Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On July 27 2024 10:39 Introvert wrote: But you still seem focused on this, so I guess I have to ask. Does the fact that the president said that Kamala was an example of diversity, equity, and inclusion indicate that he and his whole administration is racist? I mean Harris did call him a racist at the debate so maybe! It would certainly be odd though for Dems from the president to large corporations to use "DEI" if it was a slur.
No, words can mean different things in different contexts. Individuals questioning Kamala's credentials as the best possible candidate could point to her relatively low national status before 2020 and that she was chosen to round out the Biden ticket over candidates that may have been better.
Diversity hire is a dismissive way of putting it because it's not like she wasn't qualified, it's that there were other additional factors taken into consideration. Just like how Trump is, in many ways, a racist boomer hire. There are plenty of old ignorant rich assholes out there who have never once worked a day in their life but Trump's gender and race make him particularly appealing to WASPs. An old ignorant African American rich asshole wouldn't get the job because the GOP know that they'd struggle to get the voter turnout they're looking for with that candidate. But yes, in this kind of unique position where you're attempting to appeal to a wide electorate then these factors come up, it'd be absurd to pretend otherwise. I don't necessarily have a problem with it, though I don't love her as a candidate.
But when Biden talks about diversity and when conservatives bitch about DEI Disney characters it's not the same thing. One is talking about the real world and the other is getting triggered by black characters on tv shows. As I type this it feels absurdly obvious and I realize now you're not asking in good faith. This is a gotcha on the level of demanding why Spaniards say negro if it's such a bad word.
On July 27 2024 09:01 WombaT wrote: I mean saying as I only ever was familiarised with the DEI acronym (if not the concept) was in comment sections complaining about blacks ruined muh Star Wars or vidya was ruined by womenz, that tracks
Its pretty obvious why most people pointed out to be DEI hires would be non-white. It's because that's almost the very definition of "diverse." It's an odd thing to point out because presumably the entire group of, say, straight white males, cannot be diverse or inclusive by definition. So it isn't really that surprising, it's the whole point of the diversity exercise. we could say (and indeed much of left-wing discuss says this either explicity or implicitly) that a white man doing a crappy job failed upwards and may have his race and gender to thank for his station above his ability. It's the same thing from a different angle.
Edit: this doesn't have much to do with what random morons say on social media, we could nutpick both sides to death with that.
Random morons on social media is just another way of saying conservative voters.
When conservatives say DEI they just think they've come up with a secret code for slurs that they're mad they can't use anymore. If you're not using it to mean that in conservative circles then I'm afraid you're probably the one using it wrong.
Sorry, I am not interested in what you think of conservative voters. Most of your "experience" witg them probably comes from left-wing Twitter accounts. I could trawl the reverse and find all sorts of heinous things. If you don't want people calling the VP a DEI hire, take it up with the president.
There are 80 million Trump 2020 voters in the US. Are you suggesting I haven't met any of them?
Are you suggesting they are all like the people in the screenshots you posted?
All would be a stretch. But basically, yes. The Trump voters I spend most time with will say nigger if they think you can't hear them.
I think that's absurd but it's hard to contradict a personal belief except to say you must be extremely (un)lucky. Assuming of course this is not an assumption you are making but is indeed based on overhearing the N word whispered frequently by a large number of individuals. I say unlucky because I have a circle of of people I know who know my own leanings and/or are Trump people themselves and I don't hear them use that word...I will say I'm skeptical but somehow I think most people here will believe you.
But you still seem focused on this, so I guess I have to ask. Does the fact that the president said that Kamala was an example of diversity, equity, and inclusion indicate that he and his whole administration is racist? I mean Harris did call him a racist at the debate so maybe! It would certainly be odd though for Dems from the president to large corporations to use "DEI" if it was a slur.
Eh it’s pretty obvious that Biden would be labeled a racist if he were a conservative
On July 27 2024 09:01 WombaT wrote: I mean saying as I only ever was familiarised with the DEI acronym (if not the concept) was in comment sections complaining about blacks ruined muh Star Wars or vidya was ruined by womenz, that tracks
Its pretty obvious why most people pointed out to be DEI hires would be non-white. It's because that's almost the very definition of "diverse." It's an odd thing to point out because presumably the entire group of, say, straight white males, cannot be diverse or inclusive by definition. So it isn't really that surprising, it's the whole point of the diversity exercise. we could say (and indeed much of left-wing discuss says this either explicity or implicitly) that a white man doing a crappy job failed upwards and may have his race and gender to thank for his station above his ability. It's the same thing from a different angle.
Edit: this doesn't have much to do with what random morons say on social media, we could nutpick both sides to death with that.
Random morons on social media is just another way of saying conservative voters.
When conservatives say DEI they just think they've come up with a secret code for slurs that they're mad they can't use anymore. If you're not using it to mean that in conservative circles then I'm afraid you're probably the one using it wrong.
Sorry, I am not interested in what you think of conservative voters. Most of your "experience" witg them probably comes from left-wing Twitter accounts. I could trawl the reverse and find all sorts of heinous things. If you don't want people calling the VP a DEI hire, take it up with the president.
There are 80 million Trump 2020 voters in the US. Are you suggesting I haven't met any of them?
Are you suggesting they are all like the people in the screenshots you posted?
All would be a stretch. But basically, yes. The Trump voters I spend most time with will say nigger if they think you can't hear them.
I think that's absurd but it's hard to contradict a personal belief except to say you must be extremely (un)lucky. Assuming of course this is not an assumption you are making but is indeed based on overhearing the N word whispered frequently by a large number of individuals. I say unlucky because I have a circle of of people I know who know my own leanings and/or are Trump people themselves and I don't hear them use that word...I will say I'm skeptical but somehow I think most people here will believe you.
