The whole point of this thread was subjective assessment. Mayorkas was, is, and will continue to be the actual border czar, and even that is a misnomer because he doesn't have that broad of authority. It was never Harris, ever. Mayorkas oversees the country's main three immigration agencies, including Customs and Border Protection. If you want an actual border czar, look up Roberta Jacobson - and her role hasn't existed in three years.

If you read it off a page, Harris' actual tasking was convincing companies to invest in Central America and promoting democracy and development there through diplomacy. Whether she did that well is up for debate, but that's just the reality. She never had a role at the border because she wasn't given one.

The talking points are out..

LA TIMES:
Vice President Kamala Harris will lead response to migrant issue as numbers rise at border

This is a lie.

VP Harris was never "in charge" of the border, but what is factual is that you and Trump killed the strongest bipartisan bill in recent history to secure our border because you wanted to exploit this issue for your campaign instead of solving it. https://t.co/vWkNYn10af

— Amy McGrath (@AmyMcGrathKY) July 24, 2024

Doc Holliday said:

---

parch said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Lets look at her background:

- She sucked her way up the ladder of power.
- Put people in prison for no reason.
- She's not well spoken or personable.
- She was supposed to be a border czar and allowed 12+ million illegals to enter.
- She's a champion of identity politics.

She's more coherent than Joe and doesn't have Parkinson's. She will use her younger age against Trump...despite media circling wagons to say Joe's age wasn't an issue.

In polling aggregate she's lower than Joe, even at his worst. The "excitement" behind her is being astroturfed.

If elected, we'd get an onslaught of idpol agendas, no border control, continued economic struggles and I don't see her handling war issues well.

---

I thought this was supposed to be objective.

She's never been a "border czar."

Politifact debunked itself and uses faulty logic:

"I've asked her … to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border," Biden said in March 2021. They stated "her role is addressing the factors that make people leave their home countries, not managing the border".

Not managing the border is the reason people leave their home countries.

She's publicly said she's not going to treat people who illegally cross the border as criminals. That alone is all I need to know that she has no intentions of handling the border.

She was the Cali AG from 2011-2016 and in that time frame number of admissions to California state prisons for marijuana and hashish was 1,974. That was on her watch and within her power to undo.

The rest is subjective, including how she handles wars, border control and economic agenda. There is no way to know any of that based on fact. And the gross ladder of power comment does not deserve rebuttal or serious thought.

I'm basing it on her 2020 campaign:

During her previous presidential campaign, then candidate Harris told members of an Iowa roundtable that the corporate tax rate has "got to" be increased. Some sources are citing intentions of increasing it to as high as 35%.

Another policy she proposed was to "get rid of Trump's 2017 tax cuts immediately". What will this do?Raise tax brackets by ~4%, lower child tax credits, remove 199A deduction, lower estate exemptions.

She also previously proposed to give people a monthly tax credit of $500 for people earning less than $100,000 as part of the policy known as "LIFT the Middle Class Act". This would have cost an estimated $3 trillion over 10 years. Not only would it cost a lot of money, but it could also increase inflation and discourage people from working.

I also think that she will adopt similar tax changes as Biden. From the individual side, things like:

- Increase tax on long term capital gains
- Increase top individual tax rate
- Increase NIIT and Medicare to 5%

Harris, like all candidates, is imperfect and has political skeletons. I would say on balance in relation to past (and present) candidates, her skeletons are relatively minute, which is what has Trump's corner scrambling for talking points at the moment.

Trump isn't scrambling to attack Harris. If her proposals are in line with her party, her past and during Biden's presidency then that equates to bad economic conditions for the middle class.

---

---

1. "Not managing the border is the reason people leave their home countries."

The world isn't this black and white. They leave because of systemic issues at home, first and foremost, but for many other reasons as well. It doesn't matter how dangerous or fraught the journey is, if you face certain death or starvation at home then you will take your chances. Most migrants have no idea what the situation at the border actually is. They don't read American newspapers. They just know the opportunity is better, so they risk it all.

