Democrats are excited about Harris and as of this writing she's raised 100 million dollars since Biden announced he was dropping out and throwing his support behind her.
Quote
"Republicans, I worry, vastly underestimate Kamala Harris. They don't think very highly of her. They don't think she's terribly bright. When you or I bring up Kamala Harris' name in Republican circles, people laugh. It's immediately a punchline," Cruz said Monday on his podcast "Verdict with Ted Cruz."
Cruz warned against Republicans preemptively celebrating a Trump-Vance win months out from the election, arguing Democrats and the media will promote Harris as an "historic" candidate.
We all know what Trump said about the white supremacists and we know that you defend his words.
Trumps duties on January 6th are not in the least similar to the fund used to provide bail for peaceful protesters or a senator contributing to that fund. You should know that by now. Trump had actual responsibilities on that day. Do you know what Trump's responsibilities included on January 6th? He certainly couldn't articulate them. Why would we reelect a man that doesn't understand the duties of the presidency and failed to carry them out the first time?
Why shouldn't a white man with a history of racist behavior and language get questioned about his persistent racism? Aren't those kind of character flaws important?
The claim has been fact checked by several fact checking platforms. Yet it is continued as fact. Perhaps you didn't see his full comments due to what your media showed you?
Why does it matter if a "white man" is questioned about his "racism". Should some people be exempt from being questioned about racism? Or onlyb"white men".
Why do you bring up his race? When it's taboo to bring up Harris race? Other than it varues depending on the preceived benefit?
Well, there's the conservative claim that anyone to the left of, say, Clarence Thomas or Joe Manchin is a "far left radical". They tried it with Obama and Biden, too. That kind of false advertising is often pretty effective at influencing market share. To quote Rush Limbaugh, "Words mean things.”
Hmm, wouldn't that mean that the independents in the poll are radical lefties? And even 50% of those radicals think Harris is too liberal.
She had the most liberal voting record in her time in the Senate. Has expressed support for some very progressive ideas, such as the Green New Deal. Not sure why anyone thinks that those who think she's too liberal are the victims of propaganda.
In your mind, who would be an example of someone who is "too liberal".
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
heron said:
Well, there's the conservative claim that anyone to the left of, say, Clarence Thomas or Joe Manchin is a "far left radical". They tried it with Obama and Biden, too. That kind of false advertising is often pretty effective at influencing market share. To quote Rush Limbaugh, "Words mean things.”
It's kind of perplexing to me that people don't see labels and descriptions like Marxist, socialist, communist, border czar, or DEI candidate as a type of propaganda. None of those things are true and they all create these misleading impressions of who she is to benefit Trump. Trump sychophants criticize her voice as inauthentic when Trump talked like a duck during a telephone interview.
Wouldn't you consider all of that propaganda, especially knowing that some of the craziest content doesn't even originate in the USA?
But wait, there's more. Like you said, there's this very soft conditioning that occurs. That's why the public perceived Hillary as far left when she would have been a republican back in the day.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
heron said:
Well, she needs to remember that most people dislike being lied to. If she decides to try, she better have a good reason. False advertising is not harmless.
She appears to be smart and thinks ahead, like you would expect a prosecutor to do. I think she had considered that people are thirsty for honest leadership. Her opponent is dishonest as a character trait, she is not. Not in my view.
Do you think there's something specific that she's lying about?
It's kind of perplexing to me that people don't see labels and descriptions like Marxist, socialist, communist, border czar, or DEI candidate as a type of propaganda. None of those things are true and they all create these misleading impressions of who she is to benefit Trump. Trump sychophants criticize her voice as inauthentic when Trump talked like a duck during a telephone interview.
Wouldn't you consider all of that propaganda, especially knowing that some of the craziest content doesn't even originate in the USA?
But wait, there's more. Like you said, there's this very soft conditioning that occurs. That's why the public perceived Hillary as far left when she would have been a republican back in the day.
I wouldn't call the false advertising "soft" necessarily. More like "subtle". Think: product placement. Verging on subliminal, sometimes. Either way, pejorative labelling works, which (as you know) is why they do it.
She appears to be smart and thinks ahead, like you would expect a prosecutor to do. I think she had considered that people are thirsty for honest leadership. Her opponent is dishonest as a character trait, she is not. Not in my view.
Do you think there's something specific that she's lying about?
Nope. But the far right does not have a corner on lying. I behooves us to think critically.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Crusades said:
The claim has been fact checked by several fact checking platforms. Yet it is continued as fact. Perhaps you didn't see his full comments due to what your media showed you?
Why does it matter if a "white man" is questioned about his "racism". Should some people be exempt from being questioned about racism? Or onlyb"white men".
Why do you bring up his race? When it's taboo to bring up Harris race? Other than it varues depending on the preceived benefit?
I watched all of Trump's remarks that day in their completeness. You aren't going to change my mind with your indignant denials of what we all heard.
