This is good to see. Republicans are out early to define Harris. What this doesn’t account for is the billions of dollars of free media that Harris is getting from a media that is covering for her as a fellow traveler in the struggle. But it’s still good to see the Republicans being active and smart. That’s rare.
Overall, Trump and his allies are outspending Harris’ team 25-to-1 on television and radio advertising — more than $68 million for Republicans compared to just $2.6 million for Democrats — in the period that began on Monday, the day after Biden stepped aside, through the end of August, according to an AP analysis of data compiled by the media tracking firm AdImpact.
The stunning disparity reflects actual spending for this week and reservations for subsequent weeks, which will almost certainly change in the coming days. But for now, the numbers highlight a dangerous imbalance for Democrats at the very moment that millions of voters are re-shaping their opinions of the vice president, who has spent much of the last four years in Biden’s shadow.
Harris is about as far left politically as you can possibly get and she’s left an extensive trail of video in her wake… so all Republicans need do is put sweet Kamala’s recorded history before the public. Biden was considered the moderate of that duo. Sure, she’s the logical choice at this point in the process, but she also has horrific unfavorables and precious little time to improve them. She’s consistently a disaster at live, unscripted events. She’s going to have to be strictly choreographed which limits exposure opportunities in an already very short campaign window. Debating Trump isn’t going to happen, either. The debate environment is not an opportunity where Harris can shine. Not in her skill set. Just ask Tulsi Gabbard.
Maybe they plan on running a Biden-style basement studio campaign. It worked rather well for them last time.
Merlin. You are right on a lot of that. She is further left than Joe, and she has a LOT of video evidence behind her. The question is if that is what people want now? We know what we are getting with Trump, we knew what we were getting with Biden. Kamala is still an unknown as to how she will govern. Keeps it interesting.
As far as a debate… I think there will most definitely be a debate between the two of them. I don’t blame Trump for backing out of the ABC debate, although if he is going to debate her at some point, the venue doesn’t really matter IMO. Just get PBS to host it and let’s get it on with it after the DNC.
>Kamala is still an unknown as to how she will govern. Keeps it interesting.
HAHAHAHA!!! Libs didn’t know anything about how Trump might govern, but that didn’t stop attacks happening by the second during his first election campaign. You ‘knew’ exactly how he was going to be a lying arrogant buffoon because you had seen’ him for years.
Harris thinks 70-80% taxes is a bold new strategy.
She has stated for the record that undocumented immigrants are doing nothing illegal by sneaking in to the US so of course they should be able to stay and become legal without all that rigamarole that the US puts in front of US citizen hopefuls via amnesty. (I assume sneaking into your home is not illegal either?) Sovereign home, sovereign nation, Can you explain the difference in terms of law? She can’t either so it must be legal. Libs believe that squatters have rights even over owners too so maybe that is not a stretch for you.
She fully believes in de-funding the police, that is also (currently) on record.
I could go on and on, but the point is, you know exactly what you will get with Harris and a fascist autocracy is good for you as long as it stays liberal. You don’t have to admit anything, though, saying you think she is a ‘mystery’ is what you were told to believe (mystery was the most common word used in the top ten Google entries) until the media has finished removing or burying all her most fanatic beliefs and causes. Then you will be given a new and exciting reality to live in.
They say nothing on the internet ever goes away, but that is a falsehood. Not only can it be removed, all references can be buried so deeply that anyone finding it will just be accused of fabricating it. Social media and the net are so perfectly what a Government can use to hide all fact and present what they want you to read. You can just enter a series of complete lies, give them a few hundred million views until it they are on top of the browser and let your believers do the rest.
“Oh no, the scary social media companies, the scary tech companies. They are hiding stuff from us.” We have more access to information than ever in history, accurate and inaccurate. And once again, IF Google, Meta, X, Insta, Threads, etc wants to remove or block things… it is 100% their right to do so. Boo Hoo. I don’t see any reports of newspapers, blogs, or other websites removing anything. It isn’t tough to find.
I have no idea what I will get with Harris, but I have a good assumption it will be similar to Biden, and most democratic presidents over the past 30 years. Trump was truly a wildcard coming in, and he turned out solidly R.
Would you care to show me any evidence that Harris supports a 70%-80% tax? Or was that data scrubbed magically from the internet? Because I found a clip of her on the View saying it is ok to discuss a policy that someone ELSE recommended. But nowhere did she support it. Clearly the big bad internet is “hiding” it.
