Kamala Harris - Presidential Candidate
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
The New York Times turns on Kamala! As the liberal newspaper runs a string of brutal op-eds slamming Harris as 'weak', 'a phony' and 'ignorant', is her 'Brat summer' finally over?
By Martha Williams For Dailymail.Com
Published: 16:05 EDT, 27 August 2024 | Updated: 03:45 EDT, 28 August 2024
There are few cheerleaders more reliable than Kamala Harris's friends in the liberal media.
Ever since President Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 election race last month, their print presses and TV networks have put in a hard shift trying to paper over Harris's past record as the most unpopular Vice President in American history.
To read and listen to their florid praise is to believe that Harris is already a shoo-in for president – and not an 11th hour replacement as Democratic nominee.
That was until her lackluster Thursday night speech at last week's Democratic National Convention – which appears to have halted the torrent of feel-good fangirling.
The reliably liberal New York Times was among the first to suddenly change tack on Friday, taking aim at what many perceive to be Harris's fatal lack of clear policy with a brutal headline that read: 'Joy Is Not a Strategy'.
In a sour commentary, NYT Deputy Opinion Editor Patrick Healy said he'd 'cringed' when former president Bill Clinton took the convention stage on Tuesday to claim that Harris would be 'the president of joy'.
How's that going to help the millions of Americans whose livelihoods are now at stake, Healey asked? And why has Harris failed to conduct a single interview or serious press conference since Biden stepped aside last month?
'Ultimately, she needs more voters in the swing states to trust her to handle the economy better than her opponent… Harris can't coast on "joy",' he concluded witheringly.
But worse was to come from the Times.
In more electoral hilarity, yesterday far-left Axios ran a switcheroo story headlined, “Harris flip-flops on building the border wall.” Bwahaha! I’m not making this up! The Border Czar actually said it! Weird!
Axios served up the weird, mind-bending news to its progressive readers right in the article’s lead paragraph:
According to Axios, Candidate Plan B is now using the border wall in her campaign commercials. And that wasn’t all! Axios:
What are poor Democrats supposed to think about all this John Kerry-like flip-flopping? Are they now for the fascist border wall? Or against it? Is fracking destroying the environment? Or is it keeping gas prices low? Is Kamala lying for votes? Or does she really mean it? Is she evolving, revolving, or is she oscillating like an electric fan?
The Biden-Harris Administration halted the border wall on day one. But now she’s for it? Even ABC commentators expressed bemusement.
Is Kamala Harris just Trump Lite?
This is either the inevitable result of Trump Derangement Syndrome (they have become so obsessed with President Trump that they are now turning into him, like that horror movie about the obsessed roommate), or they are admitting Americans want Trump’s policies.
The flip-flopping just confuses already flabbergasted Democrats even more. So either way, it’s good news.
☕️ KEEPING IT WEIRD ☙ Wednesday, August 28, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
New special prosecutor Trump charges may be helping; what's with the weird new slur?; DNC's surprisingly ironic surprise guest; Harris's policy body-snatching; Tucker/Kennedy interview; more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
Just a heads up, this little weasel @RFlaherty46 who pressured Facebook to censor your speech is an advisor for Kamala!!! Free speech would DIE under Harris Coconut.
Financial issues can be complicated, especially when experts get involved. You should let them take care of your money. Meet Kamala Harris’s ‘economic advisor’ Bharat Ramamurti (definitely made-up). Bharat had a bad moment on CNBC yesterday:
CLIP: CNBC anchors swamp Kamala finance expert (1:24).
Mr. Ramamurti is a far-left attorney who recently joined the Kamala campaign. Before that, he was Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren’s assistant (Indians hiring each other), and then Biden’s deputy economic director. He focused on forgiving student loans and canceling the fossil fuel industry.
Yesterday Bharat popped up on CNBC to defend unrealized capital gains.
The heart of what folks delicately call Kamala’s ‘economic plan’ (beyond her goofy, unworkable idea for grocery price controls) is the dumbest idea ever proposed by a major presidential candidate, ripped straight from Marxist textbooks, called “unrealized capital gains taxes.”