And that Biden quote doesn't disprove her lack of involvement at the border. She worked diplomatically south of the border to address systemic issues within those countries that lead people to leave them in the first place. That's many many miles south from what happens in Laredo and El Paso.

2. She was the Cali AG from 2011-2016 and in that time frame number of admissions to California state prisons for marijuana and hashish was 1,974. That was on her watch and within her power to undo.

Marijuana was illegal in California during that period, so I'm not sure how she could've undone those. And that number you used comes from a San Jose Mercury News article, which also points out that almost none of those were ever actually incarcerated because they were low-level offenses.

3. Of course Trump is scrambling to attack Harris. It'd be weird if he wasn't. It took him by surprise and now he's having to dial in talking points, many of which are awkward and easily disprovable, like the birther nonsense. He's doing what he always does early in campaigns, throwing crap against the wall and hoping something sticks. The difference now is that he only has a couple months to do it.

I see your 2020 campaign planks. I have no idea if those are still hers or not. A lot has happened since she published those in 2019, including a global market-rattling pandemic. We'll have to see what she comes out with.

Perceived strengths of Harris
1.Harris's prosecutable powers as an attorney and her performance in Senate committees have indicated a keen intelligence.
2. She's a terrific public and fast on her rhetorical feet.
3. She saw close the legislative process that god through a remarkable set of policies
4. In California she worked closely with the trades to establish a prison-to-construction-union-apprenticeship pipeline, under which former felons could enter the union-run apprenticeship programs, with a guarantee of good-paying work upon completionand a pretty fair guarantee of eschewing recidivism, too. (The American Prospect)
5. Support among black women and a key to the black vote
6. Her relative youth
7. A fresh face on the Democratic Front
8. Stick it Trump rhetorically
9. A new level of enthusiasm among Democratic base voters and a rhetorical ability, as she demonstrated in her talk to party workers yesterday and the ability to articulate the contrast between the Americas that each party wants to build.
10. Suddenly, the Democratic base is fired up. Biden's age or mental acuity no longer matter.

TrojanMoondoggie said:

---

The reality of the situation is the Dems had no choice but to go with her. They stepped in it from the get go by playing the DEI card. And they knew, with this person in particular, she was not qualified. To pull her from the ticket is to have to admit this. They played it fast and loose with not only their constituency, but every other legal voter in this country. Had something happened to JB, and we knew he wasn't in the best of shape when he was running, the most powerful position in the world would have been left in her hands?

Talk about the joke heard 'round the world. She has already made some serious silliness of herself on the world stage. I'm sure they have to prep her like no one who has ever crossed the threshold of the White House.

I know, cue the DT comments now. But the fact is, he was already president for four years. He may not have been to everyone's liking but he got things done. His accomplishments have already been cited here.

Now did the world think DT was a joke? Probably. But they also think JB is a joke too. Just for a different reason. And KH? Insert an eye roll. That's all I can give her.

She could still win. She's got everyone rallying around her.

But again, it's because they don't have a choice; it isn't because she is qualified. The only way she wins is because of who she is running against. So it's in DT's hands as to how he wants to play this. If he keeps his cool, and can get her to go off script, she'll fall back to the giggles, and jokes, and nervousness, and the rather banal "quotes" she likes to throw out there.

The fact is, she has nothing to run on. Her time as senator got nothing passed. And as someone pointed out, her primary appearance was an embarrassment. Tulsi ripped her a new one, and she only got 3% of the California vote.

Everyone knows how she got to where she's at here in California. And while there may be some women who have historically used that as a stepping stone to something greater, and have been successful when they got there, this one isn't one of those women. This lady has fallen upward.

DT needs to tone it down. I know his brazenness is what people love about him. But he still has to tone down the personal insults. I'm not sure he can do it. If he can though he should be able to defeat her. The numbers are already in his favor.

I heard one pundit say that she is going to come at him like nobody's business. She'll do what she tried to do to JB. She'll pull the race card on him. The sexist card. You name it. She did it to the dude who chose her as his VP, a fellow Dem. Stand back and get ready. Because going after him will be the order of every day. Her supporters will have to do the same thing for her that they did for GN in Californian when they came out to "support" him during the recall. There was little to nothing they could say on his behalf, so all they could do was go after the opposition. It will be the same with her. Because she really hasn't done anything. And as many have pointed out here already, she's not especially likable, or smooth.

