Post New

Popcorn level: Caramel laced with speed

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/black-live...

(Reuters) - Black Lives Matter is demanding the Democratic National Committee immediately host an informal, virtual snap primary across the country prior to the DNC convention in August, just hours after Vice President Kamala Harris secured enough delegates for the nomination.

Wonder why this is? Maybe it has something to do with Kamala's record as CA AG...

"We call for the Rules Committee to create a process that allows for public participation in the nomination process, not just a nomination by party delegates," BLM said in a statement provided to Reuters.

"The current political landscape is unprecedented, with President Biden stepping aside in a manner never seen before. This moment calls for decisive action to protect the integrity of our democracy and the voices of Black voters."
The group, which is a decentralized political and racial justice movement that helped lead the protest movement that swept the globe in 2020, said that while President Joe Biden wasn't their preferred candidate, "we cannot ignore the troubling actions of the Democratic Party."

"Following the primary where millions of Black voters weighed in, after one poor debate performance, the DNC Party elites and billionaire donors bullied Joe Biden out of the race," the group noted.

Wonder why this is? Maybe it has something to do with Kamala's record as CA AG...

Oh no! How terrible for Harris, that she's being criticized by BLM for being too much a "law and order" candidate in an election where voter concerns about crime are highly salient! It's going to be so difficult for her, having BLM deliver a "Sister Souljah" moment to help differentiate her from "progressive prosecutors" that might have been in fashion in 2020 but don't meet the vibe here in 2024.

"She was too tough on crime to satisfy BLM" is not exactly a damaging thing for Harris' campaign. You might want to hold off on that speed-laced popcorn.

She was too tough on crime to satisfy BLM" is not exactly a damaging thing for Harris' campaign. You might want to hold off on that speed-laced popcorn.

Maybe you can refresh my memory - is BLM known more for careful deliberation around issues or are they known for “fiery but kinda peaceful”.

Hence the popcorn, my friend :).

Also it’s a tad weird that one of the most outspoken minority groups is…not exactly enthused about this particular minority candidate.

BTW the democrats won’t touch her record as AG. She locked up too many marijuana offenders.

Maybe you can refresh my memory - is BLM known more for careful deliberation around issues or are they known for “fiery but kinda peaceful”.

Hence the popcorn, my friend :).

I mean....are you imagining that there will be widespread protests in the streets of most major cities against Harris getting the nomination? That just seems ridiculously unlikely.

Black Lives Matter has historically been able to put together large-scale protests in the immediate aftermath of heavily publicized deaths resulting from police actions (most notably Eric Garner and George Floyd), but outside of those specific circumstances? Not so much. And even in those cases, their ability to bring people to the streets has been muted of late; for example, the protests surrounding Sonya Massey's death have been fairly modest.

"Cop-ala" Harris won't be their preferred Democratic candidate, but you're not going to see much more than perhaps some complaining on social media. And the Harris campaign would love to be attacked by BLM for being just too darn tough on criminals. 2024 isn't 2020, and she's not trying to peel voters from Sanders and Warren - she's going to be running on her law enforcement background, not away from it.

And the Harris campaign would love to be attacked by BLM for being just too darn tough on criminals.

Hadn't thought about that. Probably too much to hope for.

One of my problems with Harris in 2020 was that there were numerous reports of her ignoring/suppressing evidence that would indicate someone she convicted was, in fact, innocent. That isn't furthering justice, it's just trying to pad your record. That's not what our criminal justice system is supposed to be about (hence the word "justice" in the name).

But I can't foresee any way she can lose my vote, since the alternative is a convicted felon, rapist, swindling, dementia-addled moron.

"Cop-ala" Harris won't be their preferred Democratic candidate, but you're not going to see much more than perhaps some complaining on social media.

That nickname is sure to be followed by "Cackle-la", after her laugh that seems to annoy some of the haters.

And the Harris campaign would love to be attacked by BLM for being just too darn tough on criminals. 2024 isn't 2020, and she's not trying to peel voters from Sanders and Warren - she's going to be running on her law enforcement background, not away from it.