But you still seem focused on this, so I guess I have to ask. Does the fact that the president said that Kamala was an example of diversity, equity, and inclusion indicate that he and his whole administration is racist? I mean Harris did call him a racist at the debate so maybe! It would certainly be odd though for Dems from the president to large corporations to use "DEI" if it was a slur.
Eh it’s pretty obvious that Biden would be labeled a racist if he were a conservative
Given that he's labeled a racist as a Democrat, yeah.
On July 27 2024 10:39 Introvert wrote: But you still seem focused on this, so I guess I have to ask. Does the fact that the president said that Kamala was an example of diversity, equity, and inclusion indicate that he and his whole administration is racist? I mean Harris did call him a racist at the debate so maybe! It would certainly be odd though for Dems from the president to large corporations to use "DEI" if it was a slur.
No, words can mean different things in different contexts. Individuals questioning Kamala's credentials as the best possible candidate could point to her relatively low national status before 2020 and that she was chosen to round out the Biden ticket over candidates that may have been better.
Diversity hire is a dismissive way of putting it because it's not like she wasn't qualified, it's that there were other additional factors taken into consideration. Just like how Trump is, in many ways, a racist boomer hire. There are plenty of old ignorant rich assholes out there who have never once worked a day in their life but Trump's gender and race make him particularly appealing to WASPs. An old ignorant African American rich asshole wouldn't get the job because the GOP know that they'd struggle to get the voter turnout they're looking for with that candidate. But yes, in this kind of unique position where you're attempting to appeal to a wide electorate then these factors come up, it'd be absurd to pretend otherwise. I don't necessarily have a problem with it, though I don't love her as a candidate.
But when Biden talks about diversity and when conservatives bitch about DEI Disney characters it's not the same thing. One is talking about the real world and the other is getting triggered by black characters on tv shows. As I type this it feels absurdly obvious and I realize now you're not asking in good faith. This is a gotcha on the level of demanding why Spaniards say negro if it's such a bad word.
I think it's silly to accuse me of acting in bad faith given how you just tarred almost all Trump voters as bigots (and in some ways conflating them with conservatives). I'm not sure where the hit on Disney characters came from, although I don't have a problem if people are upset that certain characters are rewritten. But I am a conservative, and I don't care if, say, wonder woman was black. Though we might ask why such a thing was being done. I think that's fair, and is ok within its context. But if it was just because she happened to be the best actress, then who cares? I see now what is happening. You are importing other complaints and trying to tie them all together. It's a non-sequitur. "Sure Kamala was a diversity hire, but some people on social media complain there are too many brown Disney characters, therefore the attacks on Kamala are probably racist." I agree it's all about context, you are the one trying to remove the "DEI" in conversation from it's current context and import popular culture to then tar those criticizing Harris. It's silly. I don't go around posting anonymized twitter threads from Hamasniks or literal tankies to make a point. There are enough stupid bigots on every side that I'm sure you could (and indeed you did, from someone) find those who use a phrase and try to adopt it (something that should be fought).
Also, at worst you could say she was a diversity hire initially. (Though it's not like she was without credentials initially. Biden himself had a pretty poor showing on his 08 presidential run before bowing out and then getting scooped up as Obama's VP.)
However, you cannot say that anymore as she's worked as VP for four years and after four years on the job, the people she's worked with are giving her their support for her run for President. The same cannot be said of The Donald of whom has a good portion of his former cabinet, including multiple defense ministers and a bunch of the justice department saying keep that man away from the Oval Office. He has no understanding of the rule of law and is unfit to govern. Heck his own VP wouldn't run with him again, and where did Pence finally break with Trump? When Trump tried to override the duly elected slate with his own made up one and then sicked a crowd on Pence 'to do the right thing.'
So, instead we're trying to make 'fetch' stick with this border czar thing. I don't get it unless Republicans got tired of being called Russian-friendly Republicans by David Axe's Ukraine war reporting and are trying to turn the tables? It's not ever been a thing like the prince of pop. It's not even an insult that does make sense. King of the Border for a subordinate to the head of state? If they were calling her a 'Princess' or the Wicked Witch of the West, I could at least understand the insult. And as if the VP, which as a position has been historically pretty lowkey position with the exception of Cheney and perhaps Biden, was suddenly going to solve a half century old border problem. Okay. Got'em.
On July 27 2024 11:33 KwarK wrote: You're not understanding. You're allowed to talk about diversity. Talking about diversity isn't the same thing as describing people as DEI.
And I'm saying that in this context it is totally appropriate, especially since those are the exact words the president used. he used all three, in that exact order! If that doesn't make it appropriate to talk about then I have no idea when it could be.
On July 27 2024 12:12 Falling wrote: Also, at worst you could say she was a diversity hire initially. You cannot say that anymore as she's worked as VP for four years and after four years on the job, the people she's worked with are giving her their support for her run for President. The same cannot be said of The Donald of whom has a good portion of his former cabinet, including multiple defense ministers and a bunch of the justice department saying keep that man away from the Oval Office. He has no understanding of the rule of law and is unfit to govern.
So, instead we're trying to make 'fetch' stick with this border czar thing. I don't get it unless Republicans got tired of being called Russian-friendly Republicans by David Axe's Ukraine war reporting and are trying to turn the tables? It's not ever been a thing like the prince of pop. It's not even an insult that does make sense. King of the Border for a subordinate to the head of state? If they were calling her a 'Princess' or the Wicked Witch of the West, I could at least understand the insult. And as if the VP, which as a position has been historically pretty lowkey position with the exception of Cheney and perhaps Biden, was suddenly going to solve a half century old border problem. Okay. Got'em.
