Kamala's CNN interview was a disaster!!
- Thread starter mitchell76
- Start date
Here we go! EVERYONE grab your vomit suit! Mitchy is triggered again.
BREAK OUT THE SUIT!!!!
BREAK OUT THE SUIT!!!!
Apparently, you don't understand the concept of throwing someone under the bus. It doesn't have to be fair, justified or a largely successful tactic. I'm cynical of both parties and how they conduct themselves.
Our discussion is at an impasse. People can see for themselves the extent of the immigration problem and decide Republicans are overwhelmingly better to handle it. Whether you believe there is a biased liberal media, having Martha Raddatz on ABC trying to diminish the migrant crime issue to a handful of apartment complexes taken over by Venezuelan gangs is a very bad look.
PS- You should move back and talk to people here. They're not stupid and being led around on a chain by Republicans. By the way, Martha Raddatz is too old for the liberal media game.
I will just leave this here for your reading pleasure young man.
Abortion overtakes immigration in voters' minds
Newsweek polling suggests the issues most influencing American voters are changing.
www.newsweek.com
I totally understand it.
I'm talking about it's strategic helpfulness.
You yourself say you are too cynical to be impressed or affected by it.
So I wonder why you think it would be a helpful move. (I suppose you could be saying you are cynical enough people would fall for it despite it being pointless.)
As I said, I see little to no benefit from this move.
I actually see the demand for it as a token as a power play by the GOP -- if they can make this demand and get her to do it, they know they've got more leverage on her than they thought, since they can make her do silly things that won't get her anywhere.
You see this move often.
Make the demand to see if you can get them to comply, then ignore their compliance as not enough. (That's not uniquely GOP, it is just a political leverage move in general.)
Which has nothing to do with Harris pointlessly saying she would fire Mayorkas.
The population's views on immigration and who would handle it better are what they are.
Clearly Harris and company think that "We tried to work on it, but Trump would rather run on the issue than solve it" is a better move than performatively claiming they will make cabinet member changes.
Trump's team views "I will set up detention camps and use the military in the most massive deportation operation ever on immigrants" as a better pitch.
I'd like to think that "we need better laws and an overhaul of the system" is more appealing than "paramilitary crackdown and calling people vermin" but it is quite possible I am wrong.
I don't watch ABC so I have no idea what Raddatz said.
The egregious lying about the "migrant crime" issue by the GOP has been disgusting, though, even if I must sadly admit it has been effective.
I don't understand your obsession with Martha Raddatz.
I think my point about your perspective is basically you don't see or you diminish an immigration problem for Democrats this election cycle. From your POV, why would firing Mayorkas help Harris at all when the issue is not a major problem for her.
I think people overwhelmingly believe that if you commit crimes while you are here with temporary status you should be immediately deported. There's too many examples of unlawful migrants stepping on U.S. soil and being granted too much consideration. Enforcement of certain immigration laws should be a bipartisan and unequivocal. Do we need an overhaul of the system to ensure enforcement of the current law?
That's great. I said in post #656 above:"Just like I admit abortion was a noose around Republicans necks in 2022."I will just leave this here for your reading pleasure young man.
Abortion overtakes immigration in voters' minds
Newsweek polling suggests the issues most influencing American voters are changing.
U.S. Presidential elections are generally fought on a many levels. So if Kamala wins, I would certainly think abortion was a factor. I would probably say Trump's personality will be a bigger factor.
If Trump wins, I believe the Administration's handling of immigration will be a big factor.
I know you are going to say in year four the Democrats reached out to Republicans for a compromise. It might have been too little, too late. I read through the proposal and I wasn't impressed with it's ability to limit immigration at the southern border. It seemed like it's main goal was to legitimize a large number of migrants crossing the border. And that's the criticism. It's just an opinion. Apparently, many of my fellow Americans are underwhelmed with the compromise.
C'mon, Wearp.
We both know that Repubs won't "handle" the immigration issue. They'll pretend that they're doing something, but - somehow - it will never quite work and the Repubs will always be talking about how they need to do something else and how the Dems "caused the whole problem by being woke".
Immigration is the one solid, milkable, cumshot issue that the far right has with its sheeple across the west. Solve immigration and people don't bother voting for a right wing candidate and the Dems win the next election.
