Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Kamala Harris' border crisis. Biden put her in charge.


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, ekbeats said:

Unlikeable is unlikeable, regardless of whether it’s a woman, minority, Muslim…. So sad you guys only see the world from the myopic view of  identity politics. 

 

The major problem in terms of reelection in 2024 ( that's always looming in the back of anyone's head in this position) is Harris has given Jen Psaki and the entire administration literally nothing to work with here. I mean zero. 

When Trump was accused of being supportive of White Supremacy and questioned on why he did not denounce White Supremacy and the KKK, there were things Kayleigh McEnany could actually use in defense. Trump donated a historic level amount of funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU's), he had a white supremacist who drown an 8 year old girl executed, he invited Ice Cube to come and discuss the "Platinum Plan",  and he had, at that point, denounced white supremacy over 30+ times in the recorded press, more than any other POTUS in American political history. People can criticize Trump for many things, and they'd be right in many cases, but he actually gave McEnany something to work with on a controversial issue.

Harris has given Psaki zero. Nothing she's said is defensible on any level. There is no spin control/crisis management that could clean up the "I've never been to Europe either" bombshell. Worse, it's an easy sound clip to use against Biden/Harris in 2024. It's literally handing Nikki Haley  a bushel full of undecideds, moderates and many Hispanic/Latino votes for no good reason at all. These are votes that Obama/Biden/Harris cannot afford to lose in the next cycle. They've already lost suburban women to Haley and it was mostly their own doing. What matters is reelection and Harris is going to tank the entire DNC all down the ticket.

I don't find Jen Psaki and her bizarre "Psaki Bombs" to be effective. I think she's a horrible Press Secretary. But if I am going to be fair about it, Harris and Biden have often left her on an island. In many indefensible positions based on some pretty basic media optics fundamentals that professional politicians at this level should not be getting wrong.

This is like Charles Dimry getting toasted by Jerry Rice over and over. Except it's not Jerry Rice, it's actually Freddie Mitchell.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GordonGekko said:

 

The major problem in terms of reelection in 2024 ( that's always looming in the back of anyone's head in this position) is Harris has given Jen Psaki and the entire administration literally nothing to work with here. I mean zero. 

When Trump was accused of being supportive of White Supremacy and questioned on why he did not denounce White Supremacy and the KKK, there were things Kayleigh McEnany could actually use in defense. Trump donated a historic level amount of funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU's), he had a white supremacist who drown an 8 year old girl executed, he invited Ice Cube to come and discuss the "Platinum Plan",  and he had, at that point, denounced white supremacy over 30+ times in the recorded press, more than any other POTUS in American political history. People can criticize Trump for many things, and they'd be right in many cases, but he actually gave McEnany something to work with on a controversial issue.

Harris has given Psaki zero. Nothing she's said is defensible on any level. There is no spin control/crisis management that could clean up the "I've never been to Europe either" bombshell. Worse, it's an easy sound clip to use against Biden/Harris in 2024. It's literally handing Nikki Haley  a bushel full of undecideds, moderates and many Hispanic/Latino votes for no good reason at all. These are votes that Obama/Biden/Harris cannot afford to lose in the next cycle. They've already lost suburban women to Haley and it was mostly their own doing. What matters is reelection and Harris is going to tank the entire DNC all down the ticket.

I don't find Jen Psaki and her bizarre "Psaki Bombs" to be effective. I think she's a horrible Press Secretary. But if I am going to be fair about it, Harris and Biden have often left her on an island. In many indefensible positions based on some pretty basic media optics fundamentals that professional politicians at this level should not be getting wrong.

This is like Charles Dimry getting toasted by Jerry Rice over and over. Except it's not Jerry Rice, it's actually Freddie Mitchell.

A FredEx reference in the PF, love it.   

Edited by kodycutter
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, GordonGekko said:

 

The major problem in terms of reelection in 2024 ( that's always looming in the back of anyone's head in this position) is Harris has given Jen Psaki and the entire administration literally nothing to work with here. I mean zero. 