This will be about the Independents, and those centrists sitting on the fence. DT already has his base, and will most likely get a good percentage of the Republicans. In light of what the alternative is. The Dems will vote for her, even though they will have to hold their noses while they do it. It will be up to the rest to swing one direction, or the other.

---

just quit it! You make too much sense for us normal people, not the whack jobs on here.

Doc Holliday said:

---

parch said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

parch said:

---

The whole point of this thread was subjective assessment. Mayorkas was, is, and will continue to be the actual border czar, and even that is a misnomer because he doesn't have that broad of authority. It was never Harris, ever. Mayorkas oversees the country's main three immigration agencies, including Customs and Border Protection. If you want an actual border czar, look up Roberta Jacobson - and her role hasn't existed in three years.

If you read it off a page, Harris' actual tasking was convincing companies to invest in Central America and promoting democracy and development there through diplomacy. Whether she did that well is up for debate, but that's just the reality. She never had a role at the border because she wasn't given one.

---

Subjectively she's part of the Biden administration who hasn't done anything to protect the border and I can only conclude she will do the same based on her own public statements on the topic.

We're supposed to believe she will get a handle on the border based on what?

---

I have no idea if she'll reverse trends on actual on-the-border issues. She may be awful at it. She may be surprisingly adept. I'm not the one pre-judging. The point is that, subjectively, she's never had an actual crack at it in the first place. Those decisions were not on her desk or anywhere near it.

---

Yes you do. You have every idea that based on what she's said, her party's stance and that if she was tough on the border it would be political suicide.

---

I think this is outdated thinking and a result of Biden's weakness rather than party ideology. Democrat establishment types have already lost this battle. Polling indicates the majority (overwhelmingly in some places) of Democrat voters disapprove of Biden's job at the border and want stronger policies. Whether they go far enough is up for debate, but I don't believe Harris will be immediately cowed into inaction by lily-white Democrats because they're hearing it from their constituency right now, and they want to keep their seats.

If she wins, I will judge her based on her actions and not this phony "border czar" title she's been given by hard right repubs.

parch said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

parch said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

parch said:

---

The whole point of this thread was subjective assessment. Mayorkas was, is, and will continue to be the actual border czar, and even that is a misnomer because he doesn't have that broad of authority. It was never Harris, ever. Mayorkas oversees the country's main three immigration agencies, including Customs and Border Protection. If you want an actual border czar, look up Roberta Jacobson - and her role hasn't existed in three years.

If you read it off a page, Harris' actual tasking was convincing companies to invest in Central America and promoting democracy and development there through diplomacy. Whether she did that well is up for debate, but that's just the reality. She never had a role at the border because she wasn't given one.

---

Subjectively she's part of the Biden administration who hasn't done anything to protect the border and I can only conclude she will do the same based on her own public statements on the topic.

We're supposed to believe she will get a handle on the border based on what?

---

I have no idea if she'll reverse trends on actual on-the-border issues. She may be awful at it. She may be surprisingly adept. I'm not the one pre-judging. The point is that, subjectively, she's never had an actual crack at it in the first place. Those decisions were not on her desk or anywhere near it.

---

Yes you do. You have every idea that based on what she's said, her party's stance and that if she was tough on the border it would be political suicide.

---

I think this is outdated thinking and a result of Biden's weakness rather than party ideology. Democrat establishment types have already lost this battle. Polling indicates the majority (overwhelmingly in some places) of Democrat voters disapprove of Biden's job at the border and want stronger policies. Whether they go far enough is up for debate, but I don't believe Harris will be immediately cowed into inaction by lily-white Democrats because they're hearing it from their constituency right now, and they want to keep their seats.

If she wins, I will judge her based on her actions and not this phony "border czar" title she's been given by hard right repubs.

