California Governor: Harris vs Jenner

DrHuk&Duck

DrHuk&Duck

Active member
Elect
Joined
Nov 5, 2024
Messages
183
Reaction score
91
Points
28
Location
Florida
I suppose it causes a bit of a moral and philosophical dilemma for those who are ardent supporters of never voting third party….
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
Kamala Harris could already have an opponent if she runs for Governor
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ty-opponent.html?ito=native_share_article-top
http://Kamala Harris could already have an opponent if she runs for Governor

Unless you live in California, none of us have to worry about this, but hypothetically, if these are the two names on the ballot, whom would you support?
Click to expand...
i would vote for jenner.... and why not?...... we would not be electing the famous olympian formerly know as bruce to lead the opening prayer at the midnight christmas eve service... it would be to the governors office... a state position.... .. and remember... regardless of what he did to himself - jenner does claim to be a christian and is a lot more conservative than kamala harris.... now.. whether or not you believe jenner is a christian... or doubt whether he could even be a christian ..... the fact remains he does support many christian conservative beliefs and christian friendly policies in government.....

kamala harris on the other hand hates christians.... does not even attempt to hide it ... ... and the belief system she has expressed through out her political career is that of an authoritarian marxist........

DrHuk&Duck said:
I suppose it causes a bit of a moral and philosophical dilemma for those who are ardent supporters of never voting third party….
Click to expand...
for me it doesn;t present a dilemma at all..... it;s still a matter of voting for the lesser of 2 evils among the viable candidates..... .and i would still be using my vote to make it harder for the candidate representing the greater of those evils to win.....

with jenner as the governor of california there would be a transgender running the government who believes it is wrong to even allow children under 18 to change their gender much less allow the schools to influence them in that choice........ he would support parental rights on that issue....

with harris as governor california would have a communist running the government that would allow schools to recruit for the lgbtq-rsp etc... and make hundreds of children all over the state transgender without their parents even knowing about it.... . and if the parents tried to object they would be thrown in jail.......

which is worse?......
 
Last edited:
A transvestite running as a "conservative"? Give me a break.
 
aleshanee said:
i would vote for jenner.... and why not?...... we would not be electing the famous olympian formerly know as bruce to lead the opening prayer at the midnight christmas eve service... it would be to the governors office... a state position.... .. and remember... regardless of what he did to himself - jenner does claim to be a christian and is a lot more conservative than kamala harris.... now.. whether or not you believe jenner is a christian... or doubt whether he could even be a christian ..... the fact remains he does support many christian conservative beliefs and christian friendly policies in government.....

kamala harris on the other hand hates christians.... does not even attempt to hide it ... ... and the belief system she has expressed through out her political career is that of an authoritarian marxist........


for me it doesn;t present a dilemma at all..... it;s still a matter of voting for the lesser of 2 evils among the viable candidates..... .and i would still be using my vote to make it harder for the candidate representing the greater of those evils to win.....

with jenner as the governor of california there would be a transgender running the government who believes it is wrong to even allow children under 18 to change their gender much less allow the schools to influence them in that choice........ he would support parental rights on that issue....

with harris as governor california would have a communist running the government that would allow schools to recruit for the lgbtq-rsp etc... and make hundreds of children all over the state transgender without their parents even knowing about it.... . and if the parents tried to object they would be thrown in jail.......

which is worse?......
Click to expand...
Great answers. I know it might sound like a silly hypothetical, but I think for those of us on the forum under 50 years old, this might be exactly the type of voting dilemma we’ll face in the coming decades.
 
For the record, I’m not really sure how I’d vote. I definitely would not vote for Harris. I’d have to decide between voting for Jenner or voting for a third party candidate. I’ve always felt that the two-party system can only be changed by people being willing to “sacrifice a vote” in elections. Maybe that mentality doesn’t help me, but perhaps future generations will see the difference.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
For the record, I’m not really sure how I’d vote. I definitely would not vote for Harris. I’d have to decide between voting for Jenner or voting for a third party candidate. I’ve always felt that the two-party system can only be changed by people being willing to “sacrifice a vote” in elections. Maybe that mentality doesn’t help me, but perhaps future generations will see the difference.
Click to expand...
The day the red boys and girls abandon the life issue is the day my pragmatism turns to principle and I vote 3rd party, sorta with the pragmatic hopes that you allude to about future voters.
 
ALAYMAN said:
The day the red boys and girls abandon the life issue is the day my pragmatism turns to principle and I vote 3rd party, sorta with the pragmatic hopes that you allude to about future voters.
Click to expand...
Well said. I'd include the transgender thing in that as well.
 