When Trump was accused of being supportive of White Supremacy and questioned on why he did not denounce White Supremacy and the KKK, there were things Kayleigh McEnany could actually use in defense. Trump donated a historic level amount of funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU's), he had a white supremacist who drown an 8 year old girl executed, he invited Ice Cube to come and discuss the "Platinum Plan",  and he had, at that point, denounced white supremacy over 30+ times in the recorded press, more than any other POTUS in American political history. People can criticize Trump for many things, and they'd be right in many cases, but he actually gave McEnany something to work with on a controversial issue.

Harris has given Psaki zero. Nothing she's said is defensible on any level. There is no spin control/crisis management that could clean up the "I've never been to Europe either" bombshell. Worse, it's an easy sound clip to use against Biden/Harris in 2024. It's literally handing Nikki Haley  a bushel full of undecideds, moderates and many Hispanic/Latino votes for no good reason at all. These are votes that Obama/Biden/Harris cannot afford to lose in the next cycle. They've already lost suburban women to Haley and it was mostly their own doing. What matters is reelection and Harris is going to tank the entire DNC all down the ticket.

I don't find Jen Psaki and her bizarre "Psaki Bombs" to be effective. I think she's a horrible Press Secretary. But if I am going to be fair about it, Harris and Biden have often left her on an island. In many indefensible positions based on some pretty basic media optics fundamentals that professional politicians at this level should not be getting wrong.

This is like Charles Dimry getting toasted by Jerry Rice over and over. Except it's not Jerry Rice, it's actually Freddie Mitchell.

Kamala just isn’t a leader.  Attorneys General usually make lousy leaders.  Having all that power, and always feeling like you’re the smartest person in the room, has a way of making a person arrogant, bossy, condescending and unlikeable.  They make fine Legislators, but terrible and uninspiring leaders. I can guarantee she will never be the Democratic nominee for President.  There’s a reason she did so poorly in the Primaries and that will not change just because she was VP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

Kamala just isn’t a leader.  Attorneys General usually make lousy leaders.  Having all that power, and always feeling like you’re the smartest person in the room, has a way of making a person arrogant, bossy, condescending and unlikeable.  They make fine Legislators, but terrible and uninspiring leaders. I can guarantee she will never be the Democratic nominee for President.  There’s a reason she did so poorly in the Primaries and that will not change just because she was VP.

 

If I'm going to be fair about it, being in front a camera on the national stage is very very difficult.

Lots of people watch someone like Joe Rogan and think, "I can do that, how hard can that be?"  It's insanely hard. Guys like David Letterman, Al Michaels, Bill Simmons, Rush Limbaugh, Conan O'Brien, it's just extremely difficult.

I've observed Sigmund Bloom over a period of years now, because I follow the podcasts, and he's gotten a lot better from where he started. That's not a half handed compliment. This stuff is complex. Asking questions the right way ( timing / push & pull / primacy & latency ), active listening, pacing, moderating tone inflection, skirting difficult topics, being consistent, playing to your niche, leading others into a group dynamic, that's all improved on his end quite a bit. It's just hard work and mostly attrition. Some of it is experience but you really need to grind away at it.

Politics is a game and you need to play it for a while in the minor leagues before you hit the big stage. AOC makes a lot of mistakes in terms of media engagement. But she's young and she started young. There's room for her to improve. Someone like Kristi Noem, that's it, where she is, given her age, that's where she is going to be. Age is the great enemy for women in general, and also in politics. There's a reason why you see older female newscasters look like they are going home and crying every night. You need a certain "aesthetic" to appeal to certain voting blocks. Kamala Harris is right on the edge where she'd have been turfed for aesthetics otherwise if she didn't get half the ticket this cycle.

Public speaking is the No#1 fear in every modern nation on Earth.

Some people are lucky and they have an innate gift for it. You can't teach what Al Michaels has or can do.

Leadership is a duty. Command is a burden. Being "Presidential" requires the ability to assume command. This will line up to what the modern military teaches in "command presence"

The safe answer is Kamala Harris cannot command attention. She lacks the charisma and skill set to do so. Thus she will never sell the perception that she is "Presidential"  The best way to explain it is imagine if there was a zombie apocalypse. And you were in a room full of people. Who will everyone instinctively look towards and expect answers and leadership?

I don't believe Barack Obama was a good President. Honestly I found him to be an idiot based on a lot of his policies and decisions. But I acknowledge he was a generational level public speaker and could sell "Presidential" most of the time.