I'm still trying to find people who can say something more specific than "she has been VP for four years." I could argue if she has done a bad job she has disqualified herself, although I suppose we'd need criteria.
On July 27 2024 11:33 KwarK wrote: You're not understanding. You're allowed to talk about diversity. Talking about diversity isn't the same thing as describing people as DEI.
And I'm saying that in this context it is totally appropriate, especially since those are the exact words the president used. he used all three, in that exact order! If that doesn't make it appropriate to talk about then I have no idea when it could be.
On July 27 2024 11:33 KwarK wrote: You're not understanding. You're allowed to talk about diversity. Talking about diversity isn't the same thing as describing people as DEI.
And I'm saying that in this context it is totally appropriate, especially since those are the exact words the president used. he used all three, in that exact order! If that doesn't make it appropriate to talk about then I have no idea when it could be.
When did I say otherwise?
This whole chain has been about Biden and Harris then you pop in saying "Conservatives use DEI because they people complain when they use slurs." idk the implication seems pretty obvious to me.
On July 27 2024 11:33 KwarK wrote: You're not understanding. You're allowed to talk about diversity. Talking about diversity isn't the same thing as describing people as DEI.
And I'm saying that in this context it is totally appropriate, especially since those are the exact words the president used. he used all three, in that exact order! If that doesn't make it appropriate to talk about then I have no idea when it could be.
When did I say otherwise?
This whole chain has been about Biden and Harris then you pop in saying "Conservatives use DEI because they people complain when they use slurs." idk the implication seems pretty obvious to me.
Yes. When conservatives describe people as DEI they mean the slur for whatever minority group the person is.
When Biden talks about his reasoning for selecting his VP it's not the same. Context.
On July 27 2024 03:30 Introvert wrote: Also seems like one should able to point to some sort of demonstrated competence. What has she achieved in her role? The media is busy pretending she was never made "border czar" at the moment so I'm curious to find out what she had managed to do. Being senator and AG not quite the same, at least Pence was a governor. Other VPs are picked because they can be legislative liaisons. But she hasn't taken that role either.
I think asking if Kamala Harris has helped to address the illegal immigration situation is a legitimate question. I think that's a good-faith, policy-based question that doesn't just make fun of her laugh or her stepfamily or her sex or her race.
Here's the information I was able to find on that topic, which firmly establishes what her role actually was, and explains that she was never chosen as a "border czar":
This second source adds a little more context: "In 2021, President Biden did task the vice president with a diplomatic role to address the causes of migration from Mexico and Central America – such as violence and political instability – and to work with those countries to strengthen migration enforcement at their own borders. The assignment was similar to one Mr. Biden received as vice president in the Obama White House. At the time, President Biden said he asked the vice president “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.”" https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2024/0726/kamala-harris-border-czar-axios-biden#:~:text=Mr. Biden tasked the vice,. Harris “border czar.”
As a third source, CBS corroborates Harris's role and dispels the myth of Harris being chosen as a "border czar": "In March 2021, when the Biden administration faced the early stages of an influx in illegal crossings at the U.S. southern border, Mr. 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. The region, known as Central America's Northern Triangle, has been one of the main sources of migration to the U.S.-Mexico border over the past decade. Harris was not asked to be the administration's "border czar" or to oversee immigration policy and enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border. That has mainly been the responsibility of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and his department, which oversees the country's main three immigration agencies, including Customs and Border Protection." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigration-biden-administration-border/
So it seems that Harris's specific role was not to shut down our southern border or prevent illegal immigrants from passing through our gates - a description frequently assumed by those who give her the misnomer of "border czar" - but rather to work with other countries and figure out why their residents are leaving in the first place, and how best to address those underlying issues.
From a humanitarian perspective, I think Harris's assignment was a noble one. If progress were made, then it could proactively address the reasons people had for leaving their own countries, and could possibly figure out ways for those families to be happy and prosperous in their own homes before they decide to leave and travel north to us, rather than just reactively turning away desperate, destitute families at our own border.
Was any progress actually made, though? Did Harris manage to move the needle, even a little, when it comes to working with Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, to address their people leaving their homes for our southern border? And if so, did it help our illegal immigration issue at all?
This TIME article, with the headline of "Kamala Harris Was Never Biden’s ‘Border Czar.’ Here’s What She Really Did", states the following about Harris and what she accomplished in her humanitarian role:
"Her mandate was much narrower: to focus on examining and improving the underlying conditions in the Northern Triangle of Central America—El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—which has been racked by decades of poverty, war, chronic violence, and political instability. The strategy relied on allocating billions for economic programs and stimulating private-sector investment in the region in hopes that these programs would ultimately lead fewer migrants to make the dangerous journey north. ...
The so-called "root causes strategy" focused on improving economic and security conditions by creating jobs, combating corruption, improving human and labor rights, and reducing violence. Harris allocated funds for humanitarian relief from natural disasters, and directed more than 10 million COVID-19 vaccines to the Northern Triangle countries. She held bilateral meetings with the region's leaders, as well as meetings with NGOs, business executives and human rights advocates. She worked with the U.S. Justice Department to launch an Anti-Corruption task force focused on prosecuting corruption cases with ties to the region, as well as Anti-Migrant Smuggling task forces in Mexico and Guatemala.
Most importantly, Harris spearheaded a public-private partnership that, as of March 2024, had secured commitments from major U.S. and multi-national companies to invest more than $5 billion in the region. The Vice President "put her name on the line with very serious senior CEOs and kind of created a brand appeal for Central America that didn't exist," says Ricardo Zúniga, who until recently served as the U.S. special envoy to Central America.
