Liberty's Flame

"Harris problem: Shes a complete phony"

Source:	Washington Times
Published:	Aug 30, 2024
Author:	Tim Murtaugh
Post Date:	2024-08-30 11:14:43 by Mudboy Slim
Views:	8337

If you’re a candidate for president of the United States and you avoid the media for a week or two, you can reasonably call it a strategy. If you avoid them for almost six weeks, it’s a problem. Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, has a problem, even after she was finally shamed into breaking down and talking to CNN.

It’s not like the difficulties that President Biden had that led his team to keep him away from cameras as much as possible; his problem was clearly his advancing decrepitude. But now that the current holder of the office of president has been shoved out of view, his vice president is seeking a promotion, and her handlers have a different concern: She’s a complete phony.

And so they conspired to keep her away from the media until her CNN appearance on Thursday with her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, 39 days from the day she became the presumed Democratic nominee for president. They likely did this for two main reasons: They needed time to begin to erase her radically leftist record, and they didn’t trust her to go out and help build her own new fake persona.

It’s not that she’s liable to pull a literal face-plant the way Mr. Biden was; it’s that she has a tendency to get stuck in catchphrase loops when she speaks about subjects with which she is not comfortable or familiar. When she’s out of her depth on a topic, she sounds like it, and everyone listening knows that she has no idea what she’s talking about.

That could happen a lot if you’re going to campaign on ideas you opposed only 39 days earlier.

Her political problem was always simple to identify but difficult to solve. Her policy positions, many of which have been part of her public record for decades, are radically out of step with those of most Americans, and trying to renounce them won’t be remotely believable.

So, in the lead-up to the CNN interview, her staff laid the groundwork for her and notified reporters on background that the candidate had allegedly changed her views on some big things.

Mind you, these new positions aren’t true or accurate because, as a California Democrat, she has never believed such things. But this will be her strategy, and it is dishonest.

For example, how will she ever convince natural gas workers in western Pennsylvania that she supports fracking to protect their jobs when she hasn’t and doesn’t?

In fact, she was adamantly and emphatically against fracking when she ran for president early in the 2020 Democratic primary cycle (she bowed out in December 2019), and she was an original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, which sets its sights on eliminating fossil-fuel use.

She’ll never sound credible on the subject because she has never believed what she now has to say to try to fool voters.

In that vein, she’s been a major cheerleader for the Biden-Harris efforts to force Americans to buy electric vehicles they clearly do not want, regardless of how much her campaign says she doesn’t want to require that anymore.

She stole former President Donald Trump’s proposal to stop taxing tips for service industry workers and somehow discovered a child tax credit proposal even though she voted against it as a senator when it was part of the Trump tax cut package in 2017.

Placed in charge of the Biden-Harris administration’s alleged strategy to address illegal immigration, she has overseen the unsecuring of our southern border. Now, she is masquerading as an immigration hawk. Her television ads even have images of Mr. Trump’s border wall, a national security measure that she once called “un-American.”

She has been quite clear in her views on illegal border crossing and has said multiple times that she does not believe it should be a crime. Today, of course, that tune has changed.

She has consistently supported the “defund the police” movement but is now desperately trying to walk that back.

The list goes on, one item after another, and she repudiates herself over and over.

The truth is that Ms. Harris has never held any of these points of view, and she doesn’t hold them now. There is no reason for anyone to take her word on any policy pronouncement because she has often lied about her intentions.

Breaking her media boycott in a joint CNN interview with Mr. Walz, serving as a human shield of sorts by his presence, does nothing to alleviate all of this, because the facts are what they are.

Ms. Harris has a problem. She’s a San Francisco liberal pretending not to be one. And no one should buy it.

