Kamala Harris is not a woman of her word -- hasn't stuck to any leftie position since 2019
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Kamala Harris gave her first unscripted remarks Thursday since ascending to the role of POTUS-in-waiting.
She and Joe Biden were standing on the tarmac of Joint Base Andrews just before midnight waiting to greet four American hostages freed from Russia when a reporter managed to fire a question at the usually inaccessible pair.
For some reason, Harris answered — but in her trademark incomprehensible word salad.
"This is just an extraordinary testament to the importance of having a president who understands the power of diplomacy and understands the strength that rests in understanding the significance of diplomacy," she said.
The sound bite went viral, as they say, topping up the vast treasure trove of idiotic public pronouncements she has amassed over the past four years.
No wonder her handlers won't let her out without a teleprompter.
Biden at least had the excuse of age-related cognitive impairment for his verbal imbecility, but what is hers?
She's either sub-moronic or she's hiding something.
Tough talk, but . . .
We know that she is a phoney, so my guess is the latter. She's not called "Shamala Flip Flop" for nothing.
She would rather be thought a fool than allow her true thoughts to leak out, and she has wound herself so tight throughout her vice presidency that all we have on the public record are these verbose, flaky nonstatements with a lot of hand-waving.
She might sound ridiculous, but it takes a lot of discipline not to crack the facade and speak her mind.
Unless she has had a secret traumatic brain injury in the past four years, we know that she is capable of speaking properly. She was perfectly clear about her positions when she was competing in the Democratic primaries in 2019, for instance.
"There's no question I'm in favor of banning fracking," she told CNN. No word salad there.
"I am prepared to get rid of the filibuster to pass a green new deal," she said.
On illegal migrants, she was unequivocal: "We are not going to treat people who are undocumented and cross the border as criminals, that's correct. . . . I'm opposed to any policy that would deny any human being public health, period."
On defunding police: "It is wrong-headed thinking to think that the only way you are going to get communities to be safe is to put more police officers on the street."
On restricting gun ownership: "I support a mandatory buyback program."
But since her 2020 presidential campaign ended in ruins, she's learned to keep her mouth shut lest she be pinned down.
In the last week, her spokespeople have issued statements disavowing the hard left positions she took in 2019.
When she absolutely has to speak, it is gobbledygook because her true beliefs are electoral poison in a general election.
For instance, her campaign is trying to portray the presidential contest against Trump as The Prosecutor vs. The Felon, as if Harris is on the side of law and order, tougher even on the border than the former president.
Yet the opposite is the case.
She praised the "Defund Police" movement at the height of the George Floyd riots. She fundraised bail for BLM-Antifa rioters. She favored decriminalizing illegal border crossings and replacing ICE.
As California's attorney general, Harris supported the infamous 2014 law, Proposition 47, which effectively decriminalized narcotics possession and downgraded felonies, such as theft of goods worth up to $950, as misdemeanors.
Prop 47 is set to be overturned through a ballot initiative in November that is supported by liberals fed up with the rampant crime and disorder that has wracked California in its wake.
Just as Harris, the fake "Tough Cop," was weak on crime, she is weak on national security, because the same mentality prevails in which wrongdoers are treated like victims and victims are treated as nuisances.
International relations
With Biden sidelined, and Harris acting as proxy president, she can be held at least equally responsible for last week's inexplicable sweetheart plea deal (since rescinded after public outcry) for 9/11 terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and for the release on bail of the illegal Jordanian migrants who allegedly tried to breach Marine Corps Base Quantico in May.
Harris' aggressive scolding of Israel as it tries to defend itself against an existential threat is a piece with her lax attitude towards crime and the appeasement mentality that has prevailed in the administration, punctuated by the odd belligerent declaration.
Who could forget Biden's call for "regime change" in Russia, quickly cleaned up by his staff. Or Harris' inept handling of the 2022 Munich Security Conference in which she voiced word salad admiration for Ukraine's desire to join NATO — and the following week Russia invaded.
Now that Harris is in the front seat, it's clearer than ever that the US no longer commands the respect of foreign leaders.
Days after Harris and Biden lectured Benjamin Netanyahu to exercise restraint, Israel went ahead and took out a top Hezbollah commander who, by the way, had murdered 241 American service members in the 1983 bombing of a Marine barracks in Beirut.
But there was no thank you from Biden and Harris, who reportedly berated Netanyahu in a joint "tough" phone call last week for the other strategic assassinations Israel has conducted since a Hezbollah rocket attack killed 12 children in the Golan Heights.
Would that be the same Biden who vowed bloody retribution after 13 US service members were killed by an ISIS-K bomber during his botched withdrawal from Afghanistan? "We will not forgive. We will not forget. We will hunt you down and make you pay," he said.
Unlike Netanyahu, Biden botched the retaliation, ordering a strike which killed an innocent Afghan aid worker and his children, and then quietly abandoning talk of avenging the 13 dead Americans.
Biden has presided over two international crises in his presidency, in Europe and in the Middle East. If Harris were to become president, she would likely face a third crisis in Asia.
