Vice President Kamala Harris seems to be a politician plagued by contradictions, repeatedly shifting her stance on key issues while attempting to present a clear image to the American public. Her campaign, marred by inconsistencies, highlights a troubling pattern of flip-flopping that raises questions about her convictions and respect for voters.

 

Recently, Axios' Alex Thompson reported on a "lengthy 'fact-check'" circulated by Harris' team to media allies, attempting to revise her past positions on controversial policies. One of the key points was that Harris “does not support an electric vehicle mandate,” a statement that contradicts her earlier legislative actions. This isn’t so much a fact-check as it is a blatant reversal on a significant issue.

 

Back in 2019, Harris co-sponsored a bill aiming to phase out gas-powered vehicles by 2040, pushing for all automobiles to be electric or hydrogen-powered. During her 2020 presidential bid, she even advocated for an accelerated transition by 2035. Yet, when pressed recently on whether she would support the bill she once championed, Harris’ campaign declined to respond for days, ultimately refusing to clarify her stance. This evasiveness leaves voters questioning where she truly stands.

 

It seems Harris is trying to reap the political benefits of distancing herself from a now-unpopular position without directly addressing it. The mixed signals suggest a strategy designed to appeal to moderates while keeping the door open for progressive support. “I don’t support an electric vehicle mandate, but I just might sign one into law,” appears to be the unspoken message, leaving the public guessing about her true intentions.

 

Harris' approach might seem brazen, but it has political logic. With significant media backing, she appears to believe she can craft her narrative without facing the fallout of her past positions. By reshaping her policies in press releases rather than openly addressing them, she aims to appeal to both independent voters and progressives who hope she will revert to her original stances once in office.

 

Harris' political maneuvering doesn’t end with policy; it extends to her public persona. She has been criticized for adopting exaggerated accents when speaking to different audiences, a tactic some see as pandering. This behavior underscores a cynical strategy that only someone as unrestrained as Harris could pursue—shifting styles and messages to fit the crowd, often without consistency or sincerity.

 

Imagine responding with “No comment” during a job interview or altering your speech to mimic your interviewer’s background. Harris, however, seems unbothered by such tactics while making her case to lead the country. Her campaign is not just an exercise in typical political flip-flopping; it’s an embodiment of strategic ambiguity designed to please everyone, yet truly satisfying no one.

 

Politicians have always twisted truths and adapted to suit their needs, but Harris’ lack of a clear vision, coupled with her refusal to firmly articulate her positions, shows a profound disregard for voters. Her recent political pivots are reminiscent of her previous run for the White House, where she supported positions like dismantling private health insurance, defunding the police, abolishing ICE, and embracing the Green New Deal. Now, she claims to oppose all those initiatives, yet insists her “values have not changed.” Each time, there's a figurative wink, signaling yet another shift without a straightforward explanation.

 

Harris' attempt to distance herself from her failed 2020 campaign may be understandable, but the shallow, performative nature of her rebranding efforts is insulting. Her strategy of trying to simultaneously appease the far left while luring back moderates leaves both sides uneasy and raises a critical question: just how little does Kamala Harris think of the American people?

 

As Harris continues her opaque campaign, voters deserve more than evasive answers and carefully curated narratives. The lack of transparency and consistency from someone seeking the highest office in the land is not just disappointing—it’s a disservice to the very people she aims to lead.

 

Credit: NYP 2024-09-07

 

 

 

Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

I dono seems pretty consistent to me,certainly she has changed her stance on certain issues so what….this article reeks of a NYP murdoc hit piece.

From the headline i presumed a daily telegraph 'opinion'. I was wrong, new York post. Same same but different.

2 hours ago, Social Media said:

Her campaign, marred by inconsistencies, highlights a troubling pattern of flip-flopping that raises questions about her convictions and respect for voters.

That explanation sounds very much like another running candidate, I'm sure they laugh at just how gullible some voters are as they count the electoral donations! Donald Trump for President????? OMG...... how much more backward can you get! 

