If she’s elected president, Kamala Harris pledges to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the wall along the southern border — a project she once opposed and called “un-American” during the Trump administration.

  • Suavevillain@lemmy.world
    236·
    3 months ago

    Liberals continuing to shift rightward to appease the mythical center voter who will just pick the non-off brand fascism.

  • paf0@lemmy.world
    153·
    3 months ago

    She also flipped on Medicare for All.

    At the very least, she is not Trump and believes in a woman’s right to choose, which is enough for now.

  • jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world
    125·
    3 months ago

    Why it matters: It’s the latest example of Harris flip-flopping on her past liberal positions such as supporting Medicare for All and banning fracking — proposals that aides say she now is against.

    Driving the news: In her speech to the Democratic National Convention last week, Harris said she would sign the recent bipartisan border security bill — which Trump had ordered his allies to kill, fearing it would help Democrats in the November elections.

    Flashback: In declaring her candidacy in her first run for president in 2019, Harris called the wall Trump’s “medieval vanity project” that wasn’t going to stop transnational gangs from entering the U.S.

    He told Axios that Harris wasn’t involved in the months-long negotiations: “We never saw any vice president staff here. … She was a Johnny-come-never.”

    Sen. Alex Padilla, a Democrat from Harris’ home state of California, opposed the bill and said it “fails to provide relief for a single Dreamer, a single farmworker, a single essential worker or long-term resident.”

    Zoom in: Beyond embracing the bipartisan bill, Harris’ campaign has portrayed her as an immigration hardliner in ads.

    The bottom line: Like the wall itself, Harris’ changes on border policy reflect how Trump has shifted the political debate on immigration during the past decade.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
      85·
      3 months ago

      Just that gross violation of human rights vibe…

      She’s really going to fuck around trying to court republican voters and alienate her base so trump has a shot. I legitimately thought it was a short enough timeline that she couldn’t fuck this up.

      This is what I get for being an optimist.

      • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldEnglish
        513·
        3 months ago

        Did you even read the post? All she said is she supports the bipartisan border bill. Holy shit y’all’s outrage meters really need recalibrating.

        • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
          413·
          3 months ago

          They are doing it on purpose. It’s not a mistake.

          Right after Biden withdrew, they didn’t really have talking points together; now they have arrived at some they can amplify and start hammering on. The truth of what she did or didn’t say is 1,000% irrelevant.

          • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldEnglish
            212·
            3 months ago

            And almost every other commenter in this thread is uncritically and reflexively propagating the misrepresentation as truth. This country is uber-fucked.

            • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
              211·
              3 months ago

              It’s really not tho (or not for that reason). Any time you see that sudden flood of comments with the exact same consensus, see how many accounts are involved in the flood, and check the voting totals on the article in question. OH LOOK

              If Lemmy comments could vote, then that would be a massive problem yes, but they can’t

              • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldEnglish
                311·
                3 months ago

                I hear you. It’s just frustrating to see so many supposedly enlightened “leftists” display such incredibly poor judgment.

  • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
    105·
    3 months ago

    Yeah, she’s got the “will work for cooperation” sign out front of her office.

    She’s a politician. They’re all politicians.

  • One_Honest_Dude@lemmy.worldEnglish
    87·
    3 months ago

    This is very misleading. All she said is that she would sign the border bill that had been negotiated and had broad bipartisan support before Trump had the Senate kill it to try to help his campaign. That bill extends the timeline for spending the 600 million already appropriated for the wall under the trump administration. This is a far cry from Trump’s 18 billion wall spanning the entire border. I don’t support this bill but I think it is dishonest to claim she has changed her position, merely accepting what was negotiated in Congress and her liking other provisions in it.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
      192·
      3 months ago

      The vast majority who want the wall will never vote D…

      And most people who would only vote D, don’t want the wall

      We keep fucking giving Republicans what they want, even when they lose

      Which depresses Dem turnout, and gets republicans in office.

      And the country keeps marching right.

      • sun_is_ra@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        45·
        3 months ago

        She has professional teams doing polls and assesing what people want. So maybe their assesment disagree with yours?

        i cant think kf another reason

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
          122·
          3 months ago

          polls and assesing what people want.

          Again, almost all Republicans want the wall, and some “moderates”.

          That may mean over 50% of Americans, but it’s not over 50% of people who would ever in any circumstances vote D.

          Which is why I said

          We keep fucking giving Republicans what they want, even when they lose

          Which depresses Dem turnout, and gets republicans in office.

          Like, I feel that I’ve already put that as simplely as possible, I can’t do anymore if you really don’t get it

          i cant think kf another reason

          The thought that a politician would do what her billionaire donors want and not what her voting base wants…

          That’s not something you could think of?

          It’s not exactly a rare thing man, shit happens frustratingly often, but it never even crossed your mind why a Dem.politican would go against their base is the half a billion dollars they just raised in a country where the do or limit is essentially a million dollars a head in 2024?

          Your mind just draws a blank when you contemplate why that could happen?

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
              12·
              3 months ago

              You know trump gave so much money to Dems that Bill and Hillary showed up to one of his weddings right?

              Lots of shitty billionaires give millions of dollars to both parties to ensure what they want will happen, regardless of who wins an election.

              And this may shock you. But sometimes wealthy people are shitty and want shitty things.