“They don’t have a narrative that they’re comfortable with about how to take down Harris,” said Chuck Coughlin, an Arizona-based political strategist. “He’s grasping around. I think he’s desperately grasping around with his instincts. I don’t think his team has any way to put their handle on this, and so he’s instinctually grasping around for what to say.”

The Trump machine had in recent days begun a multi-million-dollar TV advertising blitz hammering Harris for her record on the border, an issue the former president’s campaign sees as a winner — and portraying her as ideologically out of the mainstream. One ad from a pro-Trump group labeled the vice president a “dangerous San Francisco liberal.”

Harris had even begun defending herself from the attacks, hitting back Tuesday night in Atlanta about her border record, and simultaneously releasing a nearly minute-long video framing her as pro-border security.

But Trump’s comments Wednesday on Harris’ racial background drew some of the biggest gasps from the audience, and provided Democrats with ammunition. During the appearance, Trump said Harris “happen[ed] to turn Black … She was Indian all the way and all of a sudden she made a turn and she became a Black woman.”

  • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    3 months ago

    While I respect that this is an emotional issue for you, I want to remind you that an AG has a duty to enforce the law as it is. Harris did not choose to make non-violent drug offences a crime. There are laws, and sometimes those laws are bad, but an AG is not a king who can simply strike down any laws they disagree with.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The AG can choose not to enforce the law or give lax sentences and plea deals.

      You gotta do something sometimes to keep up appearances, but you definitely don’t have to go full throttle either.

      • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        3 months ago

        And that’s exactly what she did. She frequently pushed for diversion instead of incarceration, declined to seek the death penalty even in the case of a cop killer, and created a program to give young offenders job training instead of jail time (including clearing their criminal records so they could seek jobs without being marked as felons).

        Her record isn’t perfect. No one’s is. You’re never going to get to vote for an angel. But as former prosecutors go, she basically did all the things you’re asking for.

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          I actually know nothing about her, I was just replying to your reply basically saying she had to enforce the law to the person saying she went too far.

          If she did what I said as much as she could then that’s great

          • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Guy who knows nothing about Kamala Harris accuses her of going “full-throttle” against non-violent offenders…

            Propaganda is a hell of a thing. Makes people say stupid shit they don’t know anything about.

            • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              The first person did. Then the 2nd guy replied she had to.

              Edit: The 2nd person could have said she actually did do what she could and what I said in their initial reply, but didn’t. They just said she had to which isn’t (and supposedly wasnt) true

              Edit: and my reply to be clear was what I DID know about. The AG does not need to enforce the law on every person. They have discretion and can influence to some extent other DA’s and the police.