3 hours ago, Social Media said:

Harris' approach might seem brazen, but it has political logic. With significant media backing, she appears to believe she can craft her narrative without facing the fallout of her past positions. By reshaping her policies in press releases rather than openly addressing them, she aims to appeal to both independent voters and progressives who hope she will revert to her original stances once in office.

 

Harris' political maneuvering doesn’t end with policy; it extends to her public persona. She has been criticized for adopting exaggerated accents when speaking to different audiences, a tactic some see as pandering. This behavior underscores a cynical strategy that only someone as unrestrained as Harris could pursue—shifting styles and messages to fit the crowd, often without consistency or sincerity.

These are only some of the reasons why i find it hard to believe so many AN members stick to her like glue. She has nothing but changing policies based on what is best said to get elected and into office. She has no morals or values. She has no strength on anything to effectively be a president managing or fighting for the American people. Nor does she have any character to deal with world leaders and worldly issues. This is seen consistently with her throughout her campaigns and interviews now and in her past as the VP. 

I understand these AN members hate for Trump. But does that hate mean agreeing to, defending, and promoting this type of woman that would make her in a position to run the country? 

She may not be the lesser of the 2 evils running for president currently. 

 

NYP doing its best for Donald.

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

Vice President Kamala Harris seems to be a politician plagued by contradictions, repeatedly shifting her stance on key issues while attempting to present a clear image to the American public. Her campaign, marred by inconsistencies, highlights a troubling pattern of flip-flopping that raises questions about her convictions and respect for voters.

 

Recently, Axios' Alex Thompson reported on a "lengthy 'fact-check'" circulated by Harris' team to media allies, attempting to revise her past positions on controversial policies. One of the key points was that Harris “does not support an electric vehicle mandate,” a statement that contradicts her earlier legislative actions. This isn’t so much a fact-check as it is a blatant reversal on a significant issue.

 

Back in 2019, Harris co-sponsored a bill aiming to phase out gas-powered vehicles by 2040, pushing for all automobiles to be electric or hydrogen-powered. During her 2020 presidential bid, she even advocated for an accelerated transition by 2035. Yet, when pressed recently on whether she would support the bill she once championed, Harris’ campaign declined to respond for days, ultimately refusing to clarify her stance. This evasiveness leaves voters questioning where she truly stands.

 

It seems Harris is trying to reap the political benefits of distancing herself from a now-unpopular position without directly addressing it. The mixed signals suggest a strategy designed to appeal to moderates while keeping the door open for progressive support. “I don’t support an electric vehicle mandate, but I just might sign one into law,” appears to be the unspoken message, leaving the public guessing about her true intentions.

 

 

Harris' approach might seem brazen, but it has political logic. With significant media backing, she appears to believe she can craft her narrative without facing the fallout of her past positions. By reshaping her policies in press releases rather than openly addressing them, she aims to appeal to both independent voters and progressives who hope she will revert to her original stances once in office.

 

Harris' political maneuvering doesn’t end with policy; it extends to her public persona. She has been criticized for adopting exaggerated accents when speaking to different audiences, a tactic some see as pandering. This behavior underscores a cynical strategy that only someone as unrestrained as Harris could pursue—shifting styles and messages to fit the crowd, often without consistency or sincerity.

 

Imagine responding with “No comment” during a job interview or altering your speech to mimic your interviewer’s background. Harris, however, seems unbothered by such tactics while making her case to lead the country. Her campaign is not just an exercise in typical political flip-flopping; it’s an embodiment of strategic ambiguity designed to please everyone, yet truly satisfying no one.

 

Politicians have always twisted truths and adapted to suit their needs, but Harris’ lack of a clear vision, coupled with her refusal to firmly articulate her positions, shows a profound disregard for voters. Her recent political pivots are reminiscent of her previous run for the White House, where she supported positions like dismantling private health insurance, defunding the police, abolishing ICE, and embracing the Green New Deal. Now, she claims to oppose all those initiatives, yet insists her “values have not changed.” Each time, there's a figurative wink, signaling yet another shift without a straightforward explanation.