She has never said we should defund the police. She DID say we need to look at the huge police budgets and see if they reflect the correct priorities. And that could mean putting more of their budget into other avenues of policing or public safety. Feel free to look up the interview that she did on it.
“I know what a crime looks like. I will tell you: an undocumented immigrant is not a criminal.” And she is correct. The undocumented population includes people who illegally entered the country, those who entered legally but overstayed the terms of their temporary entry (such as staying beyond the time authorized with a temporary visa), and those who have “quasi-legal” status, such as people who are granted deferred action status.
T. Please, don’t let facts get in the way of your clearly partisan attacks and misrepresentations of her words. Honestly, I swear you used to be more level-headed and lately I am disappointed to see that you are just spitting out standard talking points without any real research behind them.
Let me get this straight. You said:
[Harris said] “….an undocumented immigrant is not a criminal.” And she is correct.
In the next sentence you said:
…The undocumented population includes people who illegally entered the country, those who entered legally but overstayed the terms of their temporary entry…
Your mind is sophisticated enough to hold both “not criminal” and “illegally entered” and “overstayed …entry.”
What a mind you have!!!
Yes Dad29. I can say that not ALL undocumented are illegal. Some are, some are not. Is that concept too hard for you to understand?
>Because I found a clip of her on the View saying it is ok to discuss a policy that someone ELSE recommended. But nowhere did she support it. Clearly the big bad internet is “hiding” it.
I listened to the entire section of the interview that discussed it. I did not say it was her proposal, but she said it was a bold and bright idea and she would be behind such a measure. That clip was not from ‘The View” though.
I remember Biden used the term border Czar referring to Kamala Harris. it is 100% true that it was never given to her as an official title, Obama had no official ‘Czar’ titles either, but he himself used that term to refer to some members of his cabinet. You could say 100% factually that there has never been an official Czar title given to anyone and here is where the truth gets hidden. The articles have all been cleverly worded to say Harris was never officially named the border Czar, but neither was Mayorkas even though some Dem outlets say he was the Czar and not Harris. No one was ever officially a “Border Czar” or any other kind in the US.
Interestingly, it was the liberal press that eagerly named her that as it was an accepted nom-de-Guerre under Obama. She was called that and Dems accepted the unofficial title back in 2021 and officially retracted any responsibilities she had for that title in 2023. It is true that the job title as republicans describe it is perhaps overblown as she was not directly given ‘power’ over the border crossing issue, but she publicly accepted the responsibility in total. Since she did not advance anything that the public wanted they are minimizing her role now that she is your candidate, but you can bet your entire worth that if the lib followers approved of mass immigration, you would all be embracing the border czar title with adulation as another success for Kamala.
Never said she was for defunding the police? Please confirm and let me know before I find you one of her multiple quotes if it would mean anything. I know it would not stop you from voting for her, but would it mean anything to you at all. If not, no point in it.
>“I know what a crime looks like. I will tell you: an undocumented immigrant is not a criminal.” And she is correct.
Are you really saying that because there are a relative few legal aliens that have let their green cards lapse that the tens of millions of illegal immigrants are not breaking the law? That makes sense to you? “Illegal Entry”/8 U.S.C. § 1325 Look it up. Not against the law? I can point out the American laws against it, what are you pointing to that says it is not a law, Kamala’s word? ANYthing else? Really, tell me the ‘facts’. Why is entering the country not through a legal port or station NOT against the law. Give my poor reasoning skills your edification.
And talking points? You are an idiot. I point out the illogic in things every day. You think the internet is more information because the info you look for are the top things in any search. I enter things like what were Trump’s successes and get his failures. I enter a request for Biden’s failures and up pops a list of his ‘successes’. You only look for his successes so you are impressed with the current knowledge tools. It looks like we can both play the disappointed card, but I never expected more from you in the first place, just occasional glimpses of clearer thought. I don’t even know what the ‘talking points’ that you speak of are.
Honestly, I looked and cant find a single instance of her talking about actually “defunding the police”. She is a politician and understands how to speak. All I could find was her talking about large police budgets and thinking about how we allocate money for public safety. But no where could I find ANYTHING about her talking about taking money away from police departments. And frankly she didn’t give any details about where that would be.
