Border Czar backlash
Link to quote: Media suddenly changes its tune on calling Kamala Harris the ‘border czar’ — despite giving her the title (msn.com)
On March 24, 2021, president Biden called on his vp Kamala Harris to take on the crisis on the southern border. At the time the media gave her the title "border Czar." Recently the Trump campaign correctly attacked Harris on her role in trying to fix the mess.
Trump labeled the vice president the “border czar” no fewer than six times in a fiery rally speech Thursday in North Carolina, centering his criticism of her on the overwhelmed asylum system. “Under border czar Harris, illegal aliens are pouring in by the millions and millions and millions,” Trump said, drawing jeers from the crowd as he called Harris “crazy.”
The term, which Republicans has used widely to criticize Harris, traces back to March 2021, when Harris was charged with addressing the surge of Central American migrants, who came mostly from the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, where violence and organized crime have driven millions to flee the region. The terms “czar” and “border czar” did not appear in White House materials, but they caught on among critics.
Trump zeroes in on 'border czar Harris' attack as her campaign pushes back (msn.com)
This issue is the Achilles' heel for democrats. As usual, democrats are all about controlling the narrative, and leftwing media is trying to downplay her role on the border.
The kerfuffle started over an Axios story Wednesday that said Harris “never actually had” the title of “border czar.”
Critics quickly pointed out an April 2021 article on the site that asserted Harris was “appointed by Biden as border czar.”
After being called out, Axios issued an editor’s note to acknowledge that “Axios was among the news outlets that incorrectly labeled Harris a ‘border czar’ back in 2021.”
Media suddenly changes its tune on calling Kamala Harris the ‘border czar’ — despite giving her the title (msn.com)
Harris visited the border a grand total of once and it was a visit to El Paso.
What democrats are trying to do is to get Trump to attack Harris as a DEI hire. They want to use it as a pretext to smear him as a racist.
Donald Trump has led the 2024 race all year, and he leads Kamala Harris today. He leads Harris, who is in the honeymoon period, by 1 point nationally. The glitch in that is that Harris appears to be a worse fit with the Electoral College than Biden was. What good is it for a Democrat to win more votes in California and fewer in Pennsylvania? As a result, Trump’s narrow national lead is a lot stronger than it looks. The good news for Harris is that Barack Obama is now satisfied that she can handle a busy campaign schedule over recent days, and he has now endorsed Harris. There really wasn't time to give democrat voters a choice. As for Donald Trump he should now be able to negotiate a debate with Harris.
In the news:
The U.S. arrested two of the world’s most wanted drug traffickers and accused them of being responsible for the growing presence of fentanyl in the country. They were leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the dominant criminal organizations in Mexico.
Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered California officials to dismantle homeless encampments. The Supreme Court recently gave governments greater authority to do so and it is an important election year.
Biden welcomed Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House and met with relatives of Hamas-held hostages. Later Kamala Harris met with the Prime Minister and expressed support for Israel but said she would “not be silent” about Palestinians’ plight. “We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering,” she said. It is almost as if we had two presidents.
Trump said Israel must end the war quickly, saying it was “getting decimated” by negative publicity. He’s set to meet with Netanyahu today.
The Israeli military said it had retrieved the bodies of five Israelis held in Gaza from a tunnel in an area it previously designated as a humanitarian zone for Palestinian civilians.
Tags
Who is online
523 visitors
Good morning:
JUST IN: Peter Doocy confronts KJP on the now infamous "talking points" card that tells reporters to deny Kamala Harris was ever appointed "Border Czar."
The White House denies any knowledge of these "talking points."
I wonder how bad the WH and the left would freak out if these "talking points" were published for all to see.
Believe it or not, that might just happen.
In the meantime, the media has been able to make a woman look presidential, who only weeks ago was giggling constantly as if to say look at me, I laugh at everything because I have no personality.
They've put in some overtime polishing that turd.
That hasn't changed. Biden vapor locks, she cackles.
They can only act for so long, eventually it all comes out, especially with a hard-core ideologue like Harris.
It is already breaking:
Rep Nannette Baragan (D) (CA) supposedly wrote up those talking points. No confirmation yet
Perhaps she is also "The Laughing Czar"?