 

Harris' attempt to distance herself from her failed 2020 campaign may be understandable, but the shallow, performative nature of her rebranding efforts is insulting. Her strategy of trying to simultaneously appease the far left while luring back moderates leaves both sides uneasy and raises a critical question: just how little does Kamala Harris think of the American people?

 

As Harris continues her opaque campaign, voters deserve more than evasive answers and carefully curated narratives. The lack of transparency and consistency from someone seeking the highest office in the land is not just disappointing—it’s a disservice to the very people she aims to lead.

 

Credit: NYP 2024-09-07

 

 

 

Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

More right wing drivel from a Murdoch rag.

44 minutes ago, thesetat2013 said:

She has nothing but changing policies based on what is best said to get elected and into office. She has no morals or values. She has no strength on anything to effectively be a president managing or fighting for the American people. Nor does she have any character to deal with world leaders and worldly issues. This is seen consistently with her throughout her campaigns and interviews now and in her past as the VP. 

All you're saying here is applicable to trump. In contrast to Harris, Trump has shown this as president. So all good reasons to not elect him.

4 hours ago, Tug said:

I dono seems pretty consistent to me,certainly she has changed her stance on certain issues so what….this article reeks of a NYP murdoc hit piece.

Read the first paragraph over and over.  It will make sense, even to you.  

It's also a campaign unburdened by the loss of a million full time jobs in the past year, according to the data released yesterday.

 

The country lost 438,000 full-time jobs in August, with the month’s net job growth coming entirely from gains in part-time employment, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data released Friday. 

 

Year-over-year, the U.S. lost 1.02 million full-time jobs while adding 1.06 million part-time jobs, BLS data shows.

 

https://dailycaller.com/2024/09/06/impoverishment-part-time-jobs-soar-us-economy-hemorrhages-full-time-gigs/

 

Each candidate will be dragged through the mud one way or another. She flip flops and tries to appease her audience. Trump can’t seem to keep his foot out of his mouth and goes on rants. It will come down to the people and they will have to deal with it when it’s all over. Tired of all the shenanigans already. Good luck America. 

"This behavior underscores a cynical strategy that only someone as unrestrained as Harris could pursue—shifting styles and messages to fit the crowd, often without consistency or sincerity."

 

Which of the two candidates would best fit the adjective "unrestrained"? Of the two, whom would you say has a tendency to speak "without consistency or sincerity"? Sincerity means without lying for those who are so numbed by the last decade of drivel that you've lost all understanding of meaning. Cynical? Unlike the optimistic and hopeful campaign of Trump/Vance? 

 

Bit of a poor effort, shows how desperate Murdoch's becoming.

A leader who changes policies/ideas is a good leader as it shows they listen to the wants/needs of the people.Dictators or autocrates are blind to the wants and needs of the people and apply their principles and ideas on the people without consultation

11 minutes ago, thaipo7 said:

Read the first paragraph over and over.  It will make sense, even to you.  

I did read the first paragraph twice just for you,I agree that Harris has modified her views on several issues so what?I do get a strong sense even in that first paragraph of murdocs rag trying to push a narrative of Harris being less than genuine I disagree.especially compared to trump.

1 hour ago, thesetat2013 said:

These are only some of the reasons why i find it hard to believe so many AN members stick to her like glue. She has nothing but changing policies based on what is best said to get elected and into office. She has no morals or values. She has no strength on anything to effectively be a president managing or fighting for the American people. Nor does she have any character to deal with world leaders and worldly issues. This is seen consistently with her throughout her campaigns and interviews now and in her past as the VP. 

I understand these AN members hate for Trump. But does that hate mean agreeing to, defending, and promoting this type of woman that would make her in a position to run the country? 

She may not be the lesser of the 2 evils running for president currently. 

