Harris vs Trump Prosecutor vs Felon Harris will prosecute Trump in the court of public opinion- picking him apart piece by piece. Just wait for the debate..that's if Trump doesn't chicken out lol. He is a phony tough guy/coward so I wouldn't be surprised.
Did they not vet this dude when they picked him? his other comment about “childless cat ladies” that went viral was a direct shot at Lindsey Graham…Should Lindsey not have a stake in this country according to JD Vance?
Ya never know anything when it comes out of the mouth of one of the Trumps. His kids grew up believing lying all the time was normal behavior with the orange man as their daddy and boss.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/analysis-of-kamala-harris-economic-record Judge Glock Kamalanomics The presumptive presidential nominee is no moderate. Jul 25 2024 While Joe Biden campaigned as a moderate, he has governed as one of the most progressive presidents in modern American history. In 2020, Biden sought to distance himself from self-declared socialist Bernie Sanders; after Biden as president pursued massive stimulus and spending programs, Sanders became one of his biggest supporters. Now that Biden has announced that he will not pursue reelection, the Democratic nomination will likely fall to his vice president, Kamala Harris. While Harris may campaign as a moderate, analysis of her economic record does not support that label. In her time in the Senate, Harris positioned herself on the far left of a Democratic Party already moving sharply to the left. According to DW-NOMINATE, a measure that compares the votes of senators and representatives and ranks members from -1 (most liberal) to 1 (most conservative) Harris was the second-most liberal member of the Senate when she served from 2017 to 2021, behind only Elizabeth Warren. In fact, her overall voting record is more liberal than that of Bernie Sanders. Though it is difficult to compare members across time, Harris’s score (-0.709), which is based largely on economic votes, ranks among the more left-wing in American history. Harris’s senatorial record differs starkly from that of her boss. While Biden shifted left on entering the White House, he remained a moderate across his nearly four-decade Senate career. His approximate -0.3 DW-NOMINATE score put him close to the middle of his party throughout his time in the upper chamber. When Harris was in the Senate, she introduced and co-sponsored bills that would have dramatically shifted U.S. policy leftward. In 2019, she unveiled a $10 trillion plan to reduce greenhouse gases to zero by 2045—five years faster than proposed in the uber-progressive Green New Deal. Harris also advocated for an end to fracking, a measure that, had it taken effect, would have stopped about two-thirds of all oil production in the United States. Her health-care record is similarly progressive. In 2017, Harris co-sponsored Sanders’s “Medicare for All” bill, which would have ended private insurance in America; “It’s just the right thing to do,” she said of her support for the bill. In preparation for her 2020 presidential campaign, she released a new plan that still would have extended Medicare to all Americans but that allowed private insurers to offer a plan within the government-run system. Both proposals were on the left of the Democratic Party, even the increasingly liberal party of the past five years. Indeed, Harris was not shy about tacking further left than her progressive compatriots. Whereas Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s 2019 “FAMILY Act” would have provided three months of paid family leave at 66 percent of workers’ salaries on taxpayers’ dime, Harris proposed supporting up to six months of leave at up to 100 percent of workers’ income. She introduced the “Housing Is Infrastructure Act” in 2019, which would have spent$100 billion on new housing, including $70 billion set aside for publicly owned units. She also supported Sanders’s plan to make community colleges and even four-year public universities free for students from low- and middle-income families, despite an exorbitant price tag that Sanders said would amount to “at least $48 billion per year.” The then-California senator was especially radical during the pandemic. For example, she proposed $2,000 per month per person in free cash for the vast majority of U.S. households. She also introduced a bill that would have capped price increases at 10 percent during national emergencies. Had it been in force amid the inflationary period after the pandemic, such a policy could have created massive shortages across the economy. Harris’s rise to become the likely presidential nominee of the Democratic Party represents in some ways a return to the early days of 2020. In the last presidential campaign, Democrats scared by the socialist leanings and unlikely electability of early front-runner Bernie Sanders rallied behind Joe Biden as an electable moderate. The irony is that now Democrats worried about Biden’s electability have rallied behind Harris, whose economic record almost mirrors that of Sanders. Her nomination would represent a triumph of tendencies once relegated to the party’s progressive left. Judge Glock is the director of research and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor at City Journal.
Well we lost… Jim Cramer comes out swinging for Kamala Harris https://www.marketwatch.com/story/m...comes-out-swinging-for-kamala-harris-6e37e77b
what's funny is how they don't want to give Kamala credit/blame for the situation at the border, a tacit admission that it's a disaster
Oh my god! They are reciting the truth point by point!! How dare they! How dare they!!!!!!!! What's hilarious is that Harris was appointed to bring in more private investment into central America as a longer term solution. She was never in charge of the border or a "Border Czar"
related https://reason.com/2024/07/25/the-border-czar-illusion/ 11 hours ago The Border Czar Illusion by Liz Wolfe 7.25.2024 9:30 AM It was all a dream: "President [Joe] Biden is putting Vice President [Kamala] Harris in charge of addressing the migrant surge at the U.S.-Mexico border, senior administration officials announced on Wednesday," Axios reported in March 2021. Now that Harris is running for president—and that the border is a mess, with migrant encounters hitting a record high at the end of last year and Biden implementing strict asylum restrictions last month to attempt to curb them—a lot of this reporting has been memory holed. It's embarrassing to Harris, and we can't have that, now, can we? "Harris border confusion haunts her new campaign," reads the new Axios headline from yesterday, published by the same reporter who penned the March 2021 piece. Actually, she says, "in early 2021, President Biden enlisted Vice President Kamala Harris to help with a slice of the migration issue" including "lead[ing] the administration's coordination with Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, which were key sources of migration to the border." But now, "in the past few days, the Trump campaign and Republicans have tagged Harris repeatedly with the 'border czar' title—which she never actually had," reports Axios. At the end of the piece is an asterisk mentioning that Axios was among the publications using the "border czar" moniker in error. The fact-checkers quickly endorsed the new party line. The New York Times chimed in with its own corrective pinning blame for the "border czar" title on Republicans. Mother Jones called Harris serving as the administration's border czar a "myth." I mean, the experts even said she wasn't, so how could anyone possibly disagree? It's all technically true: Border czar is not a formal title. It's what we, in American politics and media, call…the person in a presidential administration who runs point on immigration and the border. Which is, in part, what Harris was told to do. Interestingly, the fact that Harris was tasked with addressing the root causes of the border crisis appears to be meant as an exculpatory fact, something the White House dreamed up to distance Harris from the mess at the border, when in reality, she's clearly failed to make any headway on the root causes issue. Regardless of what her role was—or what it is convenient to portray her role as—she doesn't appear to have been very good at it (something several swing state voters interviewed by MSNBC have tapped into). If she had, in fact, succeeded at this, publications would surely be giving her credit for her competence, using the "border czar" title. As for the media side of this scandal, I'm of the old-fashioned belief that when politicians have unsavory records, it's totally permissible for journalists to report on them. One could even argue that it's part of the job.
Instead of reading the propaganda about that Axios article, read the actual article and you will see it had nothing to do with actual border crossing or border security: Zúñiga and other top border officials left earlier this week for Mexico and planned to go on to Guatemala with the goal of addressing local problems fueling the migration north. They include lax responses to the coronavirus pandemic, rampant crime, as well as the aftereffects of two hurricanes that blew through the region. The Biden administration has discussed increased aid to address some of these root concerns.