Harris also spent time in Washington communicating with regional leaders. One tangible result, according to two former U.S. officials, was that it gave the U.S. the standing and relationships to help prevent Guatemalan prosecutors from overturning the results of last year’s presidential election, which was won by anti-corruption outsider Bernardo Arévalo. While delayed, the ultimately peaceful transition of power avoided the political instability that Biden Administration officials feared could cause a spike in migration. The U.S. applied public pressure through sanctions and visa restrictions on officials they accused of undermining the democratic process, as well as behind the scenes. Harris's team was directly involved, especially her national security adviser Philip Gordon, who traveled to the region to push for a peaceful democratic transfer of power, according to the two former U.S. officials. ...
Much of Harris’s work failed to break through back home. Instead, she became the target of Republican broadsides about the border crisis and was repeatedly criticized for not visiting the U.S.-Mexico border. "She's dealing with a narrative problem," says Zuniga. With immigration topping the list of Americans’ concerns, according to recent Gallup polls, an ongoing humanitarian crisis at the border, and political deadlock on immigration reform and funding, Harris emerged as the most visible scapegoat."
As you can see from the above article, Harris did quite a bit to assist the Northern Triangle's emigration issues. And, thankfully, all of her hard work resulted in a reduction of their emigration towards the United States: "illegal crossings along the U.S. southern border by migrants from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador have decreased significantly every year since 2021." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigration-biden-administration-border/
What about on a broader scale - not just the Northern Triangle countries? Well, for that, we can see how both Biden and Harris deserve plenty of credit in regards to addressing overall illegal immigration and unlawful border crossings: "As the second-highest ranking member of the Biden administration, Harris will also likely face questions over the all-time levels of unlawful border crossings reported in 2021, 2022, and 2023. Those crossings, however, have plunged this year, reaching a three-year low in June, after Mr. Biden issued an executive order banning most migrants from asylum." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigration-biden-administration-border/
If I remember correctly, Biden's executive order was issued in retaliation to Republicans pulling out of the bipartisan border security bill due to Trump's clarion call. That means that both Biden and Harris deserve significant credit for making some progress in addressing the illegal immigration issue over the past few years, despite Trump and Congressional Republicans' best efforts to worsen the border crisis just so Trump can reference it during his presidential run.
I've said before but I will say again I almost admire your ability to just swallow whatever has become DNC taking points and repeat them without even the slightest hesitation or skepticism. It's really shining through with this and the DEI thing. The "Biden-Harris" administration, as some have styled it, has overseen the worst border crisis in our history, and even now some of it is only being mitigated by the administration's abuse of the parole provisions in the law to make the numbers go down without actually stopping ad many people as it appears.
Notably, no where in what you quoted was any actual causal chain linking what she did to any sort of success.
I love how any list of accomplishments by any source is so easily dismissed as "DNC talking points". That's just ridiculous. 10 million covid vaccines is causally assisting their humanitarian issues. So is leading international coalitions that give money and other aid to those countries. So is working with the leaders of those countries to solve other problems that were well documented in my post. CBS isn't run by Nancy Pelosi. TIME isn't run by Hillary Clinton. Harris did some stuff and it worked: the Northern Triangle countries became better off, and emigration to our border significantly decreased as a result.
It's so weird that you asked a question and then just explicitly denied the list of factual answers, just because you didn't like the reality of the situation. You know you're allowed to recognize when Harris does something good, right? Trump isn't going to find out, I promise. Give credit where credit is due. I hated Chris Christie when he was the governor of New Jersey, but I still acknowledged and respected how seriously he took Hurricane Sandy (both before - he worked extremely hard to warn everyone over and over again not to fuck around and find out - and after, when he worked hard to clean up a good amount of the destruction).
You seem to be in such massive denial, that I wouldn't be surprised if you still end up incorrectly referring to Harris as a "border czar", despite her job explicitly not being that.
the results are...inconclusive to put it nicely
Nicely... or Incorrectly... Same thing, I guess. Sigh.
On July 27 2024 03:30 Introvert wrote: Also seems like one should able to point to some sort of demonstrated competence. What has she achieved in her role? The media is busy pretending she was never made "border czar" at the moment so I'm curious to find out what she had managed to do. Being senator and AG not quite the same, at least Pence was a governor. Other VPs are picked because they can be legislative liaisons. But she hasn't taken that role either.
I think asking if Kamala Harris has helped to address the illegal immigration situation is a legitimate question. I think that's a good-faith, policy-based question that doesn't just make fun of her laugh or her stepfamily or her sex or her race.
Here's the information I was able to find on that topic, which firmly establishes what her role actually was, and explains that she was never chosen as a "border czar":
This second source adds a little more context: "In 2021, President Biden did task the vice president with a diplomatic role to address the causes of migration from Mexico and Central America – such as violence and political instability – and to work with those countries to strengthen migration enforcement at their own borders. The assignment was similar to one Mr. Biden received as vice president in the Obama White House. At the time, President Biden said he asked the vice president “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.”" https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2024/0726/kamala-harris-border-czar-axios-biden#:~:text=Mr. Biden tasked the vice,. Harris “border czar.”
As a third source, CBS corroborates Harris's role and dispels the myth of Harris being chosen as a "border czar": "In March 2021, when the Biden administration faced the early stages of an influx in illegal crossings at the U.S. southern border, Mr. 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. The region, known as Central America's Northern Triangle, has been one of the main sources of migration to the U.S.-Mexico border over the past decade. Harris was not asked to be the administration's "border czar" or to oversee immigration policy and enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border. That has mainly been the responsibility of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and his department, which oversees the country's main three immigration agencies, including Customs and Border Protection." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigration-biden-administration-border/
So it seems that Harris's specific role was not to shut down our southern border or prevent illegal immigrants from passing through our gates - a description frequently assumed by those who give her the misnomer of "border czar" - but rather to work with other countries and figure out why their residents are leaving in the first place, and how best to address those underlying issues.