---

You have to guess what a candidate will actually do in order to make a sound vote based on their history and what they say.

You're skipping to only judging her after the fact. It doesn't work like that.

Do you truly think Harris and democrats will get a major handle on the border?

Since it is my hope to keep this discussion reality based, BLM has issue with
the way Harris was coronated instead of allowing to democratic process to chose a
candidate.

I had though the very far left would all be all in on Harris, I suppose if you go far enough
left there is some opposition.

Those that don't have any reasoning for themselves and are totally tribal will agree with the
process as it happened. That is probably 85% of folks. The limited number that actually do think for themselves
will have some questions about how undemocratic this process was.

Tommy himself had hope the democratic process would be followed.

Overall the oligarchs of the democrat machine are thrilled with what happened and their money is
now flowing. When they are all in, that is not a good thing for the common man.

We will see in the end if the rank and file all fall in line.

KaiBear said:

---

parch said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

parch said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

parch said:

---

The whole point of this thread was subjective assessment. Mayorkas was, is, and will continue to be the actual border czar, and even that is a misnomer because he doesn't have that broad of authority. It was never Harris, ever. Mayorkas oversees the country's main three immigration agencies, including Customs and Border Protection. If you want an actual border czar, look up Roberta Jacobson - and her role hasn't existed in three years.

If you read it off a page, Harris' actual tasking was convincing companies to invest in Central America and promoting democracy and development there through diplomacy. Whether she did that well is up for debate, but that's just the reality. She never had a role at the border because she wasn't given one.

---

Subjectively she's part of the Biden administration who hasn't done anything to protect the border and I can only conclude she will do the same based on her own public statements on the topic.

We're supposed to believe she will get a handle on the border based on what?

---

I have no idea if she'll reverse trends on actual on-the-border issues. She may be awful at it. She may be surprisingly adept. I'm not the one pre-judging. The point is that, subjectively, she's never had an actual crack at it in the first place. Those decisions were not on her desk or anywhere near it.

---

Yes you do. You have every idea that based on what she's said, her party's stance and that if she was tough on the border it would be political suicide.

---

I think this is outdated thinking and a result of Biden's weakness rather than party ideology. Democrat establishment types have already lost this battle. Polling indicates the majority (overwhelmingly in some places) of Democrat voters disapprove of Biden's job at the border and want stronger policies. Whether they go far enough is up for debate, but I don't believe Harris will be immediately cowed into inaction by lily-white Democrats because they're hearing it from their constituency right now, and they want to keep their seats.

If she wins, I will judge her based on her actions and not this phony "border czar" title she's been given by hard right repubs.

---

Harris has zero accountability for these 5-12 million illegals in our country ?

As if she was a mere post office clerk somewhere in South Dakota these last 3 years ?

---

That's not the argument Vance and others behind and around him are making. The campaign critique is that Biden assigned her to the border as the czar, which means she had overall control of everything that happened there. That's a complete and utter falsehood.

She was diplomatically assigned to raise money and support for Central American governments to help stem the tide of immigration at the point of embarkation, to which end she raised $5 billion in investment, money that won't see effects come to fruition for many years.

Harris was awkward and a diplomatic pawn, per VP duties, during her public visits and statements on the matter, but the policies were Biden's. If she extends them verbatim (she won't), we can talk then.

parch said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

parch said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

parch said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

parch said:

---

The whole point of this thread was subjective assessment. Mayorkas was, is, and will continue to be the actual border czar, and even that is a misnomer because he doesn't have that broad of authority. It was never Harris, ever. Mayorkas oversees the country's main three immigration agencies, including Customs and Border Protection. If you want an actual border czar, look up Roberta Jacobson - and her role hasn't existed in three years.

If you read it off a page, Harris' actual tasking was convincing companies to invest in Central America and promoting democracy and development there through diplomacy. Whether she did that well is up for debate, but that's just the reality. She never had a role at the border because she wasn't given one.

---

Subjectively she's part of the Biden administration who hasn't done anything to protect the border and I can only conclude she will do the same based on her own public statements on the topic.

We're supposed to believe she will get a handle on the border based on what?