I have no idea what you are talking about with your questions about racism. It sounds like you dish by read my comment very well and got triggered by words rather than meanings.
My mistake in thinking that you would be able to discern my point about race. You completely missed it.
I watched all of Trump's remarks that day in their completeness. You aren't going to change my mind with your indignant denials of what we all heard.
I have no idea what you are talking about with your questions about racism. It sounds like you dish by read my comment very well and got triggered by words rather than meanings.
My mistake in thinking that you would be able to discern my point about race. You completely missed it.
I'm asking you to describe what you saw in relation to your speculation of Trump's dementia/mental illness.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Crusades said:
Propaganda is a historical method used throughout history. In one way or another. And sometimes who ever provides information the best way wins. It's exclusing used by every campaign and presidential race in history.
These are all reasonable points. The issue is the way in which you format your comments suggest that you think propaganda, deception and misinformation is exclusing to Republicans.
Now if that's not what your intending , I have to say it most certainly seems this way. If I'm wrong I'm wrong but I do not think so?
I really don't need you to explain propaganda to me. I don't agree that all politicians or presidential candidates use propaganda because I think that in order to be propaganda the content must be INTENTIONALLY misleading or deceiving with the purpose of influencing people in a specific way. I think your statement is a normalization of a destructive and toxic behavior. I don't buy into that bandwagon fallacy.
I'm sorry that you don't like the way I format my comments.
I am primarily talking about right wing propaganda. Trump himself is a prolific propagandist. Conservative Americans have been set up to experience this inundation is manipulation. They have increasingly organized their information gathering around fewer and fewer sources, as encouraged by the politiciansand pundits who tell them that other media is too liberally biased to even consider. This phenomenon has been studied and quantified since before Trump and has only gotten worse since his rise.
The FBI has been telling us for multiple consecutive years that homegrown right wing extremism is our greatest threat for terror attacks or other violence. That implies that there is right wing content which radicalizes these folks, doesn't it?
In my view, the propaganda and misinformation that is pervasive from the right isn't matched by similar propaganda and misinformation from the left. Neither is the violence or the dangerous rhetoric. It's not liberal voices talking about civil war and revolution.
Do you think that leftist propaganda is as much of a problem as propaganda from Russians and right wing authoritarians in the USA? We should talk about the problems, not talk about what could be a problem from the other side of the political simply to appear balanced.
It's kind of perplexing to me that people don't see labels and descriptions like Marxist, socialist, communist, border czar, or DEI candidate as a type of propaganda. None of those things are true and they all create these misleading impressions of who she is to benefit Trump. Trump sychophants criticize her voice as inauthentic when Trump talked like a duck during a telephone interview.
Wouldn't you consider all of that propaganda, especially knowing that some of the craziest content doesn't even originate in the USA?
But wait, there's more. Like you said, there's this very soft conditioning that occurs. That's why the public perceived Hillary as far left when she would have been a republican back in the day.
Glad you finally found something to say. Unfortunately...
I've heard "Marxist " thrown about here and there. Mostly when her father is discussed.
I don't believe I've heard communist or socialist much. I don't doubt those terms have been used on far-right websites and discussion boards. However, do you really think that is where independents are going for political news and opinions?
I bet it has more to do with her having the most liberal voting record as a senator, her support of the Green New Deal, her being in favor of decriminalizing illegal immigration, etc.
I'm not sure why you're hurt that many consider her too liberal.
Liberal media is as responsible as anyone for her being the Border Czar. Anyway, I thought you've said many times they've been doing a fine job on the border and immigration? So, she should be embracing the title.
She is the candidate now because she happened to be the VP in the right place at the right time. She would've never been the VP if she wasnt a black woman. So, yes, she is a DEI candidate.
Before you cast your vote, I hope you're very, very confident she'll be good. Because, if she's terrible, Dems will get slammed in midterms, and she'll be the incumbent running in 28. And, you're not likely to even get a SCOTUS nomination in that time.
If Trump wins, he's out of the picture in 28 and you're not stuck with Harris as the Dems candidate.
Hmm, wouldn't that mean that the independents in the poll are radical lefties? And even 50% of those radicals think Harris is too liberal.
She had the most liberal voting record in her time in the Senate. Has expressed support for some very progressive ideas, such as the Green New Deal. Not sure why anyone thinks that those who think she's too liberal are the victims of propaganda.
In your mind, who would be an example of someone who is "too liberal".
What on earth are you talking about? I wasn't discussing political independents. I was giving an example of a pejorative label applied by the far right to those who oppose them, aka false advertising, aka propaganda.
Crusades
1,655 Posts
The claim has been fact checked by several fact checking platforms. Yet it is continued as fact. Perhaps you didn't see his full comments due to what your media showed you?
Why does it matter if a "white man" is questioned about his "racism". Should some people be exempt from being questioned about racism? Or onlyb"white men".
Why do you bring up his race? When it's taboo to bring up Harris race? Other than it varues depending on the preceived benefit?