I believe all the rape accusations against Bill Clinton. But I will acknowledge he was incredible as an improvisational speaker, which is one of the hardest things to do in the media. He too could often sell "Presidential"

Trump was a hammer who saw the entire world as nails. He couldn't sell "Presidential" and it cost him quite a bit.

So for Kamala Harris, in her situation, she has to hope all the other candidates suck worse than her. That's kind of a brutal evaluation, but it's true. Mac Jones doesn't need to be a Pro Bowler to stay a starter with the Patriots, he just needs to beat out a career backup and the enigma that is Cam Newton. There are no real contenders who can sell Presidential in 2024. Not Haley, not Crenshaw, not De Santis, not AOC, not Newsom, not Biden, not Trump.

I'd say Tulsi Gabbard had a little bit of it. Her military background likely helped her a bit. Wesley Hunt is the only non contender I've seen so far with glimpses of the "It Factor"

Democrats should look at Kamala Harris and think immediately about Tulsi Gabbard. Who, with some modifications, would have given them 8 years of POTUS and a natural reset of SCOTUS. Turfing Gabbard will cost the DNC for the next 10 cycles.

Kamala Harris might end up in a Tim Rattay situation in 2024. Everyone else is dead, injured, cut or traded. So I guess you get to start under center. But you are right, she is definitely not a leader. Though the bigger issue is she cannot take and hold command.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, GordonGekko said:

 

If I'm going to be fair about it, being in front a camera on the national stage is very very difficult.

Lots of people watch someone like Joe Rogan and think, "I can do that, how hard can that be?"  It's insanely hard. Guys like David Letterman, Al Michaels, Bill Simmons, Rush Limbaugh, Conan O'Brien, it's just extremely difficult.

I've observed Sigmund Bloom over a period of years now, because I follow the podcasts, and he's gotten a lot better from where he started. That's not a half handed compliment. This stuff is complex. Asking questions the right way ( timing / push & pull / primacy & latency ), active listening, pacing, moderating tone inflection, skirting difficult topics, being consistent, playing to your niche, leading others into a group dynamic, that's all improved on his end quite a bit. It's just hard work and mostly attrition. Some of it is experience but you really need to grind away at it.

Politics is a game and you need to play it for a while in the minor leagues before you hit the big stage. AOC makes a lot of mistakes in terms of media engagement. But she's young and she started young. There's room for her to improve. Someone like Kristi Noem, that's it, where she is, given her age, that's where she is going to be. Age is the great enemy for women in general, and also in politics. There's a reason why you see older female newscasters look like they are going home and crying every night. You need a certain "aesthetic" to appeal to certain voting blocks. Kamala Harris is right on the edge where she'd have been turfed for aesthetics otherwise if she didn't get half the ticket this cycle.

Public speaking is the No#1 fear in every modern nation on Earth.

Some people are lucky and they have an innate gift for it. You can't teach what Al Michaels has or can do.

Leadership is a duty. Command is a burden. Being "Presidential" requires the ability to assume command. This will line up to what the modern military teaches in "command presence"

The safe answer is Kamala Harris cannot command attention. She lacks the charisma and skill set to do so. Thus she will never sell the perception that she is "Presidential"  The best way to explain it is imagine if there was a zombie apocalypse. And you were in a room full of people. Who will everyone instinctively look towards and expect answers and leadership?

I don't believe Barack Obama was a good President. Honestly I found him to be an idiot based on a lot of his policies and decisions. But I acknowledge he was a generational level public speaker and could sell "Presidential" most of the time.

I believe all the rape accusations against Bill Clinton. But I will acknowledge he was incredible as an improvisational speaker, which is one of the hardest things to do in the media. He too could often sell "Presidential"

Trump was a hammer who saw the entire world as nails. He couldn't sell "Presidential" and it cost him quite a bit.

So for Kamala Harris, in her situation, she has to hope all the other candidates suck worse than her. That's kind of a brutal evaluation, but it's true. Mac Jones doesn't need to be a Pro Bowler to stay a starter with the Patriots, he just needs to beat out a career backup and the enigma that is Cam Newton. There are no real contenders who can sell Presidential in 2024. Not Haley, not Crenshaw, not De Santis, not AOC, not Newsom, not Biden, not Trump.