---

I have no idea if she'll reverse trends on actual on-the-border issues. She may be awful at it. She may be surprisingly adept. I'm not the one pre-judging. The point is that, subjectively, she's never had an actual crack at it in the first place. Those decisions were not on her desk or anywhere near it.

---

Yes you do. You have every idea that based on what she's said, her party's stance and that if she was tough on the border it would be political suicide.

---

I think this is outdated thinking and a result of Biden's weakness rather than party ideology. Democrat establishment types have already lost this battle. Polling indicates the majority (overwhelmingly in some places) of Democrat voters disapprove of Biden's job at the border and want stronger policies. Whether they go far enough is up for debate, but I don't believe Harris will be immediately cowed into inaction by lily-white Democrats because they're hearing it from their constituency right now, and they want to keep their seats.

If she wins, I will judge her based on her actions and not this phony "border czar" title she's been given by hard right repubs.

---

Harris has zero accountability for these 5-12 million illegals in our country ?

As if she was a mere post office clerk somewhere in South Dakota these last 3 years ?

---

That's not the argument Vance and others behind and around him are making. The campaign critique is that Biden assigned her to the border as the czar, which means she had overall control of everything that happened there. That's a complete and utter falsehood.

She was diplomatically assigned to raise money and support for Central American governments to help stem the tide of immigration at the point of embarkation, to which end she raised $5 billion in investment, money that won't see effects come to fruition for many years.

Harris was awkward and a diplomatic pawn, per VP duties, during her public visits and statements on the matter, but the policies were Biden's. If she extends them verbatim (she won't), we can talk then.

---

Sounds like her to a 'T'. That's what is going on right now in plain sight.

parch said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

parch said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

parch said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

parch said:

---

The whole point of this thread was subjective assessment. Mayorkas was, is, and will continue to be the actual border czar, and even that is a misnomer because he doesn't have that broad of authority. It was never Harris, ever. Mayorkas oversees the country's main three immigration agencies, including Customs and Border Protection. If you want an actual border czar, look up Roberta Jacobson - and her role hasn't existed in three years.

If you read it off a page, Harris' actual tasking was convincing companies to invest in Central America and promoting democracy and development there through diplomacy. Whether she did that well is up for debate, but that's just the reality. She never had a role at the border because she wasn't given one.

---

Subjectively she's part of the Biden administration who hasn't done anything to protect the border and I can only conclude she will do the same based on her own public statements on the topic.

We're supposed to believe she will get a handle on the border based on what?

---

I have no idea if she'll reverse trends on actual on-the-border issues. She may be awful at it. She may be surprisingly adept. I'm not the one pre-judging. The point is that, subjectively, she's never had an actual crack at it in the first place. Those decisions were not on her desk or anywhere near it.

---

Yes you do. You have every idea that based on what she's said, her party's stance and that if she was tough on the border it would be political suicide.

---

I think this is outdated thinking and a result of Biden's weakness rather than party ideology. Democrat establishment types have already lost this battle. Polling indicates the majority (overwhelmingly in some places) of Democrat voters disapprove of Biden's job at the border and want stronger policies. Whether they go far enough is up for debate, but I don't believe Harris will be immediately cowed into inaction by lily-white Democrats because they're hearing it from their constituency right now, and they want to keep their seats.

If she wins, I will judge her based on her actions and not this phony "border czar" title she's been given by hard right repubs.

---

Harris has zero accountability for these 5-12 million illegals in our country ?

As if she was a mere post office clerk somewhere in South Dakota these last 3 years ?

---

That's not the argument Vance and others behind and around him are making. The campaign critique is that Biden assigned her to the border as the czar, which means she had overall control of everything that happened there. That's a complete and utter falsehood.

She was diplomatically assigned to raise money and support for Central American governments to help stem the tide of immigration at the point of embarkation, to which end she raised $5 billion in investment, money that won't see effects come to fruition for many years.

Harris was awkward and a diplomatic pawn, per VP duties, during her public visits and statements on the matter, but the policies were Biden's. If she extends them verbatim (she won't), we can talk then.

