I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!
“Before me, no one knew how easy it was to twist words. People come up to me and say, “Sir, how did you make such a pretzel of her meaning?” And I guess pretzels are good, people love salty snacks, as I call them, my grandfather made the best salty sacks, pretzels, before the communists drive him out of Germany.”
How will they demonize her? Perhaps by saying she’s a demon. Or as they say it, a “Jezebel.”
If you don’t choose to read it, it goes over all of the ways that VP Harris is making MAGA lose their cool.
That didn’t work out too well the last time they tried the “They’re literally demons!” ploy.
This plays right into the “What a weird thing for you to say” strategy that’s appeared the last two weeks. You can see Obama almost captured that strategy years ago, but now it’s come into its own.
I read that article, and my take away was “Unfocused, undisciplined, and rather deranged.” Compare that to how they were going after Biden, and you see how messed up they are. Can they get this under control in time? I don’t think so.
I love how the racist right has twisted themselves into such a knot that they are now objecting that a candidate is not Black enough.
She’s still too black for them. They just want black people to think she’s “not black enough”.
I think they’re trying to make Harris’ blackness the only thing Dems care about. “Look at them defend her ethnicity - because they can’t defend her record on the border/economy/Israel/etc.”.
Listen to them call you weird for even bringing up her race. How did that work for ya when you tried it with Obama?
Well, the racist birther movement was the precursor to Trumpism, so it actually turned out pretty well for them.
I saw this in my news:
" Stefanik recently spoke at the Israeli parliament, calling for unconditional US aid to Israel."
“How dare they have some sympathy for a different foreign country than the one I have sympathy for!”
If you summarized it at all, I would consider clicking the link.
Someone in government has worked with somewhat pro-Iranian groups to try to normalize relations with the US. They have some security clearances, which were questioned in light of this, but were upheld.
Of course, the Republicans consider anything less than “Death to Iran!” to be de facto treason, and so want to blow it all out of proportion.
“They alleged that Gordon is connected to US defence official Dr Ariane Tabatabai, who was accused of being a part of the Iran Experts Initiative (IEI), an Iranian foreign ministry project promoting Tehran’s interests in the West.”
MEE is (probably) owned by the same crowd as Al Jazeera, it’s not some crazy rag. And, given that, they’ve cropped down to just the essentials. It’s not long enough to try and copy-paste short enough to not count as copyright infringement.
Basically, her national security advisor Dr Philip Gordon seems to have been promoting calls to remove sanctions from Iran and deal with them peacefully, including writing news pieces in collaboration with a Dr. Ariane Tabatai, who appears (Semafor) to be an agent of Iran’s IEI, a moderate influence agency created by Hassan Rouhani.
To be sure. However, I don’t think that I’d want a NSA who was working with a foreign state during the campaign. It’s one thing to have a few polite phone calls, and another to be writing opinion pieces together and attending each others events. That’s simply too close a connection.
Even once you’re on the job, you should be relatively distant from your contacts in other nations, short of something like the Five Eyes agreements.
MOSTLY FALSE
During a rally in August 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris and running mate Tim Walz announced a gun ban if they win the presidential election in November.
Context
In a rally speech on Aug. 6, 2024, Harris said she and Walz will pass universal background checks, red flag laws and an assault weapons ban if she wins the presidential election in November. The pair did not announce a general “gun ban.”
And also, iirc, Harris wants the sale of new assault weapons banned as a prior law did.
Why even bother lying about that? The pro-gun demographic would be just as upset by a limited assault weapon ban as a general gun ban. Talk about “compulsive liars”, they lie even when the truth would be just as useful to them.
To be fair the actual truth is mostly bullshit. They won’t be able to any of it unless they have both houses.
And even then it seems likely a few Ds would vote against it.
Depends- a real door to door assault weapon confiscation? No, bad idea.
A involuntary buyback?- still no.
A ban on future sales? Sure, do it.