-->
@FLRW
See, you me and IWRA finally agree we are all black. Racism is over.
How Kamala Harris' Indian roots shaped her political views
Posts
Total:
140
-->
@Greyparrot
OK,OK I agree with you.
-->
@FLRW
See, I always knew you were smart.
-->
@Moozer325
@<<<Amber>>>FACT: Mother is Indian/HinduFACT: Dad is Irish/HinduFirst of all, I can’t find those videos that you cited, so I would love to take a look at those.
Judge Joe Brown met her father and explains it clearly: https://youtu.be/kgqynV3cobE
Second, it’s really not that simple. Family trees, especially ones involving raped slaves can get very complicated. It’s still not clear enough to cal anything a fact, but the evidence points to her father being black.
What does the family trees of "raped slaves" have to do with this discussion over Kamala Harris' ancestry?
And no, the evidence does not point to her father being black. Just because he was born in Jamaica doesn't make him black, no more than Elon Musk being born in Africa makes him black. Geography has nothing to do with race, but family lineage does. As you will hear from Judge Brown, her father is not black.
Her great-great grandmother was listed as a “laborer” on her death certificate, which at the time meant slave.
Wrong. That's a term meant 'apprentice' and was given to emancipated slaves and were paid for their labor. Notwithstanding, this is completely irrelevant.
Here’s a quote from the article I cited “According to the family tree, Hamilton Brown Jr. had a son named Hamilton Brown, who, with a woman named Jessian Prince, had a daughter named Christiana Brown. Christiana Brown and Joseph Alexander Harris had a son named Oscar Joseph Harris. Oscar Joseph Harris and Beryl Finegan had Donald Harris. And, finally, Donald Harris married Shyamala Gopalan, and the couple had Kamala”
Yeah, I see where this info came from and it is inconclusive.
Now, I’ll admit that that is taken very out of context. There are some minor discrepancies and holes, but the chances are that it’s more probable she is descended from a slave owner who is listed as having many partners than from anyone else.
Pure speculation that is equally full of holes and discrepancies. You're just repeating the nonsense annotated in that source.
It’s complicated, but it’s more probable that she is black than not black.
Not according to Judge Brown who knew the man personally and got the info about him straight from the proverbial horse's mouth.
Judge Joe Brown met her father and explains it clearly:Not according to Judge Brown who knew the man personally
Who is this guy? Is he like Colonel Sanders?
Joseph Blakeney Brown Jr. (born July 5, 1947), known professionally as Judge Joe Brown, is an American former lawyer and television personality. He is a former Shelby County, Tennessee Criminal Court judge and a former arbiter of the arbitration-based reality court show Judge Joe Brown.
lol, so he’s a reality TV judge. That was the culmination of his prestigious legal career?
In March 2014, Brown was arrested in Memphis, Tennessee, and charged with five counts of contempt of court and getting "verbally abusive" during a child support case overseen by Magistrate Harold Horne.
Brown is twice divorced.
Here’s a guy who is a loser both professionally and personally. Naturally a MAGA MORON like Amber would consider him an excellent source of information.
Because she’s a moron
-->
@ILikePie5
Kamala is peaking too early and she isn’t a known entity while Trump is.
Who said she peaked? She's barely had any time at all to campaign.
Trump was winning against Biden with minimal spending.
I would argue biden would still have beaten trump. But yes, he was ahead in the polls. But Trump had spent years and years painting joe biden as old and ineffectual. And while most of what he was saying was lies, alot of it had stuck. He has no time to get that kind of stuff to stick to Kamala. And so far, he's got nothing. All he's doing is showing he doesn't know what a mixed race person is, and that he is super racist.
Trump is a known entity. Negative ads don’t hurt him
Trump is a known entity that is true. But JD vance is a whole new ball game. He is a gold mine of horrible, horrible things. He also ties trump even more to project 2025. The guy who was in charge of project 2025 wrote a book talking about how great it is. JD wrote the foreword for the book. Picking JD as VP makes it even more impossible to pretend Trump doesn't support project 2025. And that is SUPER toxic.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Who said she peaked? She's barely had any time at all to campaign.
She peaked because she’s still an unknown entity, a generic Democrat. When they define her, it will go down. You also have a lot of Dem response bias going around in polls.