Which Shamala Flip Flop would we see then? It's a frightening thought, either way.
Hey Janet, stop Yellen about veep
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is behaving more and more like a partisan political hack.
There she was in the battleground state of Pennsylvania last week at an IRS function, shamelessly making the case for Kamala Harris.
"Vice President Harris has indicated her support for avoiding tax increases for middle-income families," said Yellen, standing alongside Gov. Josh Shapiro, one of Harris' top veep picks.
A few days earlier, Yellen praised her as someone who appreciates American global leadership, saying Harris "clearly, deeply understands what's needed to make sure that families in America can thrive and can get ahead."
The problem is that Yellen is forbidden by a 1939 law called the Hatch Act from engaging in party politics and using federal resources for political purposes.
Yellen's distinguished predecessor James Baker resigned in 1988 so he could campaign for then-Vice President George H.W. Bush.
That way is open to Yellen. Otherwise she should stick to her day job.
Tags
Who is online
435 visitors
This week Harris is expected to select her VP and then both will go on a battleground state tour with "rallies" at college campuses, historically Black universities, union halls and restaurants.
So the hell what?
Trump used to be a Democrat once upon a time.
In 2014 Harris had at least a few morals, principles, and believed in the law at least a little bit. Now who the hell knows what she believes? Other than that the border is secure (it isn't); that she wants the use of "illegal immigrants", "illegal aliens", and "extremist Islamic terrorists" to be banned as hate speech. She also doesn't want anyone to be charged with entering the country illegally; and believes illegals are entitled to health care and free education.
"But Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!" is all that Democrats/leftists have to first defend voting for Biden, and now Harris. They can't stand on either of their abysmal records.
The left like to forget that little fact.
And the right likes to ignore the reason he switched to republican.
Really? When did he do that????? /S
With Harris, when you get to where she is now, it is power for the sake of power above all else!
When he discovered that the democratic party would not support him and his racist, misogynistic, egomaniacal, self interests and viewpoints.
So you missed the sarcasm tag. Everybody knows he left the democrat party. We also know it wasn't for the moronic reasons you described.
So what were the reasons? And specify (with objectable verifiable evidence) how you know what those reasons are.
Look it up.
Translation: You got NOTHING.
Another empty claim with no facts to back it up added to the list.
Where did I say I knew the exact reasons why he left? All I did is point out that it wasn't for the idiotic TDS driven reasons you listed. If you want to know the reasons, then you look them up.
Why don't you back up your claims?
Allow me to quote you:
We also know it wasn't for the moronic reasons you described.
The only way for you to know it wasn't for the reasons I indicated was for you to know what those reasons are....
Now read the rest of my comment in 2.1.10.
Waiting for you to answer the 1st question based on your 1st sentence.
Now read the rest of my comment.
Waiting...
So either Harris's politics aligned with the Trump or he thought she could be bought. Which one are you arguing?
The payment to Kamala was less than Stormy's. maybe trump found less value in her?
Please note the date on the check. A lot can change in 14 years, so why is this relevant?
I doubt Calliope sees any divinity in Miranda's spillage. The lady is a joke and seeding articles by her is a Cruella pun.
She is the simpson's video come to life.
Still nothing?
Harris pulling ahead in the swing states is not nothing...
Well, look at what they achieved:
In only 3 1/2 years, they let in 12 million illegals, pushed the economy into a freefall …and are close to war in the Middle East.
Yep, and managed to throw many of the US citizens and legal residents on this side of the Southwest border under the bus repeatedly! Pathetic!
75 years and counting kinda says it was and remains close.
Exactly what part of that is incomprehensible? The word “diplomacy?”
Diplomacy is important. A president should understand that difficult things can be achieved with it. What is confusing about that? I’ll tell you: nothing. There’s nothing incomprehensible or confusing about this statement. Trump thinks he can just bully people into what doing what he wants. It doesn’t work very well, though.
What is going on here, is that Republicans have decided that they will not engage in the substance of anything Kamala Harris says. Instead, they will attempt to dismiss it outright as “word salad” even when it’s not. It’s the same kind of thinking that allows people to think the moon landings were fake, 9/11 was planned by the US government, the Earth is flat, and vaccines are bad for you. All you have to do is put your fingers in years, close your eyes, and declare facts to be nonsense. The drooling, slack-jawed cult members will swallow it all without a thought.
This pablum is substance to you?
: "This is an extraordinary day, and, um, I'm very thankful for our president and what he has done over his entire career but in particular as it relates to these families and these individuals—what he has been able to do to bring the allies together on many issues but in particular this one. This is just an extraordinary testament to the importance of having a president who understands the power of diplomacy and understands the strength that rests in understanding the significance of diplomacy and strengthening alliances."
"always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!"
Pablum or not its not insanity like we see from the other candidate.
Respond to what I wrote about - the quote from the seeded topic. If you can.
'And her deranged cackling.'
A woman with a sense of humor and who isn't afraid to let it out when she laughs.
What the fuck is wrong with her?