From a humanitarian perspective, I think Harris's assignment was a noble one. If progress were made, then it could proactively address the reasons people had for leaving their own countries, and could possibly figure out ways for those families to be happy and prosperous in their own homes before they decide to leave and travel north to us, rather than just reactively turning away desperate, destitute families at our own border.
Was any progress actually made, though? Did Harris manage to move the needle, even a little, when it comes to working with Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, to address their people leaving their homes for our southern border? And if so, did it help our illegal immigration issue at all?
This TIME article, with the headline of "Kamala Harris Was Never Biden’s ‘Border Czar.’ Here’s What She Really Did", states the following about Harris and what she accomplished in her humanitarian role:
"Her mandate was much narrower: to focus on examining and improving the underlying conditions in the Northern Triangle of Central America—El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—which has been racked by decades of poverty, war, chronic violence, and political instability. The strategy relied on allocating billions for economic programs and stimulating private-sector investment in the region in hopes that these programs would ultimately lead fewer migrants to make the dangerous journey north. ...
The so-called "root causes strategy" focused on improving economic and security conditions by creating jobs, combating corruption, improving human and labor rights, and reducing violence. Harris allocated funds for humanitarian relief from natural disasters, and directed more than 10 million COVID-19 vaccines to the Northern Triangle countries. She held bilateral meetings with the region's leaders, as well as meetings with NGOs, business executives and human rights advocates. She worked with the U.S. Justice Department to launch an Anti-Corruption task force focused on prosecuting corruption cases with ties to the region, as well as Anti-Migrant Smuggling task forces in Mexico and Guatemala.
Most importantly, Harris spearheaded a public-private partnership that, as of March 2024, had secured commitments from major U.S. and multi-national companies to invest more than $5 billion in the region. The Vice President "put her name on the line with very serious senior CEOs and kind of created a brand appeal for Central America that didn't exist," says Ricardo Zúniga, who until recently served as the U.S. special envoy to Central America.
Harris also spent time in Washington communicating with regional leaders. One tangible result, according to two former U.S. officials, was that it gave the U.S. the standing and relationships to help prevent Guatemalan prosecutors from overturning the results of last year’s presidential election, which was won by anti-corruption outsider Bernardo Arévalo. While delayed, the ultimately peaceful transition of power avoided the political instability that Biden Administration officials feared could cause a spike in migration. The U.S. applied public pressure through sanctions and visa restrictions on officials they accused of undermining the democratic process, as well as behind the scenes. Harris's team was directly involved, especially her national security adviser Philip Gordon, who traveled to the region to push for a peaceful democratic transfer of power, according to the two former U.S. officials. ...
Much of Harris’s work failed to break through back home. Instead, she became the target of Republican broadsides about the border crisis and was repeatedly criticized for not visiting the U.S.-Mexico border. "She's dealing with a narrative problem," says Zuniga. With immigration topping the list of Americans’ concerns, according to recent Gallup polls, an ongoing humanitarian crisis at the border, and political deadlock on immigration reform and funding, Harris emerged as the most visible scapegoat."
As you can see from the above article, Harris did quite a bit to assist the Northern Triangle's emigration issues. And, thankfully, all of her hard work resulted in a reduction of their emigration towards the United States: "illegal crossings along the U.S. southern border by migrants from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador have decreased significantly every year since 2021." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigration-biden-administration-border/
What about on a broader scale - not just the Northern Triangle countries? Well, for that, we can see how both Biden and Harris deserve plenty of credit in regards to addressing overall illegal immigration and unlawful border crossings: "As the second-highest ranking member of the Biden administration, Harris will also likely face questions over the all-time levels of unlawful border crossings reported in 2021, 2022, and 2023. Those crossings, however, have plunged this year, reaching a three-year low in June, after Mr. Biden issued an executive order banning most migrants from asylum." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigration-biden-administration-border/
If I remember correctly, Biden's executive order was issued in retaliation to Republicans pulling out of the bipartisan border security bill due to Trump's clarion call. That means that both Biden and Harris deserve significant credit for making some progress in addressing the illegal immigration issue over the past few years, despite Trump and Congressional Republicans' best efforts to worsen the border crisis just so Trump can reference it during his presidential run.
I've said before but I will say again I almost admire your ability to just swallow whatever has become DNC taking points and repeat them without even the slightest hesitation or skepticism. It's really shining through with this and the DEI thing. The "Biden-Harris" administration, as some have styled it, has overseen the worst border crisis in our history, and even now some of it is only being mitigated by the administration's abuse of the parole provisions in the law to make the numbers go down without actually stopping ad many people as it appears.
Notably, no where in what you quoted was any actual causal chain linking what she did to any sort of success.
I love how any list of accomplishments by any source is so easily dismissed as "DNC talking points". That's just ridiculous. 10 million covid vaccines is causally assisting their humanitarian issues. So is leading international coalitions that give money and other aid to those countries. So is working with the leaders of those countries to solve other problems that were well documented in my post. CBS isn't run by Nancy Pelosi. TIME isn't run by Hillary Clinton. Harris did some stuff and it worked: the Northern Triangle countries became better off, and emigration to our border significantly decreased as a result.
It's so weird that you asked a question and then just explicitly denied the list of factual answers, just because you didn't like the reality of the situation. You know you're allowed to recognize when Harris does something good, right? Trump isn't going to find out, I promise. Give credit where credit is due. I hated Chris Christie when he was the governor of New Jersey, but I still acknowledged and respected how seriously he took Hurricane Sandy (both before - he worked extremely hard to warn everyone over and over again not to fuck around and find out - and after, when he worked hard to clean up a good amount of the destruction).