Or, more accurately, the "Laughing Czarina"
It is funny how when Biden was the candidate the leftwing media was fine with calling her the "border czar." Now she is the candidate and they don't want her associated with Biden's border policy.
Not really a surprise, is it?
Well thus far it has been a perfect roll-out. The donors gave her $200 million; they wrote her a script which she has the ability to follow, and she crossed every T with the unrelenting help of the media. On the other side the Trump campaign has stayed right on point by pointing to her radical beliefs & record.
As time goes on the voters will take note and say, "oh hell, she is another wacked out lefty."
I hope the swing state independent voters recognize that yielding the power of the presidency to a vindictive, traitorous, narcissistic scoundrel is far worse than having a rational, normal PotUS who is more liberal than Trump.
Do you know who they are?
Many are simply hard-working Americans who are now strangers in their own country.
I would like to believe that they are mostly responsible, rational patriots who can see that Trump should never be given political power and refuse to allow the USA to be run by a rogue PotUS empowered by a cultish political party, emboldened by escaping accountability for his traitorous acts, and empowered by the SCotUS with absolute immunity for core constitutional acts, presumptive immunity for all official acts, and inadmissibility of evidence for any official act.
excuse vme Mark, I thought i had replied to Vic,
your excuse for ANYTHING Trump has done is noted, and not forgiven or forgotten.
Without your education, they may only be able to see how expensive it is to simply feed a family, forget about even owning their own home or being able to walk down a city street in safety. They might just want to return to the Trump years.
Call it a lack of education.
Mark we can only hope.
They say that the election has been reset and Trump and Harris are locked in a tie. I'm trying to remember, but Trump was down by as many as 10 points in some places back in 2016. Maybe it is a good thing the race is so close.
where have i made an excuse for the man ?
I can choose not to be with one , and not for the other at the same time .
and why would i desire forgiveness for choosing not to be behind one parties candidate over the others ?
whats going to happen ? will i lose my birthday ?
I just updated comment, my bad, had a rough night and weekend
Somehow you wound up on a list.
No Vicv, changing avatars viewed through bloodshot groggy eyes, can surprise, as comment was for you
[✘]
Let's hope then that these voters do not think that Trump is going to magically reduce prices and that they recognize that the spike in prices was a result of the pandemic.
Prices and inflation will operate based on normal market forces and a PotUS is not going to materially change that ... especially if the expected change is to reduce prices faster than they are reducing naturally.
Of course I would hope that regardless of any other factor that responsible, rational patriots would refuse to allow a vindictive, traitorous, narcissistic scoundrel to be PotUS.
REMOVED FOR CONTEXT
Is that chart supposed to prove that the pandemic caused inflation?
I direct you to the very left wing Politifact :
PolitiFact | Biden’s American Rescue Plan fueled inflation. So did post-COVID shortages
and this
Build Back Better Bill Would Add to Inflation, Zandi, Holtz-Eakin, Elmendorf Say - Bloomberg
Can Trump work magic?
No, it will take the right Fed Chairman and a few years.
REMOVED FOR CONTEXT
seen and acknowledged , we likely cross posted while the other was responding .
it is what it is .
i dont live in a swing or battlefield state though .
if i did it might make a difference to some .
No, it illustrates that the pandemic triggered inflation and that the effects are receding.
Yep, many here look a nationwide popularity polls when the race will be decided by voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
[✘]
maga congress pissed away the best border/immigration deal they were ever going to get, so that the convicted felon candidate would have an issue to run on...
Amazingly, President Trump was able to secure the border without that bill.
That comment shows that the left doesn't want a border deal, at least not one that protects our country from worthless takers that they can use to expand their base for no other reason than power.
The border deal was for 2500 worthless takers crossing the border a day, Bidens EO limits the worthless takers to 1500 a day, so explain to us how 2500 feral cats a day eating for free is better than 1500 feral cats a day eating for free.
Why do you leave out that there was another "aid package" attached and THAT is why it was shut down?
The bill sucked.
It gave Biden everything he wanted and would do nothing to stem the flow of illegals into the country.
The bill also would allow the Biden administration to hire more BP bus drivers, paper pushers, and 100's of far left immigration judges.
This is what Biden's EO did.
Biden's EO is twice as stringent as the bipartisan border bill; and doesn't cost US taxpayers a dime in new BP, paper pushers, and far left immigration judges.