 

Who's the biggest flip-flopper with no values or principles? 

Trump went from “totally pro-choice” to appointing the Supreme Court justices who toppled Roe.

One day he's bragging he ended Roe and another day he's stating that he “will be great for women and their reproductive rights.”

In the past he favored universal health care and a ban on assault weapons. Now he wants to kill the Affordable Care Act and is a supporter of the NRA. 

This spring he supported voting by mail. Last week he said mail-in voting was "terrible." 

After his election in 2016, he said he would be "very restrained" on Twitter, "if I use it at all." He subsequently Tweeted over 11,000 times during his presidency. 

He said in 2016 that if he was elected, "I'm not going to have time to play golf" because "I'm going to be working for you." Then he went out and played 261 rounds of golf during his 4 years (one round every 5.6 days). 

He identified as Swedish before he happened to turn German. 

Trump's own sister said he's a man with no principles. 

59 minutes ago, impulse said:

It's also a campaign unburdened by the loss of a million full time jobs in the past year, according to the data released yesterday.

 

The country lost 438,000 full-time jobs in August, with the month’s net job growth coming entirely from gains in part-time employment, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data released Friday. 

 

Year-over-year, the U.S. lost 1.02 million full-time jobs while adding 1.06 million part-time jobs, BLS data shows.

 

https://dailycaller.com/2024/09/06/impoverishment-part-time-jobs-soar-us-economy-hemorrhages-full-time-gigs/

 

 

Meanwhile in the real world .......

'August jobs report: Unemployment rate falls to 4.2%, labor market adds 142,000 jobs'.
 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/august-jobs-report-unemployment-rate-falls-to-42-labor-market-adds-142000-jobs-182656446.html

8 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

 

Meanwhile in the real world .......

'August jobs report: Unemployment rate falls to 4.2%, labor market adds 142,000 jobs'.
 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/august-jobs-report-unemployment-rate-falls-to-42-labor-market-adds-142000-jobs-182656446.html

 

The country lost 438,000 full-time jobs in August, with the month’s net job growth coming entirely from gains in part-time employment, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data released Friday. 

 

You didn't even read the link, did'ja?  Much less look at the actual data.

 

Part time jobs.  With no 401K, no health insurance, no future, and no qualifying for a home loan.  Living the American dream.  If you drill down into the numbers, it's even worse for native born 'Muricans.  They're taking it in the shorts under Harrisnomics.

 

Edited September 7, 20241 yr by impulse

1 hour ago, Mazungu said:

Who's the biggest flip-flopper with no values or principles? 

Trump went from “totally pro-choice” to appointing the Supreme Court justices who toppled Roe.

One day he's bragging he ended Roe and another day he's stating that he “will be great for women and their reproductive rights.”

In the past he favored universal health care and a ban on assault weapons. Now he wants to kill the Affordable Care Act and is a supporter of the NRA. 

This spring he supported voting by mail. Last week he said mail-in voting was "terrible." 

After his election in 2016, he said he would be "very restrained" on Twitter, "if I use it at all." He subsequently Tweeted over 11,000 times during his presidency. 

He said in 2016 that if he was elected, "I'm not going to have time to play golf" because "I'm going to be working for you." Then he went out and played 261 rounds of golf during his 4 years (one round every 5.6 days). 

He identified as Swedish before he happened to turn German. 

Trump's own sister said he's a man with no principles. 

Excuse me. I did not mean to offend you. They both are bad choices. My point was why Harris supporters are so mean spirited demanding Harris is a good choice. Simply because they think Trump is worse. Your reply has proved what I said. You have no thought at all if Harris will do any good or has done any good in the past. All you cared about was talking bad about Trump instead. Rather than show Harris would be better. You and most Democrats seem to only share one thing in common. Hate for Trump. If that is all Harris can do for the people and the country. Then by far she is the worst of the 2 candidates. 

She gets support  from  Socialists.