I'd say Tulsi Gabbard had a little bit of it. Her military background likely helped her a bit. Wesley Hunt is the only non contender I've seen so far with glimpses of the "It Factor"

Democrats should look at Kamala Harris and think immediately about Tulsi Gabbard. Who, with some modifications, would have given them 8 years of POTUS and a natural reset of SCOTUS. Turfing Gabbard will cost the DNC for the next 10 cycles.

Kamala Harris might end up in a Tim Rattay situation in 2024. Everyone else is dead, injured, cut or traded. So I guess you get to start under center. But you are right, she is definitely not a leader. Though the bigger issue is she cannot take and hold command.

Great stuff in there, perhaps none better than the newscaster crying bit lol.  Presidential leadership is such a difficult thing to harness.  One has to be charismatic, intelligent, visually appealing, empathetic, stable, persuasive, a great speaker and a strong physical presence.  The only two modern presidents I can think of that checked all those boxes were JFK and Reagan. Kamala has one of those - intelligence.  Your assessment of the 2024 candidates was pretty spot on.  I doubt he’ll run, but there is one person you didn’t mention that has all the qualities mentioned above.  Take a guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ekbeats said:

Great stuff in there, perhaps none better than the newscaster crying bit lol.  Presidential leadership is such a difficult thing to harness.  One has to be charismatic, intelligent, visually appealing, empathetic, stable, persuasive, a great speaker and a strong physical presence.  The only two modern presidents I can think of that checked all those boxes were JFK and Reagan. Kamala has one of those - intelligence.  Your assessment of the 2024 candidates was pretty spot on.  I doubt he’ll run, but there is one person you didn’t mention that has all the qualities mentioned above.  Take a guess.

I'm not sure if Kamala has intelligence either, TBH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ekbeats said:

Great stuff in there, perhaps none better than the newscaster crying bit lol.  Presidential leadership is such a difficult thing to harness.  One has to be charismatic, intelligent, visually appealing, empathetic, stable, persuasive, a great speaker and a strong physical presence.  The only two modern presidents I can think of that checked all those boxes were JFK and Reagan. Kamala has one of those - intelligence.  Your assessment of the 2024 candidates was pretty spot on.  I doubt he’ll run, but there is one person you didn’t mention that has all the qualities mentioned above.  Take a guess.

Sherrod Brown, Val Demings, Mayor Pete, Michael Bennet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The General said:

Sherrod Brown, Val Demings, Mayor Pete, Michael Bennet

I liked Mayor Pete but he started to come across too much as a know it all.  I guess I should add intellectual humility to my list.  It’s one of the things I loved so much about Reagan.  Came across as a down to earth guy.  Spoke plainly.  Trump was interesting in this regard.  He was a narcissist and an egomaniac on one hand, yet he was also very down to earth and spoke plainly - often times too plainly.  A lot of working class people liked Trump.  The nickname “Blue collar billionaire” was perfect.

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no issues with a border wall, but what really bothers me about Texas politics (lifelong Texan here) is how they can allocate 1 billion dollars to build a wall but a few years ago they decided to cut 400 million dollars from the state's medicaid program. You know, a program that provides healthcare for the low income and funds things like HHS, CPS and special education programs? 

 

Things like that is why I can't vote GOP, maybe other red states have better leadership but Greg Abbott, Ken Paxton and Dan Patrick are scum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gachi said:

I have no issues with a border wall, but what really bothers me about Texas politics (lifelong Texan here) is how they can allocate 1 billion dollars to build a wall but a few years ago they decided to cut 400 million dollars from the state's medicaid program. You know, a program that provides healthcare for the low income and funds things like HHS, CPS and special education programs? 

 

Things like that is why I can't vote GOP, maybe other red states have better leadership but Greg Abbott, Ken Paxton and Dan Patrick are scum. 

If Texas cuts off the supply of illegal immigrants that require government assistance that money can then go towards providing healthcare for the low income and funding things like HHS, CPS and special education programs. I would assume that is the thinking anyways.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, KingPrawn said:

If Texas cuts off the supply of illegal immigrants that require government assistance that money can then go towards providing healthcare for the low income and funding things like HHS, CPS and special education programs. I would assume that is the thinking anyways.