You seem to be in such massive denial, that I wouldn't be surprised if you still end up incorrectly referring to Harris as a "border czar", despite her job explicitly not being that.
Nicely... or Incorrectly... Same thing, I guess. Sigh.
most of your sources were telling me what she was *tasked* with doing. Not what she actually accomplished (I guess she passed out some money?) You are free to attribute the slowing of flow from some of those countries to her I suppose but as I pointed out many experts are skeptical what she did had anything to do with it. And you skipped right over that part. Honestly I'm just kind of amused, I don't think met many people IRL who is as free and trusting of a political party and their narratives as you are. Pretty sure after Bob Menendez got off the first time a little bit later you said you were happy to vote for him. Like idk man, dude was obviously corrupt as hell even then but he had a "D" next to his name so...but also no, handing out money to people is not really presidential job training. Again, if anyone has a list of any other stellar accomplishments of hers please, I'm all ears.
I used border czar because that language was used at the time.
On July 27 2024 11:33 KwarK wrote: You're not understanding. You're allowed to talk about diversity. Talking about diversity isn't the same thing as describing people as DEI.
And I'm saying that in this context it is totally appropriate, especially since those are the exact words the president used. he used all three, in that exact order! If that doesn't make it appropriate to talk about then I have no idea when it could be.
When did I say otherwise?
This whole chain has been about Biden and Harris then you pop in saying "Conservatives use DEI because they people complain when they use slurs." idk the implication seems pretty obvious to me.
Yes. When conservatives describe people as DEI they mean the slur for whatever minority group the person is.
When Biden talks about his reasoning for selecting his VP it's not the same. Context.
"Anti-Migrant Smuggling [sic] task forces" sounds quite bordery and not so root causey. It's also extremely racist, they probably meant to set up Anti-Migrant-Smuggling task forces instead.
People who don't have the economic capacity to survive natural disasters probably don't have what it takes to smuggle themselves across multiple countries either. Although there is an issue of people going into debt to the criminals smuggling them.
If crossings are down in 2024 (last 2 years the stats stand at over 2 million per year down slightly in 2023, and looking at monthly trends in one year only can lead you to mirage conclusions if you don't know the subject due to wide monthly/seasonal fluctuations) it's probably from Mexican interdiction, Biden's asylum EO, Abbott independently moving to secure his state's border, and the specter of Drumpf in the near future which changes the perception of the free ride awaiting those who come to the US. So while it's possible that the receipt of 10 million covid vaccines has had a causal effect on people from countries like Guatemala crossing the US border (or rather teleporting into it since this isn't an issue related to the border after all she was no border czar), probably the fact that the government of the country between Guatemala and the US is stopping more Guatemalans from coming illegally could be assessed as more relevant. For El Salvador, the fact that the citizens of that country elected a thriving, safe government that isn't shit is solving most of the "root causes."
This whole conversation about Harris' qualifications and competence is deeply weird. The main opposition standard-bearer had no prior qualifications, has the attention span of a toddler, famously won't read documents longer than a few bullet points, is easily distracted and can't make a coherent argument, ran an administration where a disturbing number of people he hired were convicted of crimes, etc. The fact that he is still popular with more than half of America (according to polls) implies that qualifications and competence are not essential criteria for this position.
On July 27 2024 17:30 EnDeR_ wrote: This whole conversation about Harris' qualifications and competence is deeply weird. The main opposition standard-bearer had no prior qualifications, has the attention span of a toddler, famously won't read documents longer than a few bullet points, is easily distracted and can't make a coherent argument, ran an administration where a disturbing number of people he hired were convicted of crimes, etc. The fact that he is still popular with more than half of America (according to polls) implies that qualifications and competence are not essential criteria for this position.
Its just bad faith. They are trying to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. Calling her a border czar then doubling down when shown she had nothing to do with the actual security of the border.
If you guys dont think calling someone a DEI hire is being used in place for a slur or something else derogitory, call someone from a "minority" group a DEI hire to their face or in a group setting at your place of employment and see how quickly you are reprimanded or fired.
On July 27 2024 17:30 EnDeR_ wrote: This whole conversation about Harris' qualifications and competence is deeply weird. The main opposition standard-bearer had no prior qualifications, has the attention span of a toddler, famously won't read documents longer than a few bullet points, is easily distracted and can't make a coherent argument, ran an administration where a disturbing number of people he hired were convicted of crimes, etc. The fact that he is still popular with more than half of America (according to polls) implies that qualifications and competence are not essential criteria for this position.
Its just bad faith. They are trying to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. Calling her a border czar then doubling down when shown she had nothing to do with the actual security of the border.
If you guys dont think calling someone a DEI hire is being used in place for a slur or something else derogitory, call someone from a "minority" group a DEI hire to their face or in a group setting at your place of employment and see how quickly you are reprimanded or fired.
I expect to hear every possible way of indirectly saying "she can't be president because she is a woman and black" from the Trump campaign.
The Democratic campaign is being pretty ruthless themselves, mocking Trump's way of speaking and hammering quotes like "very fine people" and Trump's sexual history.
It would be nice if actual politics would be the most important, but it seems like we will have 2 campaigns mostly about fear and identity. IIRC, Trump's first campaign which he won actually had a fair bit of protectionist trade policies, which won him many votes. Even "the wall" was is at least something concrete he wanted to do.
On July 27 2024 03:30 Introvert wrote: Also seems like one should able to point to some sort of demonstrated competence. What has she achieved in her role? The media is busy pretending she was never made "border czar" at the moment so I'm curious to find out what she had managed to do. Being senator and AG not quite the same, at least Pence was a governor. Other VPs are picked because they can be legislative liaisons. But she hasn't taken that role either.