Its her & her supporters that swing voters need to worry about! imop

What’s important for swing voters to remember ,she was considered the most liberal Senator 

,years ago . Because of her reluctance to speak about her past 

agenda , its a clear concern.

 

The force is strong!imop

 

clip from PES web site

 

https://pes.eu/international/pes-welcomes-the-endorsement-of-kamala-harris-as-presidential-candidate-by-the-u-s-democrats/

 

 

 

 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/17/politics/kamala-harris-most-liberal-senator-fact-check/index.html

3 hours ago, Tug said:

I did read the first paragraph twice just for you,I agree that Harris has modified her views on several issues so what?I do get a strong sense even in that first paragraph of murdocs rag trying to push a narrative of Harris being less than genuine I disagree.especially compared to trump.

Everyone knows she is fake. Including you.

46 minutes ago, thesetat2013 said:

Excuse me. I did not mean to offend you. They both are bad choices. My point was why Harris supporters are so mean spirited demanding Harris is a good choice. Simply because they think Trump is worse. Your reply has proved what I said. You have no thought at all if Harris will do any good or has done any good in the past. All you cared about was talking bad about Trump instead. Rather than show Harris would be better. You and most Democrats seem to only share one thing in common. Hate for Trump. If that is all Harris can do for the people and the country. Then by far she is the worst of the 2 candidates. 

You seem to be the one with anger issues. I'm not voting for Trump because he has no principles or morals and was the first US President in history to dishonor the tradition of a peaceful transfer of power (he didn't even have  the balls to greet Biden at the White House on the day of Biden's inauguration as per tradition). I'm voting for Harris because she won't give tax cuts to billionaires; she won't allow the government to interfere between a woman and her doctor; she won't try to cancel healthcare for millions; she won't try to abolish medical abortions; she won't try to ban contraceptives; she won't try to prevent access to voting; and she will give support for child care; she will support Ukraine against Russian aggression; she will support NATO and other US allies; and she won't tell over 30,000 lies in 4 years. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/24/trumps-false-or-misleading-claims-total-30573-over-four-years/

1 hour ago, thesetat2013 said:

Excuse me. I did not mean to offend you. They both are bad choices. My point was why Harris supporters are so mean spirited demanding Harris is a good choice. Simply because they think Trump is worse. Your reply has proved what I said. You have no thought at all if Harris will do any good or has done any good in the past. All you cared about was talking bad about Trump instead. Rather than show Harris would be better. You and most Democrats seem to only share one thing in common. Hate for Trump. If that is all Harris can do for the people and the country. Then by far she is the worst of the 2 candidates. 

Have you considered that her past views are radical ?

Medicare for all is radical and is  indicative of a Socialist government .

 

Have you considered many here are probably part of a European socialist 

influence?

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/17/politics/kamala-harris-most-liberal-senator-fact-check/index.html

 

imop

 

Edited September 7, 20241 yr by riclag

2 hours ago, LosLobo said:

 

Meanwhile in the real world .......

'August jobs report: Unemployment rate falls to 4.2%, labor market adds 142,000 jobs'.
 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/august-jobs-report-unemployment-rate-falls-to-42-labor-market-adds-142000-jobs-182656446.html

 

Jobs expected were 164k, with all previous 4 months revised down.

 

That is the real world and it is getting worse.

21 minutes ago, riclag said:

She gets support  from  Socialists.

Its her & her supporters that swing voters need to worry about! imop

What’s important for swing voters to remember ,she was considered the most liberal Senator 

,years ago . Because of her reluctance to speak about her past 

agenda , its a clear concern.

 

The force is strong!imop

 

clip from PES web site

 

https://pes.eu/international/pes-welcomes-the-endorsement-of-kamala-harris-as-presidential-candidate-by-the-u-s-democrats/

 

 

 

 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/17/politics/kamala-harris-most-liberal-senator-fact-check/index.html

 

Yeah. She flip-flops on most things but you can bet she'll continue to play on the left wing.