I would argue biden would still have beaten trump. But yes, he was ahead in the polls. But Trump had spent years and years painting joe biden as old and ineffectual. And while most of what he was saying was lies, alot of it had stuck. He has no time to get that kind of stuff to stick to Kamala. And so far, he's got nothing. All he's doing is showing he doesn't know what a mixed race person is, and that he is super racist.
He doesn’t need to. All he has to do is tie Biden policies to Kamala. The connection is easy. He can also play with her record as the most liberal Senator in the nation.
Trump is a known entity that is true. But JD vance is a whole new ball game. He is a gold mine of horrible, horrible things. He also ties trump even more to project 2025. The guy who was in charge of project 2025 wrote a book talking about how great it is. JD wrote the foreword for the book. Picking JD as VP makes it even more impossible to pretend Trump doesn't support project 2025. And that is SUPER toxic.
The VP pick historically makes no difference. The President sets policy, not the VP.
-->
@Amber
Judge Joe Brown met her father and explains it clearly
Again with this anecdotal evidence. I go looking through the actual record, or lack thereof, and you find one guy who met her father on a few occasions.
Wrong. That's a term meant 'apprentice' and was given to emancipated slaves and were paid for their labor.
You just used the word “emancipated”. You admitted that her relative was a slave, which basically means she was black, unless I’m forgetting about all the Asian slaves they had in the Caribbean.
Pure speculation that is equally full of holes and discrepancies. You're just repeating the nonsense annotated in that source.
Yes, the records are spotty, but they’re much better than anecdotal evidence, and they do point in the direction of her being black, so even though we can’t know for sure, we can make an educated guess.
Not according to Judge Brown who knew the man personally and got the info about him straight from the proverbial horse's mouth.
If we were in court right now, you would be called out for heresay so fast right now. I have enough evidence to make an educated guess, and you have anecdotal heresay.
-->
@ILikePie5
She peaked because she’s still an unknown entity, a generic Democrat. When they define her, it will go down.
I disagree. All people have heard about her for the last 4 years is occasional negative stories. She's had basically no positive press for years until like a week ago. She hasn't even had a chance to say what policies she supports. Once she has a chance to tell people the stuff she is going to do to actually improve things, she will go up further.
He doesn’t need to. All he has to do is tie Biden policies to Kamala. The connection is easy.
see, that's a problem. Because Biden didn't really have many bad policies. And when it was biden, that was fine. All they had to do was say "things aren't perfect? blame biden he's in charge". But harris isn't in charge. If you want to paint her with bidens failures, they will need to be more specific. And they have nothing.
He can also play with her record as the most liberal Senator in the nation.
lol, that is stupidest thing I've heard in a while. Have you not heard of Bernie Sanders? Or elizabeth Warren?
The VP pick historically makes no difference. The President sets policy, not the VP.
normally this is true. But, like you said, trump is a known quantity. There's nothing to talk about for him. Everyone knows who and what he is. But Vance is new. There's lots to talk about. SOOO many scandals to bring up. From his alleged (and probably false) accusations of being overly familiar with living room furniture, to his hatred of women, to his constantly changing positions (and names), to his calling trump "America's hitler", to his heavy support of project 2025. The list goes on and on. The media is burned out on running negative stories on trump because everyone already knows he's a piece of shit. But vance is new shit territory to talk about.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I disagree. All people have heard about her for the last 4 years is occasional negative stories. She's had basically no positive press for years until like a week ago. She hasn't even had a chance to say what policies she supports. Once she has a chance to tell people the stuff she is going to do to actually improve things, she will go up further.
That’s what I said. She’s undefined/unknown entity. But she has a lot of baggage with her. Especially considering she was rated the more liberal Senator.
see, that's a problem. Because Biden didn't really have many bad policies. And when it was biden, that was fine. All they had to do was say "things aren't perfect? blame biden he's in charge". But harris isn't in charge. If you want to paint her with bidens failures, they will need to be more specific. And they have nothing.
That’s your opinion, not fact. Biden was losing to Trump on virtually every issue.
lol, that is stupidest thing I've heard in a while. Have you not heard of Bernie Sanders? Or elizabeth Warren?