ALAYMAN said:
The day the red boys and girls abandon the life issue is the day my pragmatism turns to principle and I vote 3rd party, sorta with the pragmatic hopes that you allude to about future voters.
Click to expand...
I’m strongly leaning in your direction.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
Kamala Harris could already have an opponent if she runs for Governor
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ty-opponent.html?ito=native_share_article-top
http://Kamala Harris could already have an opponent if she runs for Governor

Unless you live in California, none of us have to worry about this, but hypothetically, if these are the two names on the ballot, whom would you support?
Click to expand...
It would simply mean that Sodom had won, and I wouldn't vote. I'd prepare for suffering.
 
Ekklesian said:
It would simply mean that Sodom had won, and I wouldn't vote. I'd prepare for suffering.
Click to expand...
Fair enough…I believe I would exercise my right to vote as long as constitutionally possible, even if it meant a protest vote for a candidate with no chance of winning.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
Fair enough…I believe I would exercise my right to vote as long as constitutionally possible, even if it meant a protest vote for a candidate with no chance of winning.
Click to expand...
Been there, done that. Always during primaries. So far, I've never felt the need to exercise this option during general elections.
 
abcaines said:
Been there, done that. Always during primaries. So far, I've never felt the need to exercise this option during general elections.
Click to expand...
I’ve been a registered Independent for a couple decades, but have voted Republican for many years (normally straight ticket). However, I’ve recently felt like I need to switch my registration to Republican so I have a greater voice in the primaries, which I think is pretty much what you’re indicating. Democrats have little chance in the area I live, but there’s an assortment of Republicans who run in the primaries who range from liberal to conservative.
 
I guess someone like Ronald Reagan or George Deukmejian are completely unelectable in California these days? Cali was a great place to live back in the 1980s!
 
Baptist Renegade said:
I guess someone like Ronald Reagan or George Deukmejian are completely unelectable in California these days? Cali was a great place to live back in the 1980s!
Click to expand...
The decline began under Pete Wilson. A purported Republican...
 
abcaines said:
The decline began under Pete Wilson. A purported Republican...
Click to expand...
I would agree. Never liked Pete Wilson. He's the poster child of RINO Republicans. "Ah-nuld" wasn't much better either and I guess both paved the way for all of the lunacy in Sacramento ever since!
 
ALAYMAN said:
The day the red boys and girls abandon the life issue is the day my pragmatism turns to principle and I vote 3rd party, sorta with the pragmatic hopes that you allude to about future voters.
Click to expand...


although it is the most important issue.... it is not the only issue ..... ... and we already spent many decades when the battle was all but lost as democrats went about pretending row vrs wade was established law... and republicans refused to put up any real fight but kept the issue alive in their speeches for the sake of fund raising..... but even then we didn;t abandon a viable candidate that stood for other issues and represented the lesser evil - to vote for a 3rd party candidate whose campaign served only to cement the victory of the worst evil.... ..... ... ...i know many people here see it differently... but for me it would be like giving up the fight and wrapping myself in 3rd party pipe dreams - favorite comfy blankets and waiting for the end to come...... i can;t do that.....

however.... if 3rd party candidates who support pro-life and other christian issues becomes viable and can serve as more than just election spoilers some day... then i will vote for them.... ..... but so far even the 3rd party candidate who garnered more support than any other in a hundred years did nothing but usher in the worst case scenario for the perot brand conservatives who voted for him .... his supporters as well as republicans who voted for bush got bill clinton and liberal polices that were the exact opposite of what they claimed to believe in..... and bill clinton took office with only 43% of the popular vote..... ..
 
Last edited:
And now for a more serious response...

Harris would be awful. Evidence: her presidential campaign. She basically ran on one issue–abortion rights–and left the others vague and misleading. She cannot articulately defend or explain her positions. That she is actually a lawyer, a profession that relies significantly on argument and oratory, is surprising and incongruous.

Counterpoint: She can't be worse than Newsom, so there's that.

Jenner is an Olympic medalist, a reality-TV star, and a celebrity transsexual. None of the above qualify him for office. In the latter case, as the highest-profile person ever to claim a transgender identity when he renamed himself "Caitlyn" in 2015, Jenner is probably the person most responsible for mainstreaming and glamorizing the transgender social craze. For maybe a year before that, topics like preferred pronouns, "deadnaming" or "misgendering" circulated on university campuses and progressive-leaning sites like Tumblr. Thanks to Jenner, transgender rights went from being an eccentricity of less than half a percent of the population, to the greatest source of social confusion and upheaval in the last few decades. Jenner is a lunatic. Not gubernatorial material.

Counterpoint: He seems to be a fiscal conservative, so there's that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top