Here’s how it works: Say you own 100 shares of Tesla stock, which you bought at $100. Then, in December last year, following a rumor that Elon would create a jet-fueled Cyber-SuperTruck, the stock briefly raced up to $250 a share. A few days later on January 2nd, after everybody sobered up and realized it was all just a rumor, the stock fell back to $75, where it stayed ever since.
From your point of view, you’ve lost money. Thanks a lot, Elon. But from Kamala’s point of view, you did very well. Since the stock was momentarily worth $250 right at the end of 2023, you’d owe taxes on annual imputed income of $15,000 bucks (+$150 per share at 100 shares). It wouldn’t matter that the value fell back down again in 2024. That’s a different tax year.
Believe it or not, that’s Kamala’s best example. Stocks are easily valued, since stock prices are listed right on the stock market. But Kamala’s plan gets even dumber than it already looks when you consider how impractical it would be to tax ‘unrealized capital gains’ on other types of assets, like real estate.
How, for tax purposes, are owners supposed to value real estate, when there’s no agreed-on price? Would the government accept the owner’s opinion of the value? Or would they force property owners to get an appraisal every single year, to file with their tax returns? Or would IRS agents, like property tax appraisers, set the value of everything you own?
There are many other problems, least of all that Kamala’s tax proposal is probably outright unconstitutional, because imputed income isn’t actually income. Instead, Kamala’s controversial pet tax looks more like a taking, which is prohibited under the Fifth Amendment without just compensation.
Therefore, it wasn’t surprising that Bharat experienced the verbal equivalent of being pig-piled by the CNBC anchors the instant he started trying to defend Kamala’s indefensible tax plan.
But think about this: the visceral disgust the two CNBC anchors obviously felt was the same reaction anyone who understands money and investing would have about the concept of unrealized capital gains. Lots of financially-literate people ‘get it,’ including a critical part of the Democrat base: high-income individuals, corporate types, and oligarchs.
Here’s how the headlines are showing up in the financial trade press, like FinBold, two days ago:
In other words, Kamala’s economic plan seems almost tailor-made to alienate critical parts of the Democrat donor class.
Two final comments on the way out. First, it’s not even Kamala’s plan, it’s a Biden plan she stole. Stealing other people’s policies is starting to look like a kleptomaniacal Kamala pattern. Second, the plan assures everybody that unrealized gains taxes will only apply to people worth $100 million. So you have nothing to worry about, unless you think the government always says that, and what will actually happen is that rich people will move to Switzerland and the IRS will be ‘forced’ to lower the boom on us regular folks.
Kamala’s unrealized gains tax plan is practically a Trump campaign ad.
☕️ KONG ☙ Thursday, August 29, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Meet Kamala's economics expert; NYT reports massive democrat corruption in California; guess where Kamala calls home; Telegram founder grounded in France; great Fifth Circuit anti-gun decision; more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
Which brings us back to Candidate Plan B. Guess where Cackle lives? The Wall Street Journal ran a cover story this morning headlined, “Inside Kamala Harris’s L.A. Life: SoulCycle, Hollywood Parties, Annoyed Neighbors.”
Kamala grew up in chic Berkeley, but moved to Los Angeles ten years ago. According to the Journal, a joyful analysis of her daily schedule since infesting the White House in 2021 showed “Harris has been in Los Angeles more than any other location outside of Washington.”
L.A. is literally her second office:
More than anything, Los Angeles is also the hub of Harris’s current fundraising campaign. Of six trips including Los Angeles stops so far this year, every single one included a campaign event. I’m just saying that Los Angeles seems flush with cash for Democrat political campaigns.
The Journal noted that Kamala, as you might expect, regularly helps local L.A. officials with their own campaigns. Only the honest ones, probably.
Now don’t get carried away. I’m not connecting the New York Times corruption story to the Journal’s story about Kamala’s favorite city. I’m just noticing the peculiar confluence of information.
☕️ KONG ☙ Thursday, August 29, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Meet Kamala's economics expert; NYT reports massive democrat corruption in California; guess where Kamala calls home; Telegram founder grounded in France; great Fifth Circuit anti-gun decision; more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
Classic, but honest response from typical brain-dead liberal that never harbored a single critical thought in their life.