Lol, GovTrack made the rating, and she was literally a Senator from California, the cesspool of liberalism
normally this is true. But, like you said, trump is a known quantity. There's nothing to talk about for him. Everyone knows who and what he is. But Vance is new. There's lots to talk about. SOOO many scandals to bring up. From his alleged (and probably false) accusations of being overly familiar with living room furniture, to his hatred of women, to his constantly changing positions (and names), to his calling trump "America's hitler", to his heavy support of project 2025. The list goes on and on. The media is burned out on running negative stories on trump because everyone already knows he's a piece of shit. But vance is new shit territory to talk about.
And then the story is going to change to something else and everyone will forget about it. Americans have relatively short memories when it comes to politics. Plus recency bias
Lol, GovTrack made the rating, and she was literally a Senator from California, the cesspool of liberalism
The 4th largest economy in the world. Where all the smart, talented rich people live. We can afford to be liberal, we earn a good living. Not like the welfare prone red states.
-->
@ILikePie5
That’s what I said. She’s undefined/unknown entity
no, she isn't an unknown entity. She is an entity where the only things most people knew about her were negative. That is changing quite rapidly.
But she has a lot of baggage with her.
i'm not sure what you mean by that. But I guarantee you JD vance's baggage is much more damaging.
Especially considering she was rated the more liberal Senator.
by who?
That’s your opinion, not fact. Biden was losing to Trump on virtually every issue.
that was based almost entirely on his age and his perceived mental decline. Not because he had bad policy. When you actually list his policies and what they do, they are very popular. That is why it's hard to attack her on Biden's record, because point by point, it was pretty good.
Lol, GovTrack made the rating, and she was literally a Senator from California, the cesspool of liberalism
she was a junior senator for a single year when they made that "ranking". They took it down because they decided that a year of record wasn't enough to determine a ranking. But fox does love talking about that.
And then the story is going to change to something else and everyone will forget about it. Americans have relatively short memories when it comes to politics. Plus recency bias
project 2025 isn't going anywhere. The list of evil, insane shit in there is astounding. And JD ties trump even closer to it. I don't think that story is going away. But you can dream. Also, he's still saying stupid shit, so it's hard to forget something still happening. Like his calling women crazy cat ladies, then when told how offensive and stupid that is, he appologized to the cats.... How braindead do you have to be.
-->
@Moozer325
@<<<Amber>>>Judge Joe Brown met her father and explains it clearlyAgain with this anecdotal evidence. I go looking through the actual record, or lack thereof, and you find one guy who met her father on a few occasions.
Where did Judge Brown say he met the guy "on a few occasions"?
It's firsthand knowledge. It's not "casual" knowledge. It's direct knowledge. Therefore, it is NOT 'anecdotal.'
Wrong. That's a term meant 'apprentice' and was given to emancipated slaves and were paid for their labor.You just used the word “emancipated”. You admitted that her relative was a slave, which basically means she was black, unless I’m forgetting about all the Asian slaves they had in the Caribbean.
I did not admit "her relative was a slave," damn your lack of reading comprehension knows no bounds.
Indians from India have been slaves too. Indians from India were taken to other continents under British control ya know!
Yes, India is in the Asian geographical area, but Indians are NOT "Asians" (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans), so stop with the obfuscation.
Pure speculation that is equally full of holes and discrepancies. You're just repeating the nonsense annotated in that source.Yes, the records are spotty, but they’re much better than anecdotal evidence, and they do point in the direction of her being black, so even though we can’t know for sure, we can make an educated guess.
No, direct personal evidence is better than "anecdotal evidence." Judge Brown met, talked to, and heard it straight from the horses mouth.
Not according to Judge Brown who knew the man personally and got the info about him straight from the proverbial horse's mouth.If we were in court right now, you would be called out for heresay so fast right now. I have enough evidence to make an educated guess, and you have anecdotal heresay.
No, I would not. He knows him personally. Within the definition of hearsay (note, correct spelling here), it is clear that "Evidence that is not within the personal knowledge of a witness," and yet Judge Brown has 'personal knowledge of" what Professor Harris told him directly.
Try again.
-->
@ILikePie5
But she has a lot of baggage with her.i'm not sure what you mean by that. But I guarantee you JD vance's baggage is much more damaging.