Post Comment Private Reply

#1: Mudboy Slim To: All (#0)

The brainwashed RAT-minions are ignoring this betrayal of Kamala's Marxist values because they know full well Harris is lying her ass off...MUD

Mudboy Slim posted on 2024-08-30 14:15:24 Reply Private Reply

#2: Vicomte13 To: Mudboy Slim (#1)

Truth: Democrats DON’T CARE about Democrat rhetoric. They care about party affiliation because it’s purely about power. They expect Democrats to rule as they please, and they support that. Elections are annoying, because you have to effectively dupe enough independents. Unless, of course, you can just manufacture votes and steal the election outright, like they did in 2020.

Vicomte13 posted on 2024-09-02 18:35:02 Reply Private Reply

#3: Mudboy Slim To: Vicomte13 (#2)

"They expect Democrats to rule as they please, and they support that."

Increasingly, the vast majority of the DemocRAT base is financed by the Federal Leviathan...either they're directly PAID as Federal BureaucRATZ, PAID thru "FREE" Federal welfare, housing, healthcare, etc., or PAID as NGOs or Federal Contractors. And it is corrupt as Hell, making scores of $Billionaires while bankrupting our Country.

Even if Trump wins in November, it is gonna be all but impossible to rein it in, but hopefully the fight to Drain the Swamp will alert more Americans to the hopelessness of America's future if we allow Dem DeeCeeSwampRATZ to control the levers of Power.

Regards and good to see you, Vic...MUD

Mudboy Slim posted on 2024-09-03 09:20:27 Reply Private Reply

#4: Vicomte13 To: Mudboy Slim (#3)

I suspect you’re right, that it is quite impossible to undo the size and reach of the federal government. And I’ve never observed Trump ever suggesting he wanted to do that either. Every old person in America is dependent on Social Security and that won’t change. About the only major portion of the federal government we can do without would be some of the military, but not until Russia and China are crushed, and and even then there will rain the endless problem of Israel, and the drug cartels. The two biggest changes we could see if Trump wins is an end to “Lawfare”, and perhaps even its punishment, and a dramatic reduction of illegal immigration. There will always be a federal leviathan, but it doesn’t have to be a Democrat controlled one.

Vicomte13 posted on 2024-09-04 05:15:51 Reply Private Reply

#5: Mudboy Slim To: Vicomte13 (#4)

"...it is quite impossible to undo the size and reach of the federal government. And I’ve never observed Trump ever suggesting he wanted to do that either."

The Donald is NOT the steadfast, small-Federal Guv'ment hero I might prefer (and the Nation needs), but the "Drain the Swamp" motto works for me for the next four years.

"Every old person in America is dependent on Social Security and that won’t change. About the only major portion of the federal government we can do without would be some of the military, but not until Russia and China are crushed, and even then there will rain the endless problem of Israel, and the drug cartels."

The Constitution calls for the Federal Government to defend us with a military, and mail service (which is becoming increasingly-obsolete), and a few other things, but the vast majority of duties are reserved for the States, and the States provide many of these duties, with the Fed adding an additional--unnecessary--layer of bureaucracy. All 50 States have a Dept. of Education, so we aren't going to miss the Federal Dept. of Education, imho. And all those DeeCee bureaucrats will be ace recruits for all the State DOE jobs that will surface. Finally, the DeeCee traffic problem can begin to recede.

"The two biggest changes we could see if Trump wins is an end to “Lawfare”, and perhaps even its punishment, and a dramatic reduction of illegal immigration. There will always be a federal leviathan, but it doesn’t have to be a Democrat controlled one."

I fear a GOP-led Big Guv'ment almost as much as the present DemocRAT- controlled Leviathan...this present course is unsustainably costly and the debt will eventually require a Federal down-sizing...unless the PowersThatBe go full Marxist Authoritarian on us.