Kamala Harris Met with “Trump” Chants as She Arrives to Softball CNN Interview in Georgia (VIDEO)
How Kamala inflated a key part of resume she's used repeatedly to attack Trump... as more stories about her past unravel
- Kamala Harris' record as a prosecutor is receiving new scrutiny
- READ MORE: What Kamala Harris missed in her historic DNC speech
'With a 90 percent conviction rate, superstar prosecutor Kamala Harris made history when she was elected California's first African American female district attorney,' Oprah Winfrey boasted.
That stunning statistic looked good on Harris' resume, but it was not completely true.
The '90 percent conviction rate' that Harris boasted about was only her office's record on homicide cases, , not all criminal cases, a detail that Harris and her team did not correct.
Part of the reason why Harris' conviction rate for homicide cases were so high was her decision to dismiss many cases or cut a deal with criminals with reduced charges.
According to disgruntled police detectives, their cases were getting dismissed at an alarming rate by Harris.
They also complained about Harris' many plea deals she secured alongside public defenders.
At the time, the San Francisco Chronicle reported an unusual case of a man who confessed to killing his mother while he was on crack-cocaine, hitting her with a hammer and then stabbing her with scissors.
Under Harris, prosecutors cut a deal with the defense after his attorney argued the man had a history of mental illness.
He was allowed to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter in exchange for a much less 12 year prison sentence than he would have been slapped with if convicted in court.
Some police in San Francisco even took the unusual step of taking gang related homicide cases directly to federal prosecutors.
That way, a federal grand jury could hand down a criminal indictment, ensuring that their hard-worked cases would be rigorously prosecuted.
It happened on at least seven occasions with homicide cases Harris was working according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
Despite her efforts to inflate her conviction rates, Harris' record as district attorney looked alarmingly bad as she prepared her campaign for Attorney General of California.
San Francisco Weekly reported in 2010 that Harris had won only 55 percent of murder trials since the beginning of 2009, and that in the first quarter of 2010 her office’s conviction rate for all felony trials was only 53 percent. Her record paled in contrast with the statewide average for prosecutors, which was 83 percent.
Too Bad to Check: CNN's Big Kamala-Walz Interview Will Be ... 18 Minutes?
Well, so much for substance!
First off, we have to ask whether this is rumor or fact. Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller alleged on Twitter an hour ago or so that the vaunted Kamala Harris-Tim Walz media launch will only last less than a typical sitcom episode, sans commercials. Miller also claims to be "hearing" that CNN won't release a full transcript of the Dana Bash interview either.
That would be ... strange:
Supposedly, the interview was supposed to run for an hour. With two interview subjects taking their first (supposedly) adversarial questions since getting appointed to the ticket, especially on a ticket that has yet to publish its policy agenda, even an hour probably wouldn't be enough time to get in-depth answers to pressing issues on the economy, immigration, Israel and Gaza, crime, and health care.
If that's true, then here's about a tenth of the interview right here. Bash asks why Harris' campaign has claimed that she will reverse practically all of her policy positions from 2019 and before while running for president now. Harris claims "my values have not changed," but doesn't explain why her policy positions did:
Another CNN Softball Kamala Interview Clip Is Dropped, and Our Intelligence Gets Insulted Again
In the latest clip to be released, Harris is asked yet another softball question by Bash, who points out that she had Republicans speak at the Democratic National Convention. Bash then asks her if she would consider appointing one to a Cabinet position should she get elected president.
Harris said she would, but didn't go so far as to name who it might be:
Watch the CNN clip below:
#BREAKING: CNN has released a second excerpt of their interview with Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.....
Dana Bash: “You had a lot of Republican speakers at the convention.”
Kamala Harris: “Yeah.” Bash: “Will you appoint a Republican to your cabinet?”
Harris: “Yes, I would. Yes, I would.” Bash: “Anyone in mind?” Harris: “No. No one in particular mind. I got a — we got 68 days to go in this election, so I'm not putting the cart before the horse, but I would. I think — I think it's really important. I — I have spent my career inviting diversity of opinion. I think it's important to have people at the table and when some of the most important decisions are being made that have different views, different experiences and I think — uh — it would be to the benefit of the American public to have a member of my cabinet who was a Republican.”