Please elaborate.
Walz seems to have a far more damaging baggage background.
-->
@Amber
I did not admit "her relative was a slave," damn your lack of reading comprehension knows no bounds.Indians from India have been slaves too. Indians from India were taken to other continents under British control ya know!Yes, India is in the Asian geographical area, but Indians are NOT "Asians" (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans), so stop with the obfuscation.
Sorry, that was confusing on my part. The Asian thing was a joke. My point was that if you were a slave in the Caribbean, then you are about 99.999999999% of the time, black. Her great grandmother or something was listed as a slave, so that means she was probably black.
No, direct personal evidence is better than "anecdotal evidence." Judge Brown met, talked to, and heard it straight from the horses mouth.
See, the problem with that is that he didn’t actually hear anything, and that’s the point.
In the video he said that he never knew that her father was black, not that her father said he wasn’t black.
And again, that’s not good grounds for evidence. I can say that any person I ever met was any race I wanted, but that wouldn’t make them that race. It’s not evidence, it’s hearsay.
Not that it doesn’t hold some weight, it just doesn’t hold a lot.
Where did Judge Brown say he met the guy "on a few occasions"?It's firsthand knowledge. It's not "casual" knowledge. It's direct knowledge. Therefore, it is NOT 'anecdotal.'
It’s not direct, because it’s through somebody else.
He also said in the video “I’ve met the guy”. That’s pretty vague, but I took that to mean that he has just “met the guy” and doesn’t really know him.
No, I would not. He knows him personally. Within the definition of hearsay (note, correct spelling here), it is clear that "Evidence that is not within the personal knowledge of a witness," and yet Judge Brown has 'personal knowledge of" what Professor Harris told him directly.
Well that’s the thing, he wasn’t super clear on that, but I took it to mean that they had just met each other.
Still when it comes down to it, it’s hearsay from somebody who didn’t hear contradictory to him being black, he just never heard him actually say that he was black.
I’ll take the semi-spotty family history.
-->
@Moozer325
@<<<Amber>>>I did not admit "her relative was a slave," damn your lack of reading comprehension knows no bounds.Indians from India have been slaves too. Indians from India were taken to other continents under British control ya know!Yes, India is in the Asian geographical area, but Indians are NOT "Asians" (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans), so stop with the obfuscation.Sorry, that was confusing on my part. The Asian thing was a joke.
Confusing? I write in crystal clear proper English. Are you not a first English speaker/writer, or are you from some other country so English is you second, third, fourth or whatever language capacity??????????
While India is categorically in the Southeast area of the "Asian" region, Indian from India are NOT "Asian."
If you didn't know this, it's just another point to make that you just don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
My point was that if you were a slave in the Caribbean, then you are about 99.999999999% of the time, black. Her great grandmother or something was listed as a slave, so that means she was probably black.
Wrong. Every race on the planet has been a slave at one point or another throughout human history. That means, since humans can travel, humans from other countries beyond Africa can be taken to other places where even Africans are slaves and be slaves too. That includes Indians from India. DUH!!!
Being listed as an emancipated slaves =/= being black.
No, direct personal evidence is better than "anecdotal evidence." Judge Brown met, talked to, and heard it straight from the horses mouth.See, the problem with that is that he didn’t actually hear anything, and that’s the point.
Can you prove that? Can you prove Judge Brown never met Kamala's father? Didn't have an interpersonal dialogue about one another's background, life and present circumstances?
Yeah, didn't think so.
In the video he said that he never knew that her father was black, not that her father said he wasn’t black.
Nonsensical word salad.
And again, that’s not good grounds for evidence. I can say that any person I ever met was any race I wanted, but that wouldn’t make them that race. It’s not evidence, it’s hearsay.
Nonsensical word salad.
Not that it doesn’t hold some weight, it just doesn’t hold a lot.
You hold nothing in this debate/discussion. That much is conclusively proven.
Where did Judge Brown say he met the guy "on a few occasions"?It's firsthand knowledge. It's not "casual" knowledge. It's direct knowledge.Therefore, it is NOT 'anecdotal.'It’s not direct, because it’s through somebody else.
A box of rocks is more intelligent than you are.
JFC, you clearly know not what you're even trying to argue here.