I think asking if Kamala Harris has helped to address the illegal immigration situation is a legitimate question. I think that's a good-faith, policy-based question that doesn't just make fun of her laugh or her stepfamily or her sex or her race.
Here's the information I was able to find on that topic, which firmly establishes what her role actually was, and explains that she was never chosen as a "border czar":
This second source adds a little more context: "In 2021, President Biden did task the vice president with a diplomatic role to address the causes of migration from Mexico and Central America – such as violence and political instability – and to work with those countries to strengthen migration enforcement at their own borders. The assignment was similar to one Mr. Biden received as vice president in the Obama White House. At the time, President Biden said he asked the vice president “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.”" https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2024/0726/kamala-harris-border-czar-axios-biden#:~:text=Mr. Biden tasked the vice,. Harris “border czar.”
As a third source, CBS corroborates Harris's role and dispels the myth of Harris being chosen as a "border czar": "In March 2021, when the Biden administration faced the early stages of an influx in illegal crossings at the U.S. southern border, Mr. 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. The region, known as Central America's Northern Triangle, has been one of the main sources of migration to the U.S.-Mexico border over the past decade. Harris was not asked to be the administration's "border czar" or to oversee immigration policy and enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border. That has mainly been the responsibility of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and his department, which oversees the country's main three immigration agencies, including Customs and Border Protection." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigration-biden-administration-border/
So it seems that Harris's specific role was not to shut down our southern border or prevent illegal immigrants from passing through our gates - a description frequently assumed by those who give her the misnomer of "border czar" - but rather to work with other countries and figure out why their residents are leaving in the first place, and how best to address those underlying issues.
From a humanitarian perspective, I think Harris's assignment was a noble one. If progress were made, then it could proactively address the reasons people had for leaving their own countries, and could possibly figure out ways for those families to be happy and prosperous in their own homes before they decide to leave and travel north to us, rather than just reactively turning away desperate, destitute families at our own border.
Was any progress actually made, though? Did Harris manage to move the needle, even a little, when it comes to working with Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, to address their people leaving their homes for our southern border? And if so, did it help our illegal immigration issue at all?
This TIME article, with the headline of "Kamala Harris Was Never Biden’s ‘Border Czar.’ Here’s What She Really Did", states the following about Harris and what she accomplished in her humanitarian role:
"Her mandate was much narrower: to focus on examining and improving the underlying conditions in the Northern Triangle of Central America—El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—which has been racked by decades of poverty, war, chronic violence, and political instability. The strategy relied on allocating billions for economic programs and stimulating private-sector investment in the region in hopes that these programs would ultimately lead fewer migrants to make the dangerous journey north. ...
The so-called "root causes strategy" focused on improving economic and security conditions by creating jobs, combating corruption, improving human and labor rights, and reducing violence. Harris allocated funds for humanitarian relief from natural disasters, and directed more than 10 million COVID-19 vaccines to the Northern Triangle countries. She held bilateral meetings with the region's leaders, as well as meetings with NGOs, business executives and human rights advocates. She worked with the U.S. Justice Department to launch an Anti-Corruption task force focused on prosecuting corruption cases with ties to the region, as well as Anti-Migrant Smuggling task forces in Mexico and Guatemala.
Most importantly, Harris spearheaded a public-private partnership that, as of March 2024, had secured commitments from major U.S. and multi-national companies to invest more than $5 billion in the region. The Vice President "put her name on the line with very serious senior CEOs and kind of created a brand appeal for Central America that didn't exist," says Ricardo Zúniga, who until recently served as the U.S. special envoy to Central America.
Harris also spent time in Washington communicating with regional leaders. One tangible result, according to two former U.S. officials, was that it gave the U.S. the standing and relationships to help prevent Guatemalan prosecutors from overturning the results of last year’s presidential election, which was won by anti-corruption outsider Bernardo Arévalo. While delayed, the ultimately peaceful transition of power avoided the political instability that Biden Administration officials feared could cause a spike in migration. The U.S. applied public pressure through sanctions and visa restrictions on officials they accused of undermining the democratic process, as well as behind the scenes. Harris's team was directly involved, especially her national security adviser Philip Gordon, who traveled to the region to push for a peaceful democratic transfer of power, according to the two former U.S. officials. ...
Much of Harris’s work failed to break through back home. Instead, she became the target of Republican broadsides about the border crisis and was repeatedly criticized for not visiting the U.S.-Mexico border. "She's dealing with a narrative problem," says Zuniga. With immigration topping the list of Americans’ concerns, according to recent Gallup polls, an ongoing humanitarian crisis at the border, and political deadlock on immigration reform and funding, Harris emerged as the most visible scapegoat."
As you can see from the above article, Harris did quite a bit to assist the Northern Triangle's emigration issues. And, thankfully, all of her hard work resulted in a reduction of their emigration towards the United States: "illegal crossings along the U.S. southern border by migrants from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador have decreased significantly every year since 2021." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigration-biden-administration-border/
What about on a broader scale - not just the Northern Triangle countries? Well, for that, we can see how both Biden and Harris deserve plenty of credit in regards to addressing overall illegal immigration and unlawful border crossings: "As the second-highest ranking member of the Biden administration, Harris will also likely face questions over the all-time levels of unlawful border crossings reported in 2021, 2022, and 2023. Those crossings, however, have plunged this year, reaching a three-year low in June, after Mr. Biden issued an executive order banning most migrants from asylum." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigration-biden-administration-border/
If I remember correctly, Biden's executive order was issued in retaliation to Republicans pulling out of the bipartisan border security bill due to Trump's clarion call. That means that both Biden and Harris deserve significant credit for making some progress in addressing the illegal immigration issue over the past few years, despite Trump and Congressional Republicans' best efforts to worsen the border crisis just so Trump can reference it during his presidential run.
