kamala harris' father outs her as a fraud.

https://thefederalistpapers.org/opin...O3qrZpuZmnDjCU

If Harris’ wants to pay reparation to the descendants of slaves she has a prime opportunity to put her own cash where her mouth is.

She can start by writing checks to the descendants of the Jamaican slaves that her family owned and worked on their own plantations.

If she gets the Democratic nomination Trump will burn her ass with that one.

And Pocahontas Warren can start by sharing wealth from Cherokee and Choctaw Casinos.

I see the big headline, but the story looks to be inconsistent with the headline.. like The National Enquirer is known for.

how is she a Fraud? because her family owned Slaves, and she wants reparations paid? that is not a "fraud". Beto is for reparations, too, and he sent evidence of his Wife's family owning slaves. I don't see where the "fraud" comes into anything.

is your point that Kamala's people owned Slaves, and she claims to be in line to receive reparations? I did not view that in the story.

While it may not be in the linked story, I've seen the Harris/Jamaican slave owning family link reported elsewhere.

That Harris wants others to pay for her family's sins and not her is hypocrisy if not fraud. These Dims need to start dipping into their own pockets and not the public trough.

That Harris wants others to pay for her family's sins and not her is hypocrisy if not fraud. These Dims need to start dipping into their own pockets and not the public trough. Originally Posted by gnadfly

I wouldn't characterize it that way. Harris' family is one of many that owned Slaves, the people who didn't directly benefit as Slave Owners benefitted through lower cotton prices, or whatever.

but.. why waste time and ink debating the merits or reparations, and who should pay and receive? this idea is theoretical only, nothing will come of it. just like the Wall, Trump's wall idea was a metaphor, any thinking person understood that a physical wall paid for by Mexico, was just chatter. the point was to illustrate the problem of illegals flooding the border.

It's a metaphor for what?

I agree no repayment will become presently from reparations and have stated that President Obama could have made it happen but didn't. "That slave ship has sailed."

I don't agree with your "Trump Wall Analogy." It hasn't happened because of Pelosi's Congress and Progressive Judges (to some extent I blame Speaker Paul Ryan.) The whole "MX will pay for it" is just a bargaining chip. It got a new USCAMX treaty. Now if Pelosi would just pass it. But that would make President Trump look effective

I think anyone who is a direct descendant of slave owners should be banned from becoming President.

Trump's family is from Germany so he didn't own slaves or kill Indians, and his father came over before the Nazis took power, so he is clean.

I wouldn't characterize it that way. Harris' family is one of many that owned Slaves, the people who didn't directly benefit as Slave Owners benefitted through lower cotton prices, or whatever.

but.. why waste time and ink debating the merits or reparations, and who should pay and receive? this idea is theoretical only, nothing will come of it. just like the Wall, Trump's wall idea was a metaphor, any thinking person understood that a physical wall paid for by Mexico, was just chatter. the point was to illustrate the problem of illegals flooding the border. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

I strongly disagree. Reparations will never happen because we talk about who, when, and how much. The dems don't care. This is about bamboozling part of the voting public into thinking they care. The only way to expose them is to have them argue the merits.

There has never been a Republican who owned a slave. The 11 democrat states rebelled against the United States the moment the first Republican president tried to take their slaves from them.

95+% of white Americans did not have ancestors living in the United States in 1865.

Dims got them back on the plantation anyway...

There has never been a Republican who owned a slave. The 11 democrat states rebelled against the United States the moment the first Republican president tried to take their slaves from them. Originally Posted by Marshall2.0

actually you're wrong. there have been republicans who owned slaves. Not very many, its a small number.

actually you're wrong. there have been republicans who owned slaves. Not very many, its a small number. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I do not believe that is true. The central tenet of the Republican party at its founding was abolition. While it is true Grant owned a slave before the war, there's no documentation that he belonged to the Republican party before he became a candidate for president in 1868. So, he didn't own a slave while being a member of the Republican party. I know of no instance where an original Republican simultaneously owned slaves. If you know of such and instance, please cite it.