Compared to
Hmm.. So the "media" didn't call her border czar until pundits started calling her border czar and ...what are you complaining about again?
It was nice having a functioning media for three weeks. The next few months of Harris coverage will make their rapturous adoration of Obama look critical in comparison to make up for it
The Obama honeymoon lasted for 8 years. Doing it for Harris will be a struggle.
More DEI trickery?
Some would say it lasted so long only because of DEI and he is Black!
Barack Obama was well qualified for the office and was a master politician.
What were Obama's qualifications in your opinion?
i thought he was a greenie wet behind the ears freshman community organizer...?
Obviously Vic is not going to answer since it destroys his point, but yes one of the historically remarkable aspects of Obama's rise to the presidency is the very brief, shallow experience he had along the way.
How can anyone think that Obama's qualifications and experience were superior to:
This is how we wind up with scoundrels like Trump getting votes.
The people that voted for him obviously thought his experience was enough or they wanted to be part of "history". They may very well vote for Kamala. Many people did not think he had the experience to be president compared to the others running during the 2008 elections
These are the ones that best show her ability to run the country. They should be explored for her policy and performance. Anything that has changed since then should be explained to the American people and they can decide if she is worth voting for.
Stating the obvious.
Yes, correct.
So basically you have nothing to offer other than the obvious.
The question was:
In other words, the challenge is to show how Obama was more qualified to be PotUS than is Harris in terms of experience.
And I will continue to point out what some think is the "obvious" when I want, obviously they are often missing the point
Since 46 percent of the people thought Obama had the experience to be president and only 16% thought he thought he most the most experience of the 3 main people in 2008 I decided that challenge was a bit ridiculous and irrelevant (Trying to state Obama was less qualified and he became president then Harris must be qualified to be president. Yet if Obama was not qualified and Harris is more qualified than someone that was not qualified you can't really say it shows Harris is qualified, only that she is more qualified than a guy that was not qualified. Get all that?) so I decided to post something that is at least relevant to the 2024 election.
If you want to compare her qualifications to be president it might be better to compare her to the guy she is running against in 2024 and not a guy that ran against different people at a different time. Although it might be tough to say she is better qualified to be president than a guy that was president.
That ignores experience / credentials ... which is what we were talking about.
Are you unaware that Vic initiated this comparison? If you are going to opine in a discussion then at least understand what the discussion is about:
Do you recall saying :
Funny how some folks let the discussion evolve until they can't refute a response.
Feel free to have the last word, my point has been made.
Again, you ignore that Vic made the comparison and I made the challenge. If you have a problem with the comparison, take it up with Vic.
Trump may be 'forced' by expectation, into debating Harris once or twice. It is clearly not something he should be looking forward to.
Such a meeting could be the so called "perfect storm" in Harris' favor. Trump is riddled with ethical and personality flaws that will be a very target rich environment for a prosecutor. The only people who will be calling Trump the winner of such a debate will be the people who dont actually watch it.
Last time Trump went along with all of Biden's conditions.
This time Trump should have a right to negotiate conditions, especially since democrats swapped out their candidate.
So you are advocating for Trump's "right" to interrupt her 50 times. Of course.
I am advocating for fair play.
Do you know the difference between right and wrong?
The right will implement more than that of 50 interpretations, but i doubt Trump wishes any debates with her, as she will in real time be calling out Trump lies. Look for Trump to try and push so many rules favoring him, she may need to bail
What about the CNN debate was not fair play?
They let Trump lie thirty times without correction. You cant get any "fairer" than that.
BTW who is fact checking Kamala?
The Biden campaign set every condition. Shouldn't both campaigns have some say?
Trump wants Fox for the next debate. I think that single demand is worthy of consideration.
yeah. put the debate on FOX with a white supremacist moderator, a thumper moderator, and a neo-nazi moderator, without the benefit of a pesky kill switch on the mics...
They let Trump lie thirty times without correction
Even if that were true, do you know how debates work? The left has now internalized the view that the moderator’s job is to participate in the debate against trump.
All she has to do is say no.
It has to be our way. Then Trump gets to say no.
hopefully not the same who were supposedly fact checking Trump during last debate
Naturally someone who lies every other minute doesnt want to be hindered in that pursuit.
I don't think Fox will hire Joe and Mika.