Not quite sure I’m buying that. For one, illegals can’t collect any kind of welfare per the 1996 welfare reform bill. Also, illegals pay income taxes. They take less from the system than Jim Bob who’s on SSI and food stamps, yet wants “build the wall.” 
 

Gutting social programs and abortion are low hanging fruit for the GOP. It’s a party of clowns now. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Gachi said:


Not quite sure I’m buying that. For one, illegals can’t collect any kind of welfare per the 1996 welfare reform bill. Also, illegals pay income taxes. They take less from the system than Jim Bob who’s on SSI and food stamps, yet wants “build the wall.” 
 

Gutting social programs and abortion are low hanging fruit for the GOP. It’s a party of clowns now. 

Really?  Please provide link showing illegals are a net positive especially kids. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, stlrams said:

Really?  Please provide link showing illegals are a net positive especially kids. 

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23550/the-economic-and-fiscal-consequences-of-immigration

It won't specify illegal vs immigrant....but given the 2nd generation's impact, it would be logical to assume illegals are part of the net positive long term when it comes to the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sho nuff said:

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23550/the-economic-and-fiscal-consequences-of-immigration

It won't specify illegal vs immigrant....but given the 2nd generation's impact, it would be logical to assume illegals are part of the net positive long term when it comes to the economy.

You gave a link to purchase a book.  So long term means 1st generation are not a net positive - correct?  The numbers that we are seeing recently are mostly children how are they contributing to the economy?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stlrams said:

You gave a link to purchase a book.  So long term means 1st generation are not a net positive - correct?  The numbers that we are seeing recently are mostly children how are they contributing to the economy?.

Sorry, pulled the link to the study vs the article about it.  The description does mention what I was walking about with 2nd generation.

This may be the pdf

https://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2016/09/0922_immigrant-economics-full-report.pdf

1st generation typically no.  But net immigration is a positive.  Meaning even a negative impact of 1st generation is made up for by future generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, kodycutter said:

So the Texas governor now plans to build their own state paid wall.      be interesting since federal gov't is in charge of borders.     how much longer can Kamala avoid going down there?

Sad the state has to step up after the federal government fails its people. Politics over people.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Sad the state has to step up after the federal government fails its people. Politics over people.

Feds are supposed to work with the states and respond to their concerns.  Biden administration won't even take their calls.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, John123 said:

Feds are supposed to work with the states and respond to their concerns.  Biden administration won't even take their calls.

I don't know what you are referring to. Do you have some specifics? What are the states and what concerns are not being responded to? Who has claimed that their calls are not being taken?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, squistion said:

I don't know what you are referring to. Do you have some specifics? What are the states and what concerns are not being responded to? Who has claimed that their calls are not being taken?

It's literally in the two posts above the one you quoted.  It's Texas.    Or do you have Max and I on ignore?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2021 at 11:27 PM, ekbeats said:

Kamala just isn’t a leader.  Attorneys General usually make lousy leaders.  Having all that power, and always feeling like you’re the smartest person in the room, has a way of making a person arrogant, bossy, condescending and unlikeable.  They make fine Legislators, but terrible and uninspiring leaders. I can guarantee she will never be the Democratic nominee for President.  There’s a reason she did so poorly in the Primaries and that will not change just because she was VP.

Harris won`t win the Dem nomination in 2024. Too risky.  First and foremost Harris needs to stop laughing everytime she does not want to answer a question.

Edited by Summer Wheat
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Summer Wheat said:

Harris won`t win the Dem nomination in 2024. Too risky.  First and foremost Harris needs to stop laughing everytime she does not want to answer a question.

It's extremely condescending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

I bet dollars to donuts that she comes back and says "everything is fine". 

Yep. Watch the media start playing her up too. Well more than they already are.

Time is coming to swap out ole Joe. 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Max Power said:

She's going to knock it out of the park.

 

 

Shes going to El Paso.  I guess that's technically the border.  But, El Paso?

First, sure its seen a surge just like everywhere, 200% increase of illegals.  But, it ranks fourth in the list of regions and hasn't seen a 700% increase like some of the others. Oh, and it's got a completed border wall that was built under Obama. :lmao:  If she really wanted to go to the problem she would go to the Rio Grande Valley. 