---

No offense, but your explanation is obviously partisan and a simplistic point of view.

As a significant member of Biden's cabinet and administration Harris is accountable for the choices of the administration.

And the same Dem power brokers that destroyed Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign , only to later destroy Biden's 2024 campaign are not going to allow their most current selection to dramatically alter their immigration / cultural agenda .

The only one who is guaranteed to stop this southern invasion is Donald Trump. Unfortunately. As I wish there was another alternative….but there is not.

Here is ...Joe Biden...celebrating his DEI picks. His words!

KaiBear said:

---

parch said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

parch said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

parch said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

parch said:

---

The whole point of this thread was subjective assessment. Mayorkas was, is, and will continue to be the actual border czar, and even that is a misnomer because he doesn't have that broad of authority. It was never Harris, ever. Mayorkas oversees the country's main three immigration agencies, including Customs and Border Protection. If you want an actual border czar, look up Roberta Jacobson - and her role hasn't existed in three years.

If you read it off a page, Harris' actual tasking was convincing companies to invest in Central America and promoting democracy and development there through diplomacy. Whether she did that well is up for debate, but that's just the reality. She never had a role at the border because she wasn't given one.

---

Subjectively she's part of the Biden administration who hasn't done anything to protect the border and I can only conclude she will do the same based on her own public statements on the topic.

We're supposed to believe she will get a handle on the border based on what?

---

I have no idea if she'll reverse trends on actual on-the-border issues. She may be awful at it. She may be surprisingly adept. I'm not the one pre-judging. The point is that, subjectively, she's never had an actual crack at it in the first place. Those decisions were not on her desk or anywhere near it.

---

Yes you do. You have every idea that based on what she's said, her party's stance and that if she was tough on the border it would be political suicide.

---

I think this is outdated thinking and a result of Biden's weakness rather than party ideology. Democrat establishment types have already lost this battle. Polling indicates the majority (overwhelmingly in some places) of Democrat voters disapprove of Biden's job at the border and want stronger policies. Whether they go far enough is up for debate, but I don't believe Harris will be immediately cowed into inaction by lily-white Democrats because they're hearing it from their constituency right now, and they want to keep their seats.

If she wins, I will judge her based on her actions and not this phony "border czar" title she's been given by hard right repubs.

---

Harris has zero accountability for these 5-12 million illegals in our country ?

As if she was a mere post office clerk somewhere in South Dakota these last 3 years ?

---

That's not the argument Vance and others behind and around him are making. The campaign critique is that Biden assigned her to the border as the czar, which means she had overall control of everything that happened there. That's a complete and utter falsehood.

She was diplomatically assigned to raise money and support for Central American governments to help stem the tide of immigration at the point of embarkation, to which end she raised $5 billion in investment, money that won't see effects come to fruition for many years.

Harris was awkward and a diplomatic pawn, per VP duties, during her public visits and statements on the matter, but the policies were Biden's. If she extends them verbatim (she won't), we can talk then.

---

No offense, but your explanation is obviously partisan and a simplistic point of view.

As a significant member of Biden's cabinet and administration Harris is accountable for the choices of the administration.

And the same Dem power brokers that destroyed Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign , only to later destroy Biden's 2024 campaign are not going to allow their most current selection to dramatically alter their immigration / cultural agenda .

The only one who is guaranteed to stop this southern invasion is Donald Trump. Unfortunately. As I wish there was another alternative….but there is not.

---

My response is to an insane lie the Trump camp has perpetuated, and way too many gullible sycophants have parroted, that it was somehow Harris' job to police the border and the sieve it has become is somehow down to her failed policies. That's a wild, dangerous lie with zero basis in fact. The VP does not get to devise or implement domestic or foreign policy. This is the crux of Vance's argument, and it's wrong.