I heard a whopper Tuesday:
In the first rally of her presidential campaign on Tuesday, presumptive Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris wrongly described parts of the conservative Project 2025 blueprint for a potential second Donald Trump presidency.
The 920-page Project 2025 blueprint was organized by The Heritage Foundation think tank and developed in significant part by people who served in Trump’s administration ; Trump has publicly distanced himself from the initiative , calling unspecified Project 2025 ideas “seriously extreme.” Project 2025’s proposals for right-wing policies and a radical reshaping of the executive branch have become frequent targets of Democratic criticism.
At Harris’ Tuesday rally in Wisconsin, she criticized Trump and “his extreme Project 2025 agenda,” then said : “Can you believe they put that thing in writing? Read it. It’s 900 pages. But here’s the thing. When you read it, you will see Donald Trump intends to cut Social Security and Medicare. He intends to give tax breaks to billionaires and big corporations and make working families foot the bill. They intend to end the Affordable Care Act. And take us back, then, to a time when insurance companies had the power to deny people with pre-existing conditions.”
Facts First : One of Harris’ claims about Project 2025 is false, while another is at least misleading. The Project 2025 document does not show that Trump intends to cut Social Security; the document barely discusses Social Security at all and does not propose cuts to the program. In addition, contrary to Harris’ suggestion, Project 2025 does not call to “end” the Affordable Care Act or eliminate its protections for people with pre-existing conditions. The document does criticize the Affordable Care Act, especially the law’s expansion of Medicaid, but makes clear it is advocating changes to the law rather than terminating the law entirely.
Fact check: Harris falsely claims Project 2025 blueprint calls for cutting Social Security | CNN Politics
Nor has Trump embraced it.
The idea the trump is going to cut social security is such a batshit crazy lie. How dumb does she think her audience is?
Do you know how debates work and what the role of a moderator is?
They let Biden lie more than that. Check it out.
That is the lie every democrat candidate says about their opponent.
I believe it began with Jimmy Carter.
I will bet many dems and anti Trumpers will be parroting the same and even believe it. That should answer your question.
You failed to acknowledge they also allowed Biden to do the same.
Damn moderators. The debate should have been between them and Trump with Joe silent in the background looking at imaginary butterflies. He might still be the nominee.
Biden lied by claiming he was a functioning human being. That was the biggest lie of them all.
Biden lied every time he opened his mouth during the debate; problem was half the time nothing anyone could decipher came out.
Have you already forgotten that the gop was a only few votes short of privatizing Social Security under Bush?
Sigh........So how much has the return on investment been on social security since the government has run it? and how uch has the stock market gone up since Bush was President?
If you invested $100 in the S&P 500 at the beginning of 2006, you would have about $613.49 at the end of 2024, assuming you reinvested all dividends. This is a return on investment of 513.49%, or 10.35% per year.
His proposal was limited to younger workers and would have allowed them to invest some of the money in the market. Federal workers get to invest are allowed to invest some of their dollars in the Thrift Savings Plan. A few votes short? I don't remember and SS Reform legislation voted on, when was that?
Yeah, it never went to a vote.
I think you've forgotten a bit about it. While Bush intended to create a savings component within the Social Security system, it would not replace the basics for those who didn't want to use that component. It never had much popular support and Republicans in congress never really made it a priority.
Many people are saying that Trump is about to "swap out" of his Vice-Presidential candidate as well!
In fairness to Trump, Vance was selected when Biden was the democrat candidate. The dems pushed out their nominee because not only was he going to lose, but he was going to lose the Senate as well. I think Trump should have the same right to make adjustments.
I wish he had chosen Haley, but she probably would not have accepted. While not a fan of Vance, I'm unsure what the impact would be to dropping him now. Has any candidate ever replaced their VP in the middle of a campaign?
McGovern replaced Eagleton in 1972. But Eagleton withdrew from the race due to a discover of mental health treatment.
I am glad he did not. I do not want to see Trump secure the power of the presidency.
Thank you, didn't know that. A quick google search didn't turn up anything for me.
Yes after the damage was done. Kennedy was McGovern’s first choice but Kennedy turned it down. Eagleton, a strong antiabortion Catholic was also thought to be able to gain labor support was offered the position on day 1 of the convention.