No, I would not. He knows him personally. Within the definition of hearsay (note, correct spelling here), it is clear that "Evidence that is not within the personal knowledge of a witness," and yet Judge Brown has 'personal knowledge of" what Professor Harris told him directly.Well that’s the thing, he wasn’t super clear on that, but I took it to mean that they had just met each other.Still when it comes down to it, it’s hearsay from somebody who didn’t hear contradictory to him being black, he just never heard him actually say that he was black.I’ll take the semi-spotty family history.
Wasn't clear on that? It doesn't get any clearer than "I met the man" you tard!!!
You lack the academic and professional experience to comprehend that the term "hearsay" even means, let alone utilize correctly.
You're losing this debate, and you know it.
But hey, Like History Buff, keep trying out of sheer desperation and psychological projection. It's rather humorous, really.
Confusing? I write in crystal clear proper English. Are you not a first English speaker/writer, or are you from some other country so English is you second, third, fourth or whatever language capacity??????????While India is categorically in the Southeast area of the "Asian" region, Indian from India are NOT "Asian."If you didn't know this, it's just another point to make that you just don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
No, I never said that. I never said that Indians were Asians. I am so confused about where you though.I said that.
Wrong. Every race on the planet has been a slave at one point or another throughout human history. That means, since humans can travel, humans from other countries beyond Africa can be taken to other places where even Africans are slaves and be slaves too. That includes Indians from India. DUH!!!
Okay, just to make sure we are 100% on the same page, here’s what I meant.
You said that her great great grandmother was an emanated slave in the Caribbean.
Almost all of the slaves in the Caribbean at the time were black.
You are correct that every different race has been a slave at some time, but in specifically the Caribbean at that time period, overwhelmingly all of the slaves were black.
My reference to Asians was sarcasm about how many Asian slaves they had in the Caribbean at the time, which was next to zero, if any.
Does that make sense? I am Sorry for being so unclear though.
Can you prove that? Can you prove Judge Brown never met Kamala's father? Didn't have an interpersonal dialogue about one another's background, life and present circumstances?
Where did you get it that I said he never met Kamala’s father? I never said that.
What I said was in the video you sent “Judge brown said that he never know Kamala’s father was black, because Kamala’s father never said he was black. I never tried to “prove” anything.
Also, you took my quote a little out of context.
Nonsensical word salad.
Look, I’m open to a debate about this, it if you’re just going to keep insulting me like this, and not even listening to my points, then I can’t keep doing this with you.
You hold nothing in this debate/discussion. That much is conclusively proven.
What did I ever do to you that warrants this kind of stuff? Please tell me, because if I unwittingly started this, then I do want to know. From my POV I’m just trying to have a debate about something and then you start saying this.
A box of rocks is more intelligent than you are.JFC, you clearly know not what you're even trying to argue here.
Seriously, I want to continue this debate, but only if we talk about the actual topic. This is just an ad hominem fallacy.
Wasn't clear on that? It doesn't get any clearer than "I met the man" you tard!!!You lack the academic and professional experience to comprehend that the term "hearsay" even means, let alone utilize correctly.You're losing this debate, and you know it.But hey, Like History Buff, keep trying out of sheer desperation and psychological projection. It's rather humorous, really.
What I meant was he wasn’t clear in if he just met the guy once or if he was good friends with him.
You said that they were good friends, and I said that they had just met a few times, and when I reviewed the video, I found he only said “I’ve met the guy” so I don’t think it was very clear.
Anyways, I want to hear what you have to say about this debate, and I hope we can both stick to the topic at hand.
Can you prove that? Can you prove Judge Brown never met Kamala's father?
The proverbial double negative by the MAGA MORON
You're losing this debate, and you know it.
Ne, he’s not. Can you prove that Joe Brown doesn’t think you’re a moron? I didn’t think so.
Fuck off, troll. Never engaging you again. You’re such a loser. Akin to a 5yo. Waste of anyone’s time here.
You’re such a loser.
Yet I’m the one who has been married for decades and has 2 college educated children.
I own multiple single family houses and pay more in taxes annually than you earn over 2 years.
I am obviously not the loser. A loser is lonely and is detached from society. Has no purpose in life and nothing to offer another person or society.
You also say very stupid, very racist things.