If you want to blame her for the border, you go ahead, but that mess is not a result of any decision or action she's made unless you can somehow prove otherwise.

parch said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

parch said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

parch said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

parch said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

parch said:

---

The whole point of this thread was subjective assessment. Mayorkas was, is, and will continue to be the actual border czar, and even that is a misnomer because he doesn't have that broad of authority. It was never Harris, ever. Mayorkas oversees the country's main three immigration agencies, including Customs and Border Protection. If you want an actual border czar, look up Roberta Jacobson - and her role hasn't existed in three years.

If you read it off a page, Harris' actual tasking was convincing companies to invest in Central America and promoting democracy and development there through diplomacy. Whether she did that well is up for debate, but that's just the reality. She never had a role at the border because she wasn't given one.

---

Subjectively she's part of the Biden administration who hasn't done anything to protect the border and I can only conclude she will do the same based on her own public statements on the topic.

We're supposed to believe she will get a handle on the border based on what?

---

I have no idea if she'll reverse trends on actual on-the-border issues. She may be awful at it. She may be surprisingly adept. I'm not the one pre-judging. The point is that, subjectively, she's never had an actual crack at it in the first place. Those decisions were not on her desk or anywhere near it.

---

Yes you do. You have every idea that based on what she's said, her party's stance and that if she was tough on the border it would be political suicide.

---

I think this is outdated thinking and a result of Biden's weakness rather than party ideology. Democrat establishment types have already lost this battle. Polling indicates the majority (overwhelmingly in some places) of Democrat voters disapprove of Biden's job at the border and want stronger policies. Whether they go far enough is up for debate, but I don't believe Harris will be immediately cowed into inaction by lily-white Democrats because they're hearing it from their constituency right now, and they want to keep their seats.

If she wins, I will judge her based on her actions and not this phony "border czar" title she's been given by hard right repubs.

---

Harris has zero accountability for these 5-12 million illegals in our country ?

As if she was a mere post office clerk somewhere in South Dakota these last 3 years ?

---

That's not the argument Vance and others behind and around him are making. The campaign critique is that Biden assigned her to the border as the czar, which means she had overall control of everything that happened there. That's a complete and utter falsehood.

She was diplomatically assigned to raise money and support for Central American governments to help stem the tide of immigration at the point of embarkation, to which end she raised $5 billion in investment, money that won't see effects come to fruition for many years.

Harris was awkward and a diplomatic pawn, per VP duties, during her public visits and statements on the matter, but the policies were Biden's. If she extends them verbatim (she won't), we can talk then.

---

No offense, but your explanation is obviously partisan and a simplistic point of view.

As a significant member of Biden's cabinet and administration Harris is accountable for the choices of the administration.

And the same Dem power brokers that destroyed Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign , only to later destroy Biden's 2024 campaign are not going to allow their most current selection to dramatically alter their immigration / cultural agenda .

The only one who is guaranteed to stop this southern invasion is Donald Trump. Unfortunately. As I wish there was another alternative….but there is not.

---

My response is to an insane lie the Trump camp has perpetuated, and way too many gullible sycophants have parroted, that it was somehow Harris' job to police the border and the sieve it has become is somehow down to her failed policies. That's a wild, dangerous lie with zero basis in fact. The VP does not get to devise or implement domestic or foreign policy. This is the crux of Vance's argument, and it's wrong.

If you want to blame her for the border, you go ahead, but that mess is not a result of any decision or action she's made unless you can somehow prove otherwise.

---

If you think its a lie then get over it and lets talk about whether you actually think she'll get a handle on the border or not if elected POTUS.

Is it really all that surprising? I mean, the Dems hate Trump with the intensity of a thousand burning suns. A wet paper bag could have beaten Trump in 2020.

I for one am not surprised. She's an awful pick, with an abysmal record, devoid of personality, but they had to pick her, or they risked a revolt from the minority members of the party. I mean, are you really going to pass over a black woman who is the heir apparent in favor of someone like Newsom? Of course not. When the Dems dropped Biden, they knew it was going to be Kamala.

So again, not surprised at all about the pick, nor that leftist Hollywood and Soros are pouring millions into her coffer. It wouldn't matter who it was - that would have happened regardless.