I never stated that coming into the country without permission wasn’t illegal. But I did say that not ALL are. And I am for making the “Dreamers” citizens, assuming they have a clean record. Regardless of her nickname or unofficial title, her job wasn’t to secure the border, it was to look at the causes and work with other countries diplomatically. She did work out some deal with Mexico, not sure how successful it actually was. But that is ALL she can do as VP. They can attack her all they want, but ultimately she has NO POWER to do anything at the border. And the only progress that was going to be made was killed by DJT at the last minute so that he could use it as a running platform. Not sure if that is good politics or not, but we will see. I have said 1000 times that what we really need is immigration reform, we need to speed up and simplify the process of becoming a citizen. The current system is broken and until we do that, we will continue to see a flood of people sneaking over the border.
And currently I don’t see anything changing my mind on voting for her as long as DJT and Vance are on the other side of the ballot. I don’t trust Trump and I think Vance is a typical politician that just says whatever he needs to in order to move up. If it would have been Biden vs Haley, there COULD have been a chance of me voting Haley. But that was the only R I would have considered from this batch.
I don’t know what you are searching, but I go incognito and Google search for Biden Failures and i get a page full of Rep talking points and websites.
Another difference between you and me. I do expect more of you. I assume you believe in what YOU think is best for the country, same as me. We just believe we will get there different ways.
Silence–whether vocalized or not–implies consent, pal. She implied her consent on defunding with her ‘let’s talk about it’ artful silence. She implied her consent to 80% tax rate the same way.
Most damaging to the US: she implied her consent to “Joe is just fine” with total silence on the matter.
To sane people, holding two diametrically opposed thoughts as “both true” is a mark of insanity, not sophistication.
Which “illegal” is NOT “illegal”? Overstaying? Crashing the border?
Please! Enlighten us!!
I admit it is difficult, but you have to see articles before she was named the VP running mate. If you can find her record as Senator, there is a laundry list of the farthest left agenda that she supported and voted for. Like Harris, I will take a quick moment to define ‘defund the police’. Allocating money from the Police department budget to a community education and/or prevention program is an example of defunding the Police. At her most moderate, she had agreed with measures that do exactly that. Her call to examine the police budgets and re-allocate funds to prevention and education programs IS defunding the police. In the Dem party remake of her image as a moderate they made a lot of articles on her old positions go off the net. And her words since she was named VP have all followed Biden’s beliefs as Biden has a long history of being supported by the police. She has never called for the abolition of the police like Antifa, for example, but that wasn’t the claim.
>I never stated that coming into the country without permission wasn’t illegal. But I did say that not ALL are.
She did. Ah, so like a true liberal you know she is wrong so you added the word ‘all’ as if that what gives you a point? And if you have one point your position is now right? She said “an” as in any. “I know what a crime looks like. I will tell you: an undocumented immigrant is not a criminal.” Are you trying to say that her quote also means all? You are on fire here.
>They can attack her all they want, but ultimately she has NO POWER to do anything at the border.
I agree 100% that is a correct statement as her entire assignment was canceled in 2023 by Biden. I would disagree that she HAD no power before she was dismissed from her immigration assignment. If her beliefs were that illegal immigrants were illegal instead of high likelihood voters as Czar, she could have taken her power to a much greater degree. Under Obama, the ‘Czars’ had the power to get things done in their chosen areas. Biden was a Czar for something, I believe. Unfortunately for us, she did follow her beliefs and left the border wide open for as long as possible. That is her desire so she had to do and did virtually nothing.
>I think Vance is a typical politician that just says whatever he needs to in order to move up.
You mean just like Biden and Harris? I totally agree with you.
>Another difference between you and me. I do expect more of you. I assume you believe in what YOU think is best for the country, same as me. We just believe we will get there different ways.
I believe that we are heading to entirely different places as our ideas of what is best seem to be very different. I don’t think socialism works for our culture. I think it can work for Asians because their belief system has always put the we ahead of me. Westerners have personal freedom firmly imbedded in their belief systems.
Liberals think they are making people more free whereas their Government is selling freedom for power. Liberals think they and their Party are the believers in non-racism even as their party uses racism to make law, discredit their enemies and manipulate its own voters. They point out differences in race at every turn, trying to make everything a slur so any ‘difficulties’ Dems may face can be pointed out as racist or sexist and the real issue just goes away. Dems defend a minority at every turn even if they were just a poor humble murderer from Venezuela, because they can be voters. And liberals agree…I can’t really say why…