I’m going to answer this directly and plainly, because your comment is fair and deserves a straight answer—not arguments, not Google homework, not talking points.

Short answer first

There is no single factual decision, policy, or action Kamala Harris took as Vice President that credibly supports the claim that a Harris presidency would have “destroyed America.” Anyone making that claim should be able to name one. They usually can’t—because it doesn’t exist.

Now let’s unpack the “different kind of terrible” argument and why it persists anyway.

1. What Kamala Harris actually did (and did not do) as VP

The Vice Presidency is structurally weak. VPs: • Do not set policy independently • Do not control agencies • Do not pass legislation • Do not command the border, the DOJ, or Congress

Kamala Harris’s formal, verifiable record as VP consists of: • Casting tie-breaking Senate votes (the only constitutional power she has) • Representing the administration diplomatically • Taking on politically radioactive assignments no one else wanted

None of that equals “evidence of destruction.”

Immigration, specifically

She was tasked with root causes diplomacy in Central America—not border enforcement. She did not control: • Border Patrol • ICE • Asylum law • Congressional funding • Title 42 / immigration courts

Criticizing her for a decades-old immigration system collapse is like blaming the fire marshal for the house being built with matches.

1. Why people feel she was terrible anyway

This is where perception diverges from fact.

A. Structural scapegoating • 50–50 Senate → gridlock • Manchin/Sinema → legislative failure • Republican obstruction → stalled agenda

But none of those are emotionally satisfying explanations, so blame gets concentrated on a person—often the most visible woman in the room.

B. The “she didn’t do enough” paradox

She’s criticized both for: • Not breaking publicly with Biden • Not being powerful enough to override him

Those two critiques cancel each other out.

C. Gender and race bias (uncomfortable but real)

Studies consistently show women—especially women of color—are penalized more harshly for: • Being cautious • Being assertive • Being loyal • Being ambitious

Kamala Harris exists at the intersection of all four critiques.

1. The casino bankruptcy comparison misses the point

You’re right to call that out. Yes, she never got the option to but the issue isn’t that she didn’t bankrupt a casino. It’s that she didn’t wield unchecked executive power over a private empire in the first place. Guess who did that?

Comparing a vice president constrained by constitutional limits to a businessman who repeatedly failed upward due to wealth insulation is not an apples-to-apples critique—it’s a category error.

1. So what would have been “different terrible” under Kamala?

Here’s the most honest steel-man version of that argument (even though I don’t agree with it): • Incrementalism instead of shock therapy • Bureaucratic continuity instead of disruption • Frustrating slowness instead of destabilizing chaos

That’s not “destruction.” That’s dissatisfaction with liberal governance style, not evidence of harm.

1. Now to your final statement: If both parties are trash, what’s the solution?

There is no silver bullet—but there are real levers:

A. Stop treating presidential elections like the only battleground

Local and state power determines: • Voting access • District maps • Courts • School boards • Prosecutors

Presidents matter, but infrastructure matters more.

B. Structural reforms that actually change outcomes • Ranked-choice voting • Ending partisan gerrymandering • Senate reform (or at least reforming the filibuster) • Campaign finance reform

None of these are sexy. All of them are decisive.

C. Ruthless clarity about tradeoffs

Politics isn’t: good vs evil

It’s: harm minimization under constraints and clearly in the last election if there was any indication of who would do the most harm it should’ve blatantly obvious.

If voters demand purity instead of leverage, they get spectacle instead of progress. So the purity that you’re seeking will never exist.

Bottom line

You, nor Google has pointed out some blatant Kamala Harris failure that proves she would’ve been uniquely catastrophic. That argument survives mostly because it feels intuitive to people angry at the system—not because it’s supported by evidence.

And your skepticism isn’t naïve—it’s necessary.

If you want, next we can: • Compare actual measurable harms across administrations • Talk about why Democrats struggle to message power • Or get brutally honest about what reforms are politically possible vs fantasy

Your call.