Except that...she can't. Not in any universe.
The GOP is going to lean in hard on her failure to secure the border (recall that this was her One Job in the administration). She owns not only the flood of people over the border but the explosion in fentanyl-driven crime as well.

Except that...she can't. Not in any universe.
The GOP is going to lean in hard on her failure to secure the border (recall that this was her One Job in the administration).

Except it wasn't. Her job was to address the root causes of out-migration from the Central Triangle. Not to secure the border, not to set border policy, not to oversee Customs and Border Patrol, and not to deal with any of the issues resulting from border crossings. At no point was she tasked with reviewing the specific aspects of border security that the GOP complains about.

Regardless of that fact, I completely agree that she's not going to be able to convince even middle-information voters of that. While that wasn't her One Job, the GOP is probably going to be able to make that stick on her. This is, again, one of the downsides to switching candidates in midstream - the GOP is going to get a free and clear two weeks or so to try to control the narrative on Harris, while she's in the process of spinning up her campaign.

But "law and order" isn't just about the border. It's also about crime. That was the triad that Trump was going to use against Biden - inflation, border, crime. Harris won't be running away from her time as a prosecutor - she'll be wielding it proudly as a shield against the "soft on crime"/"defund the police" attacks. Again, those attacks will leave a mark, but she's got countermeasures to deploy that Biden did not.

Dope1: The GOP is going to lean in hard on her failure to secure the border (recall that this was her One Job in the administration).

For the reading and thinking impaired: that was NEVER her job.

President Biden tasked Harris with leading the administration's diplomatic campaign to address the "root causes" of migration from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, including poverty, corruption and violence.

Harris was focused on convincing companies to invest in Central America to promote democracy and development there through diplomacy. Harris has so far secured a commitment from the private sector to invest over $5 billion to promote economic opportunities and reduce violence in the region.

Come out of the cult bubble for just a brief moment every now and then.

THE ACTUAL FACTS ARE HERE... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigra...

Except it wasn't. Her job was to address the root causes of out-migration from the Central Triangle. Not to secure the border, not to set border policy, not to oversee Customs and Border Patrol, and not to deal with any of the issues resulting from border crossings. At no point was she tasked with reviewing the specific aspects of border security that the GOP complains about.

Al, Al, Al...that matters not to the Republicans nor their preferred media sources. They don't do nuance, and are perfectly comfortable with lying. Just like the convict head of their party.

Expect a barrage of misinformation about this for the next 100 days. As you apparently realized.

Except it wasn't. Her job was to address the root causes of out-migration from the Central Triangle. Not to secure the border, not to set border policy, not to oversee Customs and Border Patrol, and not to deal with any of the issues resulting from border crossings. At no point was she tasked with reviewing the specific aspects of border security that the GOP complains about.


That's what her campaign is saying, but that's not what she's going to be tagged with. She can't hide from Biden's hideous record on the border and pretend to be a bystander; she owns it - all of it.

But "law and order" isn't just about the border. It's also about crime. That was the triad that Trump was going to use against Biden - inflation, border, crime. Harris won't be running away from her time as a prosecutor - she'll be wielding it proudly as a shield against the "soft on crime"/"defund the police" attacks. Again, those attacks will leave a mark, but she's got countermeasures to deploy that Biden did not.

That won't work. Her record as a prosecutor is sketchy at best and literally no one is going to believe that she'll be "tough on crime" in 2025 (although democrats all over the country are now running as Law And Order Candidates - they sounds like Reaganites on this issue).

That's what her campaign is saying....

It's not just what the campaign is saying. It's the truth. From the contemporaneous reporting back in 2021:

“I asked her, the VP, today, because she’s the most qualified person to do it, to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle, and the countries that can help, need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border,” Biden told reporters ahead of an immigration meeting in the White House State Dining Room.

* * *

In the weeks since the President asked her to take charge of immigration from Central America, Vice President Kamala Harris and her staff have sought to make one thing clear: She does not manage the southern border.

* * *

The list of complaints between the West Wing and the vice president’s office keeps growing, even stemming from Harris’ first assignment from Biden this spring. The situation has become a back and forth of irritations – some real, some perceived.