Trump/GOPCongress2024...MUD

Mudboy Slim posted on 2024-09-04 09:27:59 Reply Private Reply

#6: Vicomte13 To: Mudboy Slim (#5)

I don’t think we’ll ever be going bankrupt. I think the Fed will inflate our way out of it, which they can do. Private wealth in assets will get crushed, as they did in the Depression, but we’ll emerge. The Department of Education is low-hanging fruit. As far as federal agencies go, it’s the most useless. But it’s not very big. Social Security, the Defense Department, Medicare and Medicaid are the big ones, but the Department of the Interior, the CIA, the Department of Justice, Department of Energy, Immigration and Naturalization - these are not going away (and shouldn’t). I do not say that we shouldn’t aim to cut the federal government; there is waste and fraud, but by far the biggest piece of the expenses are Social Security, Medicare and the military, and I don’t see any of those as optional. Farm subsidies and business and industrial subsidies, such as depreciation and depletion allowances, are expensive, but have constituencies so powerful that they will simply never go away. Real change won’t happen unless the people are willing to vote down Social Security and Medicare, and that will never happen. So, the Fed will inflate the US forward. They have been, and will continue to do so. It’s gonna suck.

Vicomte13 posted on 2024-09-04 18:21:21 Reply Private Reply

#7: Mudboy Slim To: Vicomte13 (#6)

"I think the Fed will inflate our way out of it, which they can do. Private wealth in assets will get crushed, as they did in the Depression, but we’ll emerge."

If that indeed is PART of the solution, you are correct in saying it's gonna SUCK...but America needs to shackle the Federal Leviathan with some safeguards against allowing such economic insanity to re-occur. A Balanced Budget Amendment that limits Fed Spending as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product to 12-15% would be a nice start.

Regards...MUD

Mudboy Slim posted on 2024-09-05 09:35:24 Reply Private Reply

#8: Vicomte13 To: Mudboy Slim (#7)

It would certainly accomplish something. I expect that would be one of two things: (1) the loss of Ukraine and Taiwan, as the military gear is expensive, and Democrats and Republicans will always vote for the things that get them votes, if they can’t deficit spend their way to have it all, OR (2) Constant overrides of the law “for the emergency” (Russia, China, and anything involving Israel with always be override emergencies). So, if you write the law with no overrides, you get (1), and if there are no overrides, you get (2).

I personally think there is no way in Hell the law ever gets passed. Democrats want their social programs, no matter what, and Republicans want their oil, gas, mineral and farm subsidies, no matter what. And neither side wants to lose to the Russians or Chinese.

Given that the path of responsibility leads to the killing of sacred cows, I don’t think it politically can happen. Every other country around the world facing fiscal calamity either inflates or maintains the social programs while slashing the military to the bone (and relies on the U.S. to take up the slack). If we don’t, the Russians win.

I think the Fed will inflate it, the social programs will prevent starvation, and private wealth will end up being destroyed by the inflation. I don’t WANT that, but I don’t think the political will exists to cut social services, business subsidies OR the military, which means that - unable to decide - we inflate our way out. This means that the state is ultimately strengthened, while individual reserves of wealth are iminished.

Vicomte13 posted on 2024-09-05 16:51:09 Reply Private Reply

#9: A K A Stone To: Vicomte13, mudboy slim (#8)

When we fall. There will be new system implemented.

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

A K A Stone posted on 2024-09-08 21:53:10 Reply Private Reply

#10: A K A Stone To: Vicomte13 (#4)

Every old person in America is dependent on Social Security

Bill Gares, Donald Trump, Bill Maher, you?

A K A Stone posted on 2024-09-08 22:47:36 Reply Private Reply

#11: Mudboy Slim To: A K A Stone (#9)

"When we fall. There will be new system implemented."

And it will be guaranteed to be even MORE Authoritarian...IF we fall.

I'm retaining some modicum of optimism that we can alter our present course...MUD

Mudboy Slim posted on 2024-09-09 09:27:24 Reply Private Reply

#12: Mudboy Slim To: All (#11)

Regards...MUD

Mudboy Slim posted on 2024-09-13 10:18:08 Reply Private Reply

#13: Vicomte13 To: A K A Stone (#10)

I’m still working. Bill Gates and Donald Trump are two examples of the one tenth of one percent that don’t need it. It is true: every single solitary old American doesn’t rely on social security. There are a couple of handfuls of super rich who don’t.So, you’re calling me out on a little bit of hyperbole,? I presume you do the same regarding Trump.