McGovern’s biggest mistake on his VP pick was to trust that Eagleton was honest on the health questions. Electroshock treatments and prescriptions of Thorazine didn’t seem compatible with potential finger on the ‘bomb’.
Happy to be of service.
And now fast forward to Trump with that very thought.
Thorazine would have helped that bash
No, you are not. You are advocating for Trump who does not understand the phrase "fair-play."
I do. Do you?
I really do not mind if the candidates parties renegotiate the terms of the debate, but understand that Trump has no high ground to stand on. He has abdicated any semblance of high ground on any electoral issue by his lying and cheating in the aftermath of the 2020 election. With the recent speech that he gave in Florida, a prediction of "more-of-the-same" does not seem unwarranted.
I say "Hey, Babe. Take a walk on the wild side"
never knew that was the line in the lyric, and youve made quite a case against 45 with that logic
I learned more from a three-minute record, baby
Than I ever learned in school
Well, now young faces grow sad and old
And hearts of fire grow cold
We swore blood brothers against the wind
I'm ready to grow young again
Like soldiers in the winter's night with a vow to defend
No retreat, baby, no surrender
Now on the street tonight the lights grow dim
The walls of my room are closing in
There's a war outside still raging
You say it ain't ours anymore to win
I want to sleep beneath
Peaceful skies in my lover's bed
With a wide open country in my eyes
And these romantic dreams in my head
Well we made a promise we swore we'd always remember
No retreat, baby, no surrender
Like soldiers in the winter's night with a vow to defend
No retreat, baby, no surrender
https://youtu.be/txKhQ9cbhgo?si=qXBPoUWGc5hJNi7mor
I made a mix one time and entitled it, "Everything I Needed to Know I Learned from Rush" (the band, not the person)
What? "Pushed out"?
They actually defenestrated their nominee?
Sacre Bleu!
I never was a Rush fan. Maybe out of ignorance and timing, when they became radio stars, I was living out of the county. When I returned, I lived in CA and don’t remember them being big there at the time.
I give them a listen.
Bad move-- I thought he would have known better.
I suppose you think only the democrats should set debate rules.
It turned out to be golden.
I don't think that political parties should have anything to do with setting the rules of debate.
And who is it that you put all your faith in?
I do not put all my faith in anybody.
We should have set rules and set locations for debates and they should be required for all candidates starting at the local level and continuing on through the primaries and to the after the conventions. They should all be one-on-one in a round-robin format locally, with each winner decided by the constituency that they represent.
I know. Pipe dreams.
I'd go for that.
That depends on whether Harris can stop cackling/giggling long enough.
Please keep this line of attack up. It is working wonderfully.
Young voters are rapidly becoming enthused by her laugh and videos that Repubs showed her awkward moments. Young voters see her as keeping it real and refreshing. kamala IS brat and coconuts are becoming positive meme’s that they relate to.
Young voters tend to be liberal (AKA "progressive"), but their support for Biden was pretty low.
But interestingly, IIRC, recently their support for Harris is very high (possibly the highest of any age group).
Harris tends to laugh a lot. But while many voters don't like that, the youngest cohort do.
Why?
One of the things they like about her is that they feel she is "genuine".
Also they tend to feel that she is a "refreshing" change from "stuffy" older politicians.
Genuine? That's an interesting take on someone that tends to laugh when they're unable or unwilling to answer the question or point presented to them.
I was thinking exactly the same thing.
Doesn't it seem like a refreshing prospect ?
It won't last long John.
"Doesn't it seem like a refreshing prospect ?"
To me not by a long shot, then again I am not liberal Democrat so I see things a bit differently. But if you think so then more power to you.
My feeling is the first major international or domestic crisis that comes up when and if she gets to sit in the big chair in the Oval Office I look for her to fold. She could not even handle the border crisis as VP.
By that time Hezbollah and Israel will be at war and the Ukraine will look like the far side of the moon.
We can only hope we get the guy the bad guys fear.
No, it would be a way downward, and the end of our democracy.
That pant suit reminds me of the Hillary wardrobe. Color and all.
I know politics is the seemingly never ending game of Whac-A-Mole but before we get into another round of cookie-gate, Kamala can cook.
The rollout has been impressive. The media did it again.
But we have 100 days to air out her record.
Well, of course you are entitled to your opinion!
But WTF?