Harris’ team was mad Biden had assigned her to handle diplomatic relations with the Northern Triangle nations, in hopes of addressing the root causes of migration to the US, but gave her no role on the southern border itself. That become the most visible crisis in the early days of Biden’s presidency as unaccompanied minors overwhelmed federal government resources. It seemed like an all-around politically losing assignment even though Biden had seen it as a sign of respect because it was the same job Obama had given him as vice president.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/24/politics/kamala-har...
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/01/politics/harris-imm...
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/14/politics/kamala-har...

That won't work. Her record as a prosecutor is sketchy at best and literally no one is going to believe that she'll be "tough on crime" in 2025 (although democrats all over the country are now running as Law And Order Candidates - they sounds like Reaganites on this issue).

I mean, her job was to put criminals in jail. She lost the primary in 2020, in part, because Democratic voters viewed her as part of the 'carceral problem' back then. It's been a staple of GOP politics to paint all Democrats as squishy on Law and Order for decades now....but that doesn't always stick, and it sticks less on candidates that have some background in law enforcement. So I wouldn't be too confident that Harris' job as a prosecutor won't help her deflect some of that - especially if she takes some internal criticism from groups like BLM that are unhappy with her past life.

It's not just what the campaign is saying. It's the truth.

The media is trying so very hard to whitewash all that, but....

https://x.com/ChristinaPushaw/status/1816101369654...

(with snapshot of Axios photo).

The criticism at the time was that Harris was ignoring the wide open border and focusing on all the wrong things.

The media is trying so very hard to whitewash all that, but....

Your link says exactly the same thing that I was saying.

Harris wasn't in charge of the border. She was in charge of diplomatic relations to the Central Triangle countries to see if there were ways to stop people from leaving there. She was never the "border czar," nor had any responsibility or authority over the border itself.

The criticism at the time was that Harris was ignoring the wide open border and focusing on all the wrong things.

That's not her job! We have a Cabinet official that's in charge of the border. Director of Homeland Security. Remember? The GOP tried to impeach him? Harris was "focusing" on diplomatic relations because that's what the President told her to do. He didn't tell her to do anything in terms of actual border security.

Harris wasn't in charge of the border. She was in charge of diplomatic relations to the Central Triangle countries to see if there were ways to stop people from leaving there. She was never the "border czar," nor had any responsibility or authority over the border itself.

That's not how literally anybody - including the administration - interpreted her title as "border Czar".

Besides...do you really think that running on a slogan of "That wasn't my job" is the way to go?

That's not her job! We have a Cabinet official that's in charge of the border. Director of Homeland Security. Remember? The GOP tried to impeach him? Harris was "focusing" on diplomatic relations because that's what the President told her to do. He didn't tell her to do anything in terms of actual border security.

Please run with this :)

Al, Al, Al...that matters not to the Republicans nor their preferred media sources. They don't do nuance, and are perfectly comfortable with lying.

A bit ironic given some of our Project 2025 discussions.

Trump certainly has never read Project 2025 and almost certainly hasn't the slightest idea what's in it. Despite the fact that some of the many thousands of people who formerly worked in his Administration landed at Heritage after everyone lost their jobs after the election, Trump almost certainly had no actual role in them getting there or any oversight in their participation in Project 2025.

Yet that has not stopped, and won't stop, Democrats from ignoring all of that - and trying to portray policies in Project 2025 as being "Trump" policies, even the parts that he would violently disagree with (like, for example, the part of Project 2025 that calls for free trade and eliminating tariffs, or the recommendation to ban Tik Tok when Trump just announced he's "for Tik Tok") and which were written by members of the conservative faction that he just purged from the party.

That's not how literally anybody - including the administration - interpreted her title as "border Czar".

She never had the title of Border Czar.

Besides...do you really think that running on a slogan of "That wasn't my job" is the way to go?

No. That's why I said this is going to stick. I was hoping that you - a real person that I'm having a conversation with - might recognize that this was not actually something she was ever in charge of. I have no hope that the average voter will, and I don't think Harris is going to try too hard to correct the GOP misstatements.