Vicomte13 posted on 2024-09-13 17:02:28 Reply Private Reply

#14: Mudboy Slim To: Vicomte13 (#13)

Once a wealthy retiree has been refunded his original contributions, I wouldn't have an issue with Social Security bennies being means-tested for those with a net worth over some agreed-upon amount. Not saying that's gonna balance the budget, but we need to start somewhere...MUD

Mudboy Slim posted on 2024-09-14 15:44:27 Reply Private Reply

#15: A K A Stone To: Vicomte13 (#13)

So, you’re calling me out on a little bit of hyperbole,?

I guess I was. I tend to do that.

Hope you are doing well.

A K A Stone posted on 2024-09-14 21:33:53 Reply Private Reply

#16: Vicomte13 To: A K A Stone (#15)

Still drawing great, you?

Vicomte13 posted on 2024-09-14 23:10:14 Reply Private Reply

#17: Vicomte13 To: Mudboy Slim (#14)

Cutting out the wealthy from getting benefits won’t make any difference. To address the deficit, you have to address Social Security, health care, the military, and taxation. The first two are not very changeable. The military might be, but there are consequences to that. Taxes would need to go up on the wealthy - good luck with THAT politically. Since no political will exists to change any of those things, we will, in fact, inflate our way out of the massive debt. That’s how we’ve always done it, and that’s how we’ll keep on doing it, not because it’s a great solution, but because it is the only thing we can get done politically.

Vicomte13 posted on 2024-09-14 23:17:47 Reply Private Reply

#18: Mudboy Slim To: Vicomte13 (#17)

I hear folks saying we will "inflate our way out of our growing $35 Trillion Federal Debt"...how exactly does that work? I've always said you need to own appreciating assets. In my case, that has always been residential real estate, which continues to appreciate. Seems buying gold will help offset this inflationary pressure, but I am still a bit iffy on how devaluing the dollar erases Big Guv'ment's $35 Trillion debt.

Regards...MUD

Mudboy Slim posted on 2024-09-15 15:05:12 Reply Private Reply

#19: Mudboy Slim To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#16)

"Still drawing great, you?"

Are you an Artiste, Stone? I was clueless...

Good on you...MUD

Mudboy Slim posted on 2024-09-15 15:18:03 Reply Private Reply

#20: A K A Stone To: Mudboy Slim (#19)

Are you an Artiste, Stone? I was clueless...

I can hardly draw a stick man.

My Grandma was an awesome artist though.

You should see her Lincolns or Churchill or landscapes.

She should be famous.

A K A Stone posted on 2024-09-15 23:58:44 Reply Private Reply

#21: Mudboy Slim To: A K A Stone (#20)

"You should see her Lincolns or Churchill or landscapes."

Perhaps you could post a thread exhibiting some of her work...LF.com could use some culture.

Regards...MUD

Mudboy Slim posted on 2024-09-16 09:06:55 Reply Private Reply

#22: Vicomte13 To: Mudboy Slim (#18)

We’ll never pay OFF the debt. It will always be there, always grow. We’ll never default on it because the government will print enough money to cover the payments. Inflation may run at 10%, but everything will get paid. If perchance the inflation gets too high for people to live, there will be government aid to keep them alive. Real estate is a good asset here because the population is still growing (thanks to immigration). It’s a bad asset in Italy, Japan, etc., except in the biggest cities, because the populations are hollowing out due to lack of reproduction.

Vicomte13 posted on 2024-09-16 16:37:54 Reply Private Reply

#23: Vicomte13 To: Mudboy Slim (#19)

I meant to say “still drawing breath”.

Vicomte13 posted on 2024-09-16 16:39:06 Reply Private Reply

#24: Mudboy Slim To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#23)