People have different opinions.
Some people feel that a Harris victory would be "the end of democracy"-- while others feel that it would be a great positive for our country.
(I wonder if you knew that???)
Im glad Kamala got her campaign posters out.
Why are you glad?
"There's a big difference between equality and equity ," says Harris. " Equality suggests, 'Oh, everyone should get the same amount.' The problem with that, not everybody's starting in the same place."
Harris contrasted equal treatment—all people getting the same thing—with equitable treatment, which means "we all end up at the same place."
Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy (reason.com)
It sounds so oddly familiar .... Wasn't it "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
That’s the rationalism for authoritarianism in a nutshell.
but does anyone actually believe Harris thinks this would apply to her? She’s the embodiment of “no one should have a gun but I need one for protection so it’s okay” type of person.
She is going to talk herself into defeat.
And Trump is going to let her do it. Just like he did with Biden after the debate.
I think Trump got quite an education out of that debate.
The Democrats and left really did. Hence the trainwreck they are in right now.
They fudged things so he could win the nomination and they coerced him into giving it up.
They giveth and they taketh away.
It does, Acts 4:32–35 ...
It was a slogan used by Karl Marx.
Who borrowed it from a number of sources dating back to Roman times, do some research.
He never said Marx was the origin of the phrase, only that he used it.
Words matter.
That's what you should have told your teachers
Which I would bet $$$ you do not understand the meaning. To understand the meaning you would need to have studied the Critique of the Gotha Programme in context of Marx' works.
In particular:
Per Marx' philosophy, he is describing a society where people live to work (i.e. make productive use of their talents as they see fit) rather than work to live (i.e. the division of labor so common during his day where people were working in factories rather than owning farms, etc.). He is describing an industrialized society that is capable of providing for the needs of everyone (no poverty, starvation, ...) and freeing people to exploit their talents without the burden of just trying to survive. All this in a society that is run democratically by the people with no need for a state.
This was Marx' wet dream. It is much like the society we see in Star Trek. It was not realistic and society may never evolve to something this grand. But one should at least make an attempt to understand his meaning rather than affix the ignorant meaning of an authoritarian state that assigns housing, food, clothing, etc. to all citizens in a purely egalitarian fashion and exploits them for labor.
Of course people have different opinions about the various candidates.
But implying that Harris is an actual Communist?
Sounds a bit odd, n'est-ce pas?
Fellow Traveler
Think about what she said. She wants equal results.
Is that what you think Communism is Vic — a pure egalitarian system? A system that strives for everyone to have identical homes, clothes, food, etc.? You seriously think that is what Harris (or any other rational human being) wants?
There is a fundamental difference between reducing gross disparity and seeking equality. The former seeks to provide opportunity and is an extension of the movement that inspired capitalism (movement away from exclusive generational wealth and a class system based on birthright). The latter is a theoretical extreme that is logically impossible, violates human nature, and offers no advantages to anyone other than a dictator.
Of course it is.
You seriously think that is what Harris (or any other rational human being) wants?
Why wouldn't we believe her?
Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy (reason.com)
There is a fundamental difference between reducing gross disparity and seeking equality.
The term equality refers to certain rights we have in this country. Nobody is born with economic equality. Some are born poor, others are born into wealth and others are born with disabilities. Gross disparity is part of the game be it being born with less or making the wrong decisions. Equity is the word Harris focused in on and by her own words she said: Equity means we all end up in the same place . She added to that: therefore, some will require more to get there.
The latter is a theoretical extreme that is logically impossible, violates human nature, and offers no advantages to anyone other than a dictator.
Yet, that is what she has advocated for.
I doubt that she literally seeks equal results since that is both undesirable and impossible to achieve. I expect that she will be pushing hard for more equal opportunity and, if done properly, that is a good thing. For example, enabling talented, ambitious children access to an education that could allow them to deliver positive results for the nation (e.g. become a research scientist). If done poorly, it would be simplistic redistribution of wealth — bad.
Regardless, it is hyperbole to interpret this as Harris advocating for a pure egalitarian system — one that strives for everyone to have identical homes, clothes, food, etc. Even if some misguided souls would desire such a system, it is logically impossible. It is a ridiculous exaggeration of a movement to reduce disparity.