I think most of us are focusing on the Schedule F reclassification. That will allow a POTUS (any POTUS, not just the convict) to fill the civil servant ranks with lackeys and yes-men/women. Convict Trump would be all over that. I'm sure there's stuff in there he either wouldn't understand or wouldn't care about.

If he could oust all the people who say he's wrong, he probably wouldn't be interested in eliminating NOAA (for example). But then NOAA would be useless if he did so, so it would amount to the same result.

She never had the title of Border Czar.

Sure about that?

https://www.mediaite.com/news/axios-accuses-gop-of...

In an article published by Axios on Wednesday morning, politics reporter Stef Kight submitted that “Harris border confusion haunter her new campaign.”

“In early 2021, President Biden enlisted Vice President Kamala Harris to help with a slice of the migration issue — a move that has turned into one of the newly-presumptive presidential nominee’s first campaign headaches,” wrote Kight. “Confusion around the VP’s exact role, early media misfires and the rapidly changing regional migration crisis has made the issue a top target for the GOP trying to define their new opponent.”

Yup, this is the spin...

...but this is the reality:
The problem for Kight is that in March 2021, she also authored an article with the headline “Biden puts Harris in charge of border crisis” and the lede “President Biden is putting Vice President Harris in charge of addressing the migrant surge at the U.S.-Mexico border, senior administration officials announced on Wednesday.”

“President Biden said during the transition, whatever the most urgent need, he would turn to the vice president,” Kight reported an administration official as saying at the time. “And today he is turning to the vice president.”

Yet another Axios article from that April, meanwhile, stated as fact that “Harris, appointed by Biden as border czar, said she would be looking at the ‘root causes’ that drive migration.”

No. That's why I said this is going to stick. I was hoping that you - a real person that I'm having a conversation with - might recognize that this was not actually something she was ever in charge of. I have no hope that the average voter will, and I don't think Harris is going to try too hard to correct the GOP misstatements.

I hit send too soon, sorry.
I do remember the Border Czar thing. Kamala was blasted for never going down there to visit the border, saying instead her role was to examine the "root causes" of immigration. It's a mixed bag - anyone who looked at the border and wanted to do something about it would have started with talking to Mexico, beefing up security, etc.

I think most of us are focusing on the Schedule F reclassification.

Sure - but he did that. He issued an executive order on Schedule F reclassification right before he lost the election:

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-...

There's no need to bring in Project 2025 to argue that this is something that Trump wants to do. It's something he already did, and Heritage just copied it down for their "Mandate" document.

The bigger problem is that many Americans truly believe we have an open border. The hours you spent educating this board about the issues of asylum (that didn't take for many readers of the board...they still repeat the lie), you can't reasonably expect the American public to know/learn/understand. It's easier for them to latch onto "open border" with zero understanding (which is what they are doing, and what the Reps and FAUX Noise are counting on).

Neither Harris nor the convict will be able to do much about the border without legislative action, or an emergency in which they could invoke Title 42. Maybe nibble at the edges a bit, but the courts have already shot down several attempts (by the convict and Biden). In fact, Biden let Title 42 run as long as he could (2023), even though the main pandemic was "over" probably a year prior.

Follow-up:

Do you think that EO would have stuck? Or would it have been struck down? It's not -to my knowledge- a Constitutional matter. But I'm assuming it would get cross-ways of numerous laws and regulations that POTUS probably doesn't have the authority to strike down. I'm sure many of those laws were passed by the legislative.

Sure about that?

Yep. A reporter from Axios doesn't confer job titles on federal government officials.

Biden never appointed her the "border Czar." It wasn't her title. AFAIK, no federal official or document ever referred to as such.

Because she wasn't the border czar. She was never re-allocated any of Mayorkas' jurisdiction over the actual border. She was only asked to conduct diplomatic relations with the Central Triangle nations to see if we could stop the "push" factors driving people to leave those countries. She had no responsibility or authority over how we responded to migrants at the border, or how they were handed if (after) migrants crossed.

It's a mixed bag - anyone who looked at the border and wanted to do something about it would have started with talking to Mexico, beefing up security, etc.