Second, it doesnt have anything to do with Guadamala or Honduras illegals like she claims is the "root cause".  Guatemalan illegals arent going the extra 9 days and 700 miles through the heart of Mexico to get to El Paso. They come up the coast to the Rio Grande Valley where there isnt any wall.  El Paso is 100% Mexican illegals and drugs, the vast majority of which come through the port of entry.  

No, this is a check the box, try to get back positive media spin. The only problem she is going to find in El Paso is finding a place for a photo OP at the border that doesnt show border wall in the background.  

Edited by tonydead
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She is only going so she can say I best trump again who has a scheduled visit a few days later.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Mile High said:

"She needs to go to the Border."  "Not that part of the Border. " She could walk every mile along the Border and talk to everyone she came across and some would complain. 

Wasn't the point so that she could see the problem and fix it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Wasn't the point so that she could see the problem and fix it?

Is there a point for any politician to go to the Border? It pretty much is the same for all of them. Go stand around for the camera say a few words and go back  to DC and do little to solve the problems. 

Edited by Mile High
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mile High said:

Is there a point for any politician to go to the Border? It pretty much is the same for all of them. Go stand around for the camera say a few words and go back  to DC and do little to solve the problems. 

I disagree with that. I think it is important to see the ground truth and talk to the people who live it everyday.

You can't effectively lead when you don't have a good understanding of the issue. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mile High said:

Is there a point for any politician to go to the Border? It pretty much is the same for all of them. Go stand around for the camera say a few words and go back  to DC and do little to solve the problems. 

I think it’s important to visit certain spots for her…and really anyone who wants to speak knowledgeably about what the situation at the border is like.  
Many speaking out positive or negative about things are often doing so without really knowing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Max Power said:

I disagree with that. I think it is important to see the ground truth and talk to the people who live it everyday.

You can't effectively lead when you don't have a good understanding of the issue. 

Neither party seems to really care about understanding the issue.  There is no desire to do what is needed in putting more resources there in the form of lawyers, judges, care workers, border officers or facilities to process the backlog.  

How many times do we have to ask the people what the problem is?  If I were them, I'd be beyond pissed.  Every single administration has done this dog/pony show only to follow it up with inaction.  The only people who seem to need this show are the "sides".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

I think it’s important to visit certain spots for her…and really anyone who wants to speak knowledgeably about what the situation at the border is like.  
Many speaking out positive or negative about things are often doing so without really knowing.

IMO it's more just a political/photo op at this point.   I don't think there is much she could do more at the border vs. talking to the same people via skype, looking at satellite photos, reading info, etc, etc.    Basically going there is just about the optics of it.  

 I would rather somebody do all the other things and actually address the issue vs. a politician going there, shaking hands, and doing the same thing afterwards.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

IMO it's more just a political/photo op at this point.   I don't think there is much she could do more at the border vs. talking to the same people via skype, looking at satellite photos, reading info, etc, etc.    Basically going there is just about the optics of it.  

 I would rather somebody do all the other things and actually address the issue vs. a politician going there, shaking hands, and doing the same thing afterwards.  

I agree a lot will be optics.  But there is value, IMO, in going.  Speaking to those that work the border face to face.  Speaking to refugees and seeing their stories as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure Dem leadership couldn't be lax about about the border as a way to change voter demographics?  That would be super shady. Since the Dems are all about helping the little guy, I'm sure it's more about that.....🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Max Power said:

I disagree with that. I think it is important to see the ground truth and talk to the people who live it everyday.

You can't effectively lead when you don't have a good understanding of the issue. 

Huge opportunity for Trump to do it right, starting off by showing up at the right place (Rio Grande Valley, not El Paso), showing the real problem and talking to real people that would throw a black shadow over Kamala's photo OP everything's not so bad in El Paso visit.  There is no way out of this for Kamala if it's done right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

I agree a lot will be optics.  But there is value, IMO, in going.  Speaking to those that work the border face to face.  Speaking to refugees and seeing their stories as well.

I get it. there could have been other reasons (covid) that might have been a decent reason not to.  

just saying in this day and age with technology, there's not much she couldn't have done in DC vs going and standing at the border.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huge tactical error it seemed ignoring it so long. She should have been there the day after President Biden appointed her. Such a layup missed opportunity. Instead they give the Republicans all the "Que Mala?" and the “Kamala, do you hear their screams?” material they need. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...