So here's what'll happen. There'll be a lot of "we mean business" big-talk and a lot of photo opping at the border. Some useless, dick-jerk legislation will be passed which will be designed to humiliate and degrade asylum seekers, but will deliberately NOT solve the problem. Fox will congratulate the Reps for "solving the crisis".
And occasionally - more frequently as the mid terms near - there will be more scary stuff about caravans and pet-eating. There will be more legislation designed to humiliate and degrade asylum seekers but definitely not solve the problem. And the cycle will repeat.
You're very scathing today, Wearp. Definitely a no-nonsense take on the issue from you.
Firing Mayorkas won't slow down the Rep attack and is wasted activity.
And the Venezuelan gangs didn't really take over those apartment complexes.
And if the Reps really wanted to solve the crisis, they'd talk about resiling from the UNCHR. But the Reps LOVE the fake crisis. It's endless whiny jerk-off porn for the entire GOP.
Besides your average GOP congressperson / senator is too fucking stupid to know what the UNCHR actually is - let along their dumbass voters in the Red State Land.
You will agree I'm sure that it was a big issue during the red wave-that never happened right?
I don't disagree it's a factor but it's more of a factor with folks who are Maga deciples and will only vote Republican. I don't think it will sway folks who do not like Trump on many levels. Abortion on the other hand I believe will bring women who are on the fence and have voted Republican in the past to vote for Harris. Another note is women in general tend to vote more as a voting block compared to men who talk tough but don't show up to the polls and immigration is more of an issue men would bite on than women.
Mitch, the folks working at the border, and other Republicans were all on board to pass the bill until the Felon forced their hand because he wanted to run on open borders. This is the man wanting to save dogs and cats from the legal Haitian in St. Stephens.
<------- Mitchy, look!!! I saved you the time! Concentrate on buying a pair of Trump shoes buddy.
You're wrong though.
It is a problem.
It polls consistently as a problem.
I am saying that the "say you will fire Mayorkas" move doesn't appear to move the needle in any meaningful way.
I could be wrong about that.
There could well be a giant stampede of people who would absolutely choose Harris if she did that.
Or even a good 4-6%, to use the obvious comparison - Frank's belief that Harris announcing a change on the Israel issue would immediately get her a 4-6% bump in the polls.
I am skeptical about both.
Clearly yes, since the system doesn't work the way you seem to think it should.
And unless I am mistaken, a number of crimes already carry deportation as a consequence.
I presume, by the way, that you are at the very least saying that upon conviction of a crime.
We aren't for just letting the police arrest people and immediately deport them, are we?
Raddatz is not very good at her job, it seems.
But then, I find most broadcast and cable news people to be pretty shit at their jobs. (At least they are if you think their jobs involve journalism and informative interviews.)
I think you are being too optimistic.
This is the same argument that was used for years as to why people didn't have to worry about the GOP actually doing anything about abortion.
I don't think you can assume real action won't be taken.
With all due respect, I think Kamala belongs as a host on The View. It would really suit her. I don't mean that in a patronizing way. They're always talking about things they don't understand or on a superficial level on that show.
Kamala tries to make profound statements but just comes off as lacking any depth at all. It all turns into gibberish that only she can make sense of.
I disliked Hillary Clinton, but she had a brain. I disliked Bush, but he had a brain. Obama was affable even though I didn't care for his politics.
Kamala has zero charisma and no brain. She's just an empty vessel in search of power.
I agree with all you said here. As long as we're having a conversation, can we just discuss the state of the race for a moment. Building on your point that women will strongly come out against Trump with abortion being a big motivator, I would ask you to think about polling. (However, I would add Trump's demeanor.) My personal experience is that women who support Harris are very forthcoming about their support. I think they are counted in current polls. I don't think this bloc of women for Kamala are coy when asked by pollsters.
So does the accuracy of current polling depend on men and their proclivity to turn out or not turn out to vote?
So are you calling me Mitchy or did you just make an error in posting?Mitch, the folks working at the border, and other Republicans were all on board to pass the bill until the Felon forced their hand because he wanted to run on open borders. This is the man wanting to save dogs and cats from the legal Haitian in St. Stephens.
I don't think anyone here really mistakes me for Mitch.