Right - and if she had been tasked with the general mission of "doing something about the border," she might have done that other stuff.

But she wasn't given the assignment of "do something about the border." Her job was to conduct diplomatic relations to mitigate against the "push factors" present in other countries that prompt migrants to choose to leave. Not to address the border generally, but to address that specific thing.

Credit to them - Republicans, seeing an opportunity to unfairly attack her for failing to do something that she had absolutely no authority to do, went out and did so. And quite effectively, too. But that doesn't make it true

Do you think that EO would have stuck?

Don't know. Way afield from my line of work.

Gun to my head, it sure looks like the President can do this. The main relevant section of the Civil Service statute (5 USC 7511) provides:

(b)This subchapter does not apply to an employee—
(1)whose appointment is made by and with the advice and consent of the Senate;
(2)whose position has been determined to be of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-
advocating character by—
(A)the President for a position that the President has excepted from the competitive service;
(B)the Office of Personnel Management for a position that the Office has excepted from the
competitive service; or

Subsection (b)(2)(A) up there seems to pretty clearly gives the President the authority to except positions from the competitive service and the Civil Service protections generally if he determines the position is "of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating character."

Maybe there's a question about whether that can be done retroactively or not, but it seems like this is a power that Congress gave to the President back in the day, and it's just kind of been ignored until Trump really wanted to use it.

Yep, Harris is the Border Czar. No getting around it.
She screwed that up too.

The GOP is going to lean in hard on her failure to secure the border (recall that this was her One Job in the administration). She owns not only the flood of people over the border but the explosion in fentanyl-driven crime as well. - Dope

-----------------

Harris' defenders are reminding us she is not and never was the border czar. Biden tasked her with attacking root causes (the push factor) of migration from Central (and South?) America. She flew down there are few times, held some meetings, arranged for $5B in private equity pledges to provide jobs and opportunity in their local economies. She must have done a good job and solved the problem because we never heard another word about it until now but only as a reminder the Border is "not my job".

I do remember the Border Czar thing. Kamala was blasted for never going down there to visit the border, saying instead her role was to examine the "root causes" of immigration. Dope

---------------------

She also said she had never been to Europe either, thus settling the matter.

Harris' defenders are reminding us she is not and never was the border czar. Biden tasked her with attacking root causes (the push factor) of migration from Central (and South?) America. She flew down there are few times, held some meetings, arranged for $5B in private equity pledges to provide jobs and opportunity in their local economies. She must have done a good job and solved the problem because we never heard another word about it until now but only as a reminder the Border is "not my job".

This Admin lifted the sanctions on Venezuela in return for an agreement that free elections would be held. From the goings on it looks like free elections have been ignored. however, the substitute candidate for office hasn't been beaten yet. We can expect more Venezuelans to head here if the elections go sour. I read one articled urging the reinstatement of sanctions. We shall see soon.

anyone who looked at the border and wanted to do something about it would have started with talking to Mexico, beefing up security, etc.

No, that's how YOU would fix it. She was tasked to look into WHY people wanted to leave their country and migrate to the US, and come up with ideas that would keep them from coming to the border in the first place.

It's kind of like constantly going to a shoemaker to get custom shoes to fit around the bunion you have growing on your foot. That might help in the short term, but in the long term you're better off getting the bunion taken care of.

--Peter

No, that's how YOU would fix it.

Because I'm sane and rational.

She was tasked to look into WHY people wanted to leave their country and migrate to the US, and come up with ideas that would keep them from coming to the border in the first place.

Sure. Here's the solution: Dump $1 trillion US dollars and completely remake the economies, political structures and culture of every country south of the US border.

Problem solved! That's the road her "solution" was headed down, and it's...not rational.

Problem solved! That's the road her "solution" was headed down, and it's...not rational.

It's worth pointing out that it wasn't her solution. It was Biden's. It was a task that he had been given when he was Obama's VP, and he asked Harris to replicate it.

Harris absolutely deserves whatever criticism is due her for the fact that her diplomatic efforts don't appear to have amounted to much. To the extent that the execution of her assignment was poor, that's on her. But the choice of that particular assignment as a "solution" to border issues was not her call.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.