5 hours ago, thesetat2013 said:

These are only some of the reasons why i find it hard to believe so many AN members stick to her like glue. She has nothing but changing policies based on what is best said to get elected and into office. She has no morals or values. She has no strength on anything to effectively be a president managing or fighting for the American people. Nor does she have any character to deal with world leaders and worldly issues. This is seen consistently with her throughout her campaigns and interviews now and in her past as the VP. 

I understand these AN members hate for Trump. But does that hate mean agreeing to, defending, and promoting this type of woman that would make her in a position to run the country? 

She may not be the lesser of the 2 evils running for president currently. 

 

 

She may not be the lesser of the 2 evils running for president currently.

 

Excellent post. I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

Once the empress has been exposed as having no clothes, where do the Trump haters go then?

Is there any alternative at all in the Democrat ranks?

1 hour ago, thesetat2013 said:

Excuse me. I did not mean to offend you. They both are bad choices. My point was why Harris supporters are so mean spirited demanding Harris is a good choice. Simply because they think Trump is worse. Your reply has proved what I said. You have no thought at all if Harris will do any good or has done any good in the past. All you cared about was talking bad about Trump instead. Rather than show Harris would be better. You and most Democrats seem to only share one thing in common. Hate for Trump. If that is all Harris can do for the people and the country. Then by far she is the worst of the 2 candidates. 

Given by her lack of policies so far, all she has is "Trump bad", so that is all her supporters have as well. They can't point to anything that she achieved as VP, and her positions change frequently.

 

Seems reality is creeping in now, and some in the Dem party will be wondering if they made the right choice, but then, who else was there to replace Biden, and he absolutely had to be replaced?

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Given by her lack of policies so far, all she has is "Trump bad", so that is all her supporters have as well. They can't point to anything that she achieved as VP, and her positions change frequently.

 

Seems reality is creeping in now, and some in the Dem party will be wondering if they made the right choice, but then, who else was there to replace Biden, and he absolutely had to be replaced?

Bit late now to change.

1 minute ago, maesariang said:

Bit late now to change.

Yes, but if enough people wrote in a better choice they might win.

I understand that is allowed in US elections.

34 minutes ago, Mazungu said:

You seem to be the one with anger issues. I'm not voting for Trump because he has no principles or morals and was the first US President in history to dishonor the tradition of a peaceful transfer of power (he didn't even have  the balls to greet Biden at the White House on the day of Biden's inauguration as per tradition). I'm voting for Harris because she won't give tax cuts to billionaires; she won't allow the government to interfere between a woman and her doctor; she won't try to cancel healthcare for millions; she won't try to abolish medical abortions; she won't try to ban contraceptives; she won't try to prevent access to voting; and she will give support for child care; she will support Ukraine against Russian aggression; she will support NATO and other US allies; and she won't tell over 30,000 lies in 4 years. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/24/trumps-false-or-misleading-claims-total-30573-over-four-years/

You say this as if you know it will happen, yet she flipflops every day about the things she says. So you can not know for sure anything. She may not increase taxes for billionaires but instead make the poor pay more. Can you be sure what she will do? NO! She may support Ukraine but Russian leader Putin just endorsed her campaign. So who is to say she will not flipflop there? She wont abolish medical abortions but I think you are mistaken that Trump would. Instead individual states are vying to undermine any government law about this so they can determine their own abortion policies. You say she does not lie yet every time she flip flops that it means she really lied previously about the topic. Many many times. You are voting for someone who has no morals, no values, no plan, no strength or resolution. That is your choice. But I think mostly you will vote for Harris because of your hate for Trump. My opinion only but think there are many who see Harris for the fake she is. Even now she is taking credit for the parts of wall built in her campaign adverts and telling her constituents that she will continue that work. Totally 2 faced. Totally lies. 

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yes, but if enough people wrote in a better choice they might win.

I understand that is allowed in US elections.

Looks like being close election. A stronger candidate would win more easily.