Politicians sometimes fuck up their messaging. Equal outcomes should have been more clearly stated as a better ability to succeed — the 'same place' should be referring to achieving one's development goals. I will be quite surprised if we see Harris pushing literally for equal outcomes in her campaign.
I'm for that. How does she stand on Charter schools?
Even if some misguided souls would desire such a system, it is logically impossible.
I agree with you twice. It is impossible and they are misguided souls.
Politicians sometimes fuck up their messaging.
Like making open statements that can easily be twisted.
Equal results should have been more clearly stated as a better ability to succeed.
I wish could give her the benefit of the doubt, but she has made too many statements along those lines.
I will be quite surprised if we see Harris pushing literally for equal outcomes in her campaign.
I agree. Four months out from a presidential election, she will sound more moderate than she ever has.
Then she should probably stop saying it.
It's Kamala so the media tells us not to.
Witness when she says, "I'll ban fracking" and gets criticized for it, Politico and other Harris PR outlets will tell step in and claim she didn't really mean she would ban fracking. They'll also tell you how unfair and mean it is for Republicans to suggest she's supports a fracking ban just because she publicly said "I'll ban fracking."
They are trying to reinvent her for the third time.
I wish I could take the time to volunteer for the Trump campaign in PA. I can guarantee you the people out there would be going to sleep every night hearing Kamala Harris say how she will end fracking.
What did the vice president know about President Biden’s health issues and when did she know it?
And why didn’t she share the details with the American people?
That last is the question nearly everyone has, according to a YouGov/Times of London poll of 1,170 registered voters.
The July 22 to 23 survey was in the field after President Biden renounced his re-election campaign but before he offered a halting delivery of what was effectively a farewell speech Wednesday night from the Oval Office.
A staggering 92% of respondents believe Harris knew at least a little bit about the president’s progressive deterioration, which became too much for even mainstream media to deny after his debate debacle against former President Donald Trump last month in Atlanta, though Biden’s issues have been discussed openly on the right since he took office in 2021.
92% of voters blame Kamala Harris for Biden health coverup: poll (msn.com)
Kamala Harris is peaking too early. The thrill will be gone in four weeks. All the surprise endorsements, major announcements, and, even, the official nomination will be done deals well before the convention. The DNC convention won't even have the glitz, glamor, and appeal of the J6 prime time hearings.
As the immigration story suggests, the unbiased liberal press cannot provide cover for Kamala Harris until the convention. And immigration wasn't the only issue on the VP plate. Harris was also put in charge of addressing voting rights, Asian hate-crimes, defense of school curricula emphasizing what became known as 'CRT', selling various aspects of the Biden climate agenda, acting as a buffer toward the Squad, and as a point person on abortion rights. The Biden campaign began efforts last year, before the primaries started, to rehabilitate Kamala Harris' image and quiet calls among Democrats to replace Harris with a different VP candidate.
Now Harris is already trying to straddle fences like a seasoned Democrat. The record on immigration is already set so won't be easy to spin away. But now Harris is creating new problems for herself in an attempt to look Presidential. Hey, Kamala, how is Benjamin Netanyahu going to get the hostages back? What does Harris do if Netanyahu caves by giving Hamas everything they want and Hamas still doesn't release all the hostages? Hamas is a terror organization; they aren't very likely to negotiate in good faith. It is impossible that Kamala Harris knows more about dealing with Hamas than does Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu could hang Harris out to dry just by acceding to her wishes. Kamala Harris can become Benjamin Netanyahu's scapegoat that provides political cover. And Netanyahu will likely take that approach if he really runs into political trouble.
Harris could do something Presidential like focus attention on humanitarian aid. Harris could be calling on Egypt to open the border crossings and allow the UN to set refugee camps in the Sinai. Harris could avoid becoming bogged down in negotiations with terrorists. But, no, Harris has to follow Biden's stupid approach. So, it looks like Harris is setting herself up to look as addled, confused, and worthless as Joe Biden. Good luck with that.
Well, you might be right!
But as a famous Yogi Master once said:
Predictions are difficult, especially about the future,
So I put it on my calendar so I don't forget-- will check back with you four weeks!
Well, what is there to thrill the unwashed masses?
