Now that she's the official nominee, is anyone else excited about Kamala Harris's chances?

I was thinking exactly this yesterday @poetryandwine - “weirdo” badges may even become a thing.

Please evidence this claim

This is false. Several jurors were independents and at least one said he got his news from Truth Social, or whatever Trump’s network is called. The vote to convict was unanimous

Please address the more important issue that Trump is blatantly threatening to do everything he can to get the upcoming election overturned if he doesn’t like result

A jury of democrats

Also and more importantly, Trump is the only presidential candidate advocating to overthrow democracy in America

The judiciary didn’t convict Trump. That was a jury of his peers

I corrected the post and said biased

Trump says Walz is going to Unleash Hell On Earth 😳

https://youtube.com/shorts/2a6oQnQOpb8?si=-KxXc5IMrtT_tzg7

Biased judiciary

Many people see his conviction as the Biden admin weaponizing the justice system to take out a political opponent. There is a school of thought that these convictions will encourage black males to his side as they feel they have been the victim of an unbiased judiciary as well

She is absolutely dreadful. 100% fake. Hope she doesn't win, total pain in the neck.

And pretends to have nothing to do with Project 2025, when he has everything to do with it... given over 140 people who worked for him in his Administration.. wrote it.

If he gets in, it's the end of democracy in the US.

I didn’t know these details, @3CustardCreams and I will resesarch them.

But they do not change the fact that her opponent is a convicted felon who advocates the overturning of democracy.

Kamala Harris's judicial record is impressively bad. It goes far beyond what some would just write off as "rookie mistakes"; showing a severe problem that has be present and undeniable her entire career as a Prosecutor.
To start - her record as the district attorney of San Fransisco (2004-2011). In 2010 Harris was accused of withholding information from a courtroom, violating the defendant's constitutional rights.
Harris championed legislation that would prosecute parents of children who were habitually truant in elementary school. Grades K-5. This disproportionately effected low income students and furthered their disadvantage.
In 2014, she spoke out against a federal judge in Orange County who ruled the the death penalty was unconstitutional. The ACLU and several Public Defender's in California condemned Harris for this and future actions of hers.
In her further career, these problems persisted.
She stood against propositions to make certain felonies become misdemeanors, laughed at the idea of legalizing Marijuana, and opposed legislation that would require state wide body cam wearing by officers.
She has a history of wrongful conviction cases which I wont get into all the details but please read the the articles for more information.
Harris has also an incredibly high incarceration rate of African American males for crimes such as smoking Marijuana. 1,500 to 2,000 convictions are the most common results I have seen. She has often dismissed cases regarding complaints against an officer, withehld evidence from a man on death row, and has continued to keep wrongfully convicted felons in jail.
You can come to your own conclusions about Harris and again, I understand the historical significance of her role. But that is not something to focus on when choosing a candidate or person to support. Actions will always speak louder than words, and these actions show a lot.
If you like her policies, go ahead, but dont do the whole Identity Politics thing.
Citations:
Kamala Harris Was Not a ‘Progressive Prosecutor’ https://nyti.ms/2RVs0b2
‘Progressive Prosecutor’: Can Kamala Harris Square the Circle? https://nyti.ms/2UQEmyX

Firstly, OP has given you numbers and facts on this, @3CustardCreams

Secondly, I said correctly that only one candidate is a convicted felon. Trump has been found guilty of far worse than using weed, by a jury of his peers. He has also been found guilty of sexual assault in civil court and a $5M judgement was made against him. Then there is the fact that he awaits trial on the question of his role in the 6 Jan uprising, and in Georgia also.

As against the fact that Harris has informally admitted to using weed, like the majority of her generation. How can anyone find these comparable?

If you’re gonna call trump a felon you might aswell call Harris a criminal aswell.
She convicted thousands of people for marijuana violations sending many of them to prison. Despite admitting to having used marijuana previously herself. Doesn’t that make her a criminal by her own standards? Terrible terrible prosecutor

However the choice is binary. Only one candidate is a convicted felon who has already suggested strongly that unless he wins he will foment discontent over election results, and told a large gathering of evangelical Christians that ‘this will be the last time you need to vote’.

If this election focused on merit, Harris wouldn’t qualify to be a candidate. And neither would Trump to be fair. She isn’t good at her job and her record as a prosecutor is awful.

I would love to see this election focus on merit. Harris has it all over Old Orange Felon

The fact that some mumsnet commenter looks at the former Attorney General of California, Senator from California, and Vice President of the United states and only sees race and gender doesn’t mean she is not a representative of meritocracy. She is both an inspirational figure who represents the best of a plural society and also a fine candidate in her own right.

Surely these should not be the qualifiers required to become POTUS. The only requirements should be whether you are competent, intelligent, a good communicator and leader. Race/gender is irrelevant. Why can’t things just be a meritocracy 🤷🏼‍♀️