Problem is that Harris seems to lack some filters that let her know when it is appropriate to laugh or not laugh.
Kamala Harris has one job, and that is to send Trump to the dustbin.
Changing policy stances is meaningless to that job.
Her 'changing' positions can be dealt with after she wins.
If that is true, That her only job is to send Trump to the dustbin and she wins will have completed her one job and resign?
I guess you could always hope.
Holy Hell, Republicans do LOVE to lie and mislead about Prop 47.
uh huh. And?
Nope. I love this bullshit disclaimer - “effectively.” WTF does that mean? It either did or did not decriminalize it. Guess what the truth is? They would not have to say “effectively” if it weren’t bullshit.
So, anyway, it’s still a crime to possess controlled substances in California. However, at the lowest level, it’s a misdemeanor. That means you could still do six months in jail for simple possession. If you have enough that it looks like you might be planning on selling it, that’s a felony.
Several other states - the details vary, of course - classify simple drug possession (and I mean other than marijuana) as misdemeanors. Besides California, we are talking about Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
There are lots of Red states in that list, but Republicans would have you believe that California is the only place this is happening.
Why do this? A couple reasons.
First, California has long had a serious problem with overcrowded prisons - and it’s not for a lack of them. California’s prison population is second only to Texas. But they are expensive to build and maintain, and overcrowding tends to violate the 8th Amendment. If we can divert the low level offenders, we have more capacity for the serious problem criminals.
Second, most possessors of drugs aren’t violent or some other kind of public menace. They’re just ordinary people looking to get high, and maybe they’re even addicted. Is prison going to fix that? Fuck no! Why would it? Prison is far more likely to take a regular person with a treatable problem, and turn them into a professional criminal. Making these crimes misdemeanors allows courts to divert defendants into drug treatment programs so their lives can be healed instead of destroyed.
Not quite. Theft under $950 had already been a misdemeanor for a few years. Prop 47 just added a few more specific circumstances.
But treating this as an extreme, liberal standard is wildly misleading. Worse than that, it’s simply not true.
Every state has a dollar amount separating misdemeanor theft from felony theft. In California, it used to be $450. That number was set in the 80s. Inflation kind of demands an adjustment, so now it’s $950. Conservatives would have you believe this dividing line is outrageously high, and a guarantee of inevitable crime. Neither notion is correct.
California still ranks in the top 10 (or bottom 10 depending on how you look at it) of states for harshest line drawn between misdemeanor and felony theft. The majority of other states draw the line somewhere between $1000 and $1,500. Another 4 states draw the line at $2000.
Two states have the most liberal dividing line for misdemeanor and felony theft. They draw the line way up at $2,500!
Who are they? One is Wisconsin. And the other? Wait for it . . .
Mother fuckin TEXAS! That famously “tough on crime, we do it better than anyone else” state doesn’t consider theft to be a felony until you steal more than double the amount that California allows.
So can we please stop gaslighting America with this bullshit story about how California’s shoplifting law is “soft on crime?”
What was it Biden, Harris, and Mayorkas, and many on the liberal left have said about our Southern border being secure? If that ain't being misleading and lying trough their teeth what is? They bemoan the amount of illegal drugs like fentanyl and others. What has the Biden/Harris administration really done to stem the flow of drugs and illegals across the wide open border that are responsible for? I don't give a rat's behind what Harris did or not do in California. I am concerned what she has not done as VP and what she will do as POTUS.
Holy shit. Is your only REPLY to my comment “whatabout the border?” Start your own thread. Don’t litter mine with other topics.
It’s a open comment forum don’t litter it whining about what people post.
It's a open forum dude. It is Vic's seed not yours so deal with it. If he wants to tell me that that's his call not yours. You have a good day.
I don’t care about that. You know what I hate? The way Trump wears his ties.
Get it???
Then I suggest you don’t look at them!
Get it ?????
You want to post non sequiturs in REPLY to me, you can EXPECT to get shit for it.
If your goal was to deflect and derail, congratulations. Mission accomplished!
That’s MY opinion.
Don’t like it? Start a different thread and I won’t bother you about it.
OR you could show some basic good manners and respect by responding to the actual content of my comment.
Agree, I was taught that my tie should end at my belt. He wears it freakishly long. I don’t know if he thinks it makes him look:
Or he can post whatever he wants. Start your own article set the rules. In the meantime I support Ed’s freedom to post his own comments anywhere he wants.
Good manners and respect work both ways, but hey I'll try if you will. If I offended I please accept my apologies.
All some seem to have is whataboutisms or they would reply to your comment(s) and not deflect.
I suppose so. There have been almost a dozen comments made and not one of these people has actually responded to anything I wrote in that first comment, and what I wrote was a direct response to something in the seed. But boy are they happy to talk about other nonsense! Disappointing, but not surprising I guess.
Indeed. And you can rest assured if you ever comment directly on the content of a seed, any reply from me will directly address what you wrote.
"Leftie position" vs. Dumbshit reactionary position
That's the divide in the American political landscape today.