The usual celebration of place will be pointless; the state by state roll call will be phoned in. Holding another vote for show during the convention will seem contrived and fake. Harris could wait to officially accept the nomination but she's going to be expected to speak anyway, so no thrill there. The future First Gentleman may spark some interest simply for the novelty. But keep in mind that the Clintons set all the precedents, there won't be any significant firsts to celebrate.
There won't be any speeches from primary challengers as we saw at the RNC. And its doubtful Democrats want to highlight that Harris was not nominated by elections, voters, or a democratic process.
Sean O'Brien can make an appearance. But that won't have the impact the RNC appearance had, Union leaders speaking at the DNC is kinda expected, isn't it?
Barak Obama, likely Michelle Obama, must speak at the convention. Their absence would cause too much chitter-chatter in the punditverse and distract from the Harris campaign. The Clintons may speak as filler but they don't excite the voters nearly as much now; their influence really has faded.
Harris naming a VP will provide some anticipation and excitement. But, let's face it, the names being floated around aren't that exciting. Shapiro can bring excitement to the political insiders but there's not enough time to really expand that to the electorate.
The biggest bit of anticipation is whether or not Joe Biden will speak. There's sound arguments for both but the associated risks are huge. If Biden doesn't speak then Harris will be pounded for hiding his condition. And if Biden does speak then he could deliver a real buzz kill even if he does perform well.
Democrats could put on a vaudeville show to attract views and try to generate some excitement. But the impact of the political message gets diluted by the production value.
What makes you assume that the people here are "unwashed"?
Nancy told them: "We can do it the easy way or the hard way."
He left the way he entered.
I know she said something like that in circa 1999, do you have a link?
" But by the time Biden decided to withdraw from the election, his aides were preparing themselves for the politically devastating prospect that Pelosi would go public this week with her views on the inviability of Biden’s candidacy, Politico reported . One Democrat told the news outlet that “Nancy made clear that they could do this the easy way or the hard way” and “it was about to be the hard way.”
I never fail to provide a link, as a matter of fact I provided it the other day when I did the story on it.
“Nancy made clear that they could do this the easy way or the hard way,” said one Democrat familiar with private conversations who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “She gave them three weeks of the easy way. It was about to be the hard way.”
Why Biden finally dropped out - POLITICO
Thank you for asking.
One needs be a good writer for me to read everything.
Fuzzy, but thanks.
Then I'll take that as high praise since you've been on most of my articles since the day you arrived
Thanks for the link. It confirmed a lot I already knew. And it reinfiorces the fact that Pelosi was one of the most brilliant leader in modern times. (In this case, if they did it "the easy way"-- Biden will still run, and of course that would've meant the Dems losing the election.
And it reinforces the fact that Pelosi was one of the most brilliant leader in modern times.
By any chance were you on Newsvine before coming to NT? (as anyone else here on NV-- and had heard of "Heart of Darkness"?
The reason I ask is that there was a "secret" group there called "Heart of Darkness". No one outside the group even knew who was in it-- and of course didn't know what we discussed.
This may be a little "off topic" but the reason I mention it was that there were a few people in the group that thought Pelosi was one of the most effective leader in modern times.
At first I disagreed-- I thought she was just yet another leader in Congress.
I equate what she did as election interference and morally wrong.
I'm sorry that other can't understand that.
And for the dirty ideologue, Chris Wray:
Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump is “doing well” and recovering after a bullet fired by failed assassin Thomas Matthew Crooks came “less than a quarter of an inch from entering his head,” former White House physician and current Congressman Ronny Jackson said in a statement issued Saturday.
“As reported and witnessed by the entire world, he sustained a gunshot wound to the right ear from a high-powered rifle used by the would-be assassin,” wrote Jackson, (R-Texas), noting he examined Trump the night he was shot.
“The bullet track produced a 2 cm wide wound that extended down to the cartilaginous surface of the ear,” Jackson wrote. “There was initially significant bleeding, followed by marked swelling of the entire upper ear.”
Former Trump doctor Ronny Jackson gives update on ex-prez's wound after assassination attempt (nypost.com)
Is Ronny sobre these days?
Ya they hate him too.
"the best people"
Iran is all in supporting Kamala for president. so that should lockdown the Dearborn and Minneapolis/St. Paul vote for her.
I’m sure the mexican cartels are too. Gotta keep that cash pipeline open.
And so is their main ally-- Russia.
Putin is a major supporter of Kamala