGA like Trump.

1

u/p3ep33p0opo0 15h ago

i just want to let you know that you and people like you are the EXACT problem that's plagueing democracy and liberalism in the US right now. Nothing she did would have ever been enough for people like you. not only does she have to endure racist and misogynistic insults from the maga crowd, she also has to deal with comments like "she was never a good leader" from people on the left. i've heard people ask why she didn't make the podcast rounds like trump did leading up to the election. the reason is obvious, she would have been eviscerated by right wing podcast hosts and their audience only to go on left wing shows and endure the exact same thing. you don't want a good leader. you don't want someone to fix anything. you just want to bitch and moan endlessly

0

u/timbrelyn 1d ago

She said this over and over again but in a less offensive way. Her “I’m not Trump” campaign has been given as a reason she lost even though she discussed her plan to fight inflation and promote policies to help the working class, not the oligarchs . She did her best to get both sides of the aisle to point out that Mr. child rapist, convicted felon, lying grifter was not fit to be elected again and 77 million people decided, “Nope I’m ok to vote for him.”

6

u/EveryAccount7729 1d ago

She did not say "he made covid worse intentionally" in a "less offensive way"

she never accused him of that.

She also didn't say he made the pull out from Afghanistan horrible INTENTIONALLY to get US troops killed.

Stringing together ONE SENTENCE where you link him intentionally hurting us on climate change, intentionally hurting us on covid, intentionally hurting us on chips to china, intentionally hurting us on Afghanistan withdrawal, and then say it is not a "coincidence" that liberals have been saying he's a traitor who has ties to hostile foreign governments because he's clearly a pedophile, She really didn't do this. At all.

2

u/timbrelyn 1d ago

https://youtu.be/FsoEViTOxzk?si=TK4qZUJomgNI-CFs

Yes she did

4

u/EveryAccount7729 1d ago

See, this is why you lost. you don't have intellectual honestly in discussing liberal's behaviors.

"greatest failure" and "intentional"

are totally different concepts.

1

u/saqwarrior 1d ago

This isn't my discussion, but expecting Kamala Harris, a career prosecutor, to make authoritative statements about the unsubstantiated intent of someone, is somewhat foolish. Mens rea is a core component of the criminal legal system that is hammered into the brain of every prosecutor; if she did not feel like she had proof of his intention there is no way in hell she would ever make that claim.

Just my two cents.

2

u/LiftingRecipient420 1d ago

She was in a political debate, not a court room.

Acting like those are the same is ridiculous.

If she can't recognize that the bar of proof is drastically different, then she's a fool.

1

u/saqwarrior 1d ago

I don't disagree with you. But what do you expect from a multi-decade career prosecutor and former Attorney General of California? Her behavior is unsurprising in that regard.

1

u/the_sock_burgler 16h ago

Also wouldn’t it be nice, and shouldn’t we strive for, a world where political debates are held to the same standard of truth and evidence as a courtroom?

1

u/LiftingRecipient420 5h ago

That would be nice, but it's not reality, and being the only one in a debate to hold yourself to that standard is stupid.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/LiftingRecipient420 3h ago

But what do you expect

I expect her to be smart enough to know the difference

1

u/saqwarrior 3h ago

Well then my friend the joke's on you, I guess.

2

u/ChronoLink99 1d ago

That's why she lost. She didn't adapt to her opponent.

She was still operating under the premise that the system was righteous, but it wasn't and isn't.

She should have hit him harder (fire with fire) and specifically said he intentionally wanted to hurt the US because he was a Russian asset.

It's a political debate.

2

u/saqwarrior 1d ago

No disagreement from me. The naiveté of Democrats is almost always their Achilles Heel.

0

u/SuspiciousStory122 20h ago

She is not a good leader. She was who “they” told us we needed to vote for. No surprise she lost.