I've said before but I will say again I almost admire your ability to just swallow whatever has become DNC taking points and repeat them without even the slightest hesitation or skepticism. It's really shining through with this and the DEI thing. The "Biden-Harris" administration, as some have styled it, has overseen the worst border crisis in our history, and even now some of it is only being mitigated by the administration's abuse of the parole provisions in the law to make the numbers go down without actually stopping ad many people as it appears.
Notably, no where in what you quoted was any actual causal chain linking what she did to any sort of success.
I love how any list of accomplishments by any source is so easily dismissed as "DNC talking points". That's just ridiculous. 10 million covid vaccines is causally assisting their humanitarian issues. So is leading international coalitions that give money and other aid to those countries. So is working with the leaders of those countries to solve other problems that were well documented in my post. CBS isn't run by Nancy Pelosi. TIME isn't run by Hillary Clinton. Harris did some stuff and it worked: the Northern Triangle countries became better off, and emigration to our border significantly decreased as a result.
It's so weird that you asked a question and then just explicitly denied the list of factual answers, just because you didn't like the reality of the situation. You know you're allowed to recognize when Harris does something good, right? Trump isn't going to find out, I promise. Give credit where credit is due. I hated Chris Christie when he was the governor of New Jersey, but I still acknowledged and respected how seriously he took Hurricane Sandy (both before - he worked extremely hard to warn everyone over and over again not to fuck around and find out - and after, when he worked hard to clean up a good amount of the destruction).
You seem to be in such massive denial, that I wouldn't be surprised if you still end up incorrectly referring to Harris as a "border czar", despite her job explicitly not being that.
the results are...inconclusive to put it nicely
Nicely... or Incorrectly... Same thing, I guess. Sigh.
most of your sources were telling me what she was *tasked* with doing. Not what she actually accomplished (I guess she passed out some money?) You are free to attribute the slowing of flow from some of those countries to her I suppose
Your first excuse was that all of the corroborating sources and facts could be dismissed because they were nothing more than "DNC talking points". You didn't actually look into this, as these sources were independent, but you asserted that it was all fake news anyway.
Your second excuse was to write off everything as merely correlational, not causal, because surely Harris did those things but since there isn't a scientific study using randomized control trials to prove cause-and-effect, Harris shouldn't receive credit for those things. Maybe it's just a huuuge coincidence that all of those helpful things happened right before and during the beneficial outcome.
And now your third excuse is that Harris probably didn't even do the things that the sources said she did. Like when you read "Harris allocated funds for humanitarian relief from natural disasters, and directed more than 10 million COVID-19 vaccines to the Northern Triangle countries", you're interpreting it to mean "Harris was *told* to do all that... but maybe she didn't", which is clearly *not* what is written.
I'm not interested in a fourth set of excuses, so maybe just learn how to Google her accomplishments on your own, if you ever become interested in sincerely learning about what Harris has done as vice president.
A person can learn a lot about the accuracy of their research by seeing how other people with other agendas react to it. The fact that you're so anti-Harris, yet presented such weak counters to what I found, increases my confidence in Harris. It's just disappointing to learn that your original question, which sounded reasonable at first, was secretly rhetorical, because you were never going to accept reality if it meant learning that Harris actually did something positive as vice president.
On July 27 2024 17:30 EnDeR_ wrote: This whole conversation about Harris' qualifications and competence is deeply weird. The main opposition standard-bearer had no prior qualifications, has the attention span of a toddler, famously won't read documents longer than a few bullet points, is easily distracted and can't make a coherent argument, ran an administration where a disturbing number of people he hired were convicted of crimes, etc. The fact that he is still popular with more than half of America (according to polls) implies that qualifications and competence are not essential criteria for this position.
Its just bad faith. They are trying to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. Calling her a border czar then doubling down when shown she had nothing to do with the actual security of the border.
If you guys dont think calling someone a DEI hire is being used in place for a slur or something else derogitory, call someone from a "minority" group a DEI hire to their face or in a group setting at your place of employment and see how quickly you are reprimanded or fired.
I expect to hear every possible way of indirectly saying "she can't be president because she is a woman and black" from the Trump campaign.
The Democratic campaign is being pretty ruthless themselves, mocking Trump's way of speaking and hammering quotes like "very fine people" and Trump's sexual history.
It would be nice if actual politics would be the most important, but it seems like we will have 2 campaigns mostly about fear and identity. IIRC, Trump's first campaign which he won actually had a fair bit of protectionist trade policies, which won him many votes. Even "the wall" was is at least something concrete he wanted to do.
I don't think it's appropriate to make fun of a candidate for being a woman or a person of color or only having a step-family instead of biological children.
I think it's absolutely appropriate to call out a candidate for having a sexual history that includes rape, sexual harassment, and cheating on all three of his wives. The fraud and criminal convictions and trying to steal a presidential election are fair game too.
So far, Harris's rallies and advertisements have done an admirable job of rotating through all the different pro-Harris and anti-Trump rhetoric: accomplishments this term, goals for next term, attacking Trump's politics (e.g., repealing Roe v. Wade), and attacking Trump's character (e.g., being a sexual predator). All four of these kinds of messages resonate with different groups, and I hope she continues to fire on all cylinders, even if not all four of them resonate equally with me.
Can someone please provide the best-faith, least-fascist, steelman interpretation of what Trump meant when he said this:
Also, I can't tell if he said "I'm a Christian" or "I'm not Christian". I assume he meant to clearly say the former, but to me it sounded a lot like the latter.
EPT