What remains to be seen is if this bump (at least in the Reuters poll) will actually sustain itself. I have serious doubts once American voters are reminded of this cackling idiot's buffoonery, which won't play well in the blue collar swing states. This is I think still Trump's election to lose, but if he doesn't play his cards right, he can certainly lose it.

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

The talking points are out..

LA TIMES:
Vice President Kamala Harris will lead response to migrant issue as numbers rise at border

This is a lie.

VP Harris was never "in charge" of the border, but what is factual is that you and Trump killed the strongest bipartisan bill in recent history to secure our border because you wanted to exploit this issue for your campaign instead of solving it. https://t.co/vWkNYn10af

— Amy McGrath (@AmyMcGrathKY) July 24, 2024

---

What pisses me off is that bill would have still allowed millions of illegal crossings and that would be precedent.

Democrats are the absolute worst.

---

oh look, the word is out..just like "Joe Biden is the sharpest man alive!"

a. This isn’t true. The “Biden put Harris in charge of the border” narrative is made up.

b. Harris supported the bipartisan border security bill that would have fixed the problem. Trump killed it.

c. Border crossings are lower now than in Trump’s last non-pandemic summer. https://t.co/8jvp113yeh

— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) July 24, 2024

---

I put the actual news conference where Biden put Harris in charge of the border on here. If it meant nothing and she was just a figurehead trying to prop up her street cred, then the news conference never should have happened.

But, yet it did.

I would recommend everybody listen to every word of it, so they will make actual informed comments. The MSM will not tell the truth about this.

---

Direct quote from that press conference:

"She has agreed to lead our diplomatic effort and work with those nations to accept the returnees and enhance migration enforcement at their borders. Their borders."

He literally repeats "their borders" for added emphasis. There is nothing in that press conference that says she was ever tasked with implementing Biden's policies at the American-Mexican border. It was a diplomatic mission to the nexus of the migration in Central America and she raised $5 billion toward it from when she was tasked with it in 2021 until March, when the last $1 billion private sector investment came through. And the important part is that it was limited in scope to diplomacy and fundraising. She was not given the option to do anything else. She was awkward at the diplomacy (she told migrants to stop coming in Guatemala) and successful at the fundraising, so draw your own conclusions.

It is a lie. Period.

Time Magazine - today

MSM to the rescue!!

Kamala Harris Wasn't the 'Border Czar.' Here's What She Did | TIME

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

parch said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

parch said:

---

The whole point of this thread was subjective assessment. Mayorkas was, is, and will continue to be the actual border czar, and even that is a misnomer because he doesn't have that broad of authority. It was never Harris, ever. Mayorkas oversees the country's main three immigration agencies, including Customs and Border Protection. If you want an actual border czar, look up Roberta Jacobson - and her role hasn't existed in three years.

If you read it off a page, Harris' actual tasking was convincing companies to invest in Central America and promoting democracy and development there through diplomacy. Whether she did that well is up for debate, but that's just the reality. She never had a role at the border because she wasn't given one.

---

Subjectively she's part of the Biden administration who hasn't done anything to protect the border and I can only conclude she will do the same based on her own public statements on the topic.

We're supposed to believe she will get a handle on the border based on what?

---

I have no idea if she'll reverse trends on actual on-the-border issues. She may be awful at it. She may be surprisingly adept. I'm not the one pre-judging. The point is that, subjectively, she's never had an actual crack at it in the first place. Those decisions were not on her desk or anywhere near it.

---

She oversaw the largest human trafficking, drug smuggling, terrorist infiltrating period in U.S. history.

The only thing that is a lie is the gaslighting and trying to rewrite history.

---

Biden's border policy was drawn out before Harris was even tapped as the VP, so I don't know how you figure she "oversaw" anything. She was assigned one task on immigration, to carry out the Root Cause Strategy targeted at infrastructure fundraising for the Northern Triangle outlined in Biden's campaign planks, and she did that. That was it. She had no hand in policy development or implementation on the border. No VP ever has or ever will. It's just as stupid a campaign attack as people who came after Pence for Trump's shortcomings. VP's are extensions of presidential policy and senatorial tiebreakers and nothing more.