Michael Tomasky is a respected political journalist and the editor of The New Republic. In this post, he describes Trump’s inability to cope with running against Kamala, not Joe. He has spent nearly four years prearing for a rematch with Biden, and the change of candidate seems to have confused him. At times like this, im remindedthat Trump’s had severe dementia at the end if his life.
Tomasky writes:
It continues. Six days ago, The New York Times ran a story under the headline “Inside the Worst Three Weeks of Donald Trump’s 2024 Campaign.” Usually, when the country’s most important newspaper runs a story like that, the candidate pays a little attention and the ship begins to right itself. But in this case, it’s just gotten worse. The ship is capsizing, and the captain is losing his marbles.
Right after that story ran, Trump came out with his wild accusation that Kamala Harris’s crowd of thousands at a Detroit airplane hangar was fake. The next night, he did that weird, to borrow an au courant word, interview with Elon Musk, where he made more WTF comments than I can recount, capped by his vow to move to Venezuela (a country ruled by a corrupt autocrat who just cheated massively in this month’s election) if he loses. On Wednesday, he gave a rambling speech at a North Carolina rally.
Then, on Thursday, we had a little taste of some peak Trump crazy. He claimed Harris is responsible for a law in California that says it’s OK to steal from a grocery store as long as your take is under $950. (This is not what the law says.) He made strange comments about Cheerios. He lectured Jews (at a later event) about how if the Democrats win, Jewish people “don’t have a chance” in America, saying of Harris—whose husband is Jewish—that “she doesn’t like Jewish people. You know it, I know it, and everybody knows it, and nobody wants to say it.” And we can’t forget the assertion that more than 100 percent of recent U.S. jobs have gone to migrants.
But wait. These are just the appetizers! Then he called Harris a “Communist” and said the country under her leadership would devolve into a commie dystopia in which “everyone gets health care” (the horror!). And then, the pièce de résistance: At the Jewish event, he praised Miriam Adelson, the huge Trump donor and widow of Sheldon Adelson, mentioning that he’d given her a Presidential Medal of Freedom, which he noted was the civilian equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor (given to military veterans) but was “actually much better” because people who receive the latter medal are “either in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets, or they’re dead.”
You know how they say in sports that an opponent has gotten inside the other team’s head? Well, Harris and Tim Walz have certainly gotten inside Trump’s head. Walz’s “weird” comment, which Trump has also responded to in a, well, sort of weird way, was just the start. Harris has also smartly refused to take the GOP campaign’s bait, like when Trump attacked her race and J.D. Vance tried to make her childlessness an issue. Meanwhile, the Harris-Walz campaign trolls Trump in its press releases with snarky language I don’t recall Joe Biden’s or Hillary Clinton’s campaigns using. It sends the message, which must drive him nuts, that they don’t fear him at all.
Meanwhile, what else is Harris doing? Starting to unveil an economic package that, so far anyway, looks pretty great. It’s aimed straight at middle-class voters and focused on housing and grocery prices. You can’t get more kitchen table than that. And the bit about going after corporate price gougers is great. It sends a nice populist signal that she’s willing to make some enemies.
We’re coming up on a month now of Harris being the candidate. That isn’t much time, granted, and of course the race is still in margin-of-error territory and at some point, Trump is bound to find his footing and quit flailing as desperately as he has been.
But all that said, the Harris campaign has been as shrewd as any presidential campaign I’ve ever seen. Her stump speech is excellent. The choice of Walz was great—their personal chemistry is so evident in that video they just released of the two of them chatting about spicy food and whatnot (the right is trying to gin up outrage over Walz saying he eats “white-guy tacos”). The focus on family economics recognizes a potential Harris weak spot and establishes the campaign as not being out of touch. They just haven’t done one thing wrong yet…
And Trump is a hot mess. He’s facing a problem he’s never faced. In 2016, he was running against a very known quantity whom the right had been instructing Americans to hate for 25 years. In 2020, he was running against someone who’d been around for nearly 50 years. He’s spent his time since losing that 2020 race sitting around thinking about his rematch with that opponent.
And now suddenly he’s running against someone else, and to his shock, the more America sees of her (so far), the more America kinda likes her. He can’t understand this, and he simply can’t stand it. Trump’s like a predatory animal in a literal sense. Since he has no conscience, he’s all instinct, and his instinct is to find his prey’s weakness and go after it over and over.
He hasn’t come close to finding Harris’s. She is not a lunatic Communist, she’s not stupid, she’s not any of things Trump is saying she is. The America of 2024 is ready for Kamala Harris. Donald Trump is not and can’t accept that fact. No amount of staff shakeups or focusing on “the issues” can fix that.

I MSM has given trump enough rope so that he hangs himself. trump is having his “Lonesome Rhodes” moment and it’s not very elegant.
LikeLike
There dominant narrative in the Discourse on the presidential race is that Trump is falling apart and Harris is ascendant. Remember, based on the polls—which Trump has a history of outperforming—it’s basically a toss-up. There is a reasonable argument that a candidate who has just had the worst month of his campaign but who is still in a statistical dead heat is in a pretty good position.
LikeLike
“There is a reasonable argument that a candidate who has just had the worst month of his campaign but who is still in a statistical dead heat is in a pretty good position.”
I wish that had been the narrative about Biden! There was a reasonably argument that a candidate that had the worst 2 months of his campaign — two months of non-stop negative coverage that were 1000x worse than Trump’s “bad month” that led to the narrative Trump is “falling apart” — and Biden was still in a near statistical tie in most of the polls (especially when his numbers were improving at the end). Biden’s numbers hadn’t plunged after his disastrous debate, nor were his polling numbers against Trump much different than the polling numbers of any other Dems against Trump. (better than most, a little worse for a few).
Sort of confirms my belief that there is an extreme double standard — sometimes held by folks who are certain they could not possibly have a double standard since they are biased toward “liberals” — to which Dems and Republicans are held.
You don’t notice the negative framing when it is the Democrat, and that happens far more often and has far less truth to it.
Anyone who watches Trump now sees a man who NEVER seems fit to govern. The guy truly cannot seem to hold it together for a single speech or fake press conference, and when he spews his thoughts in the open, they are nonsense! That “dominant narrative” that he is “falling apart” is actually positive framing. The man is truly unfit and there is a vast difference between news coverage that Trump is falling apart because he is losing, and saying Trump is unfit to be president period. The second SHOULD be the dominant narrative because it is true.
I agree with you that this race will be close, but if the media was actually doing its job, it would not be close.
The NYT has been frustrated that it hasn’t been able to find a single prominent democrat to allow them to present false right wing narratives about Harris and Walz as a “bi-partisan truth”. But given how hard they are trying, expect them to eventually have success – something Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton both alluded to, and asking Dems not to jump on the bandwagon and attack their candidates to help legitimize attacks.
Poor NYT. Today they were relegated to amplifying all the false narratives to sow doubt and distrust in Harris and Walz by legitimizing as “truth” the voices of the “important” folks who they will be following the entire campaign because their opinions need to be heard! The so-called “undecideds”! The NYT stenographers simply amplified these “undecideds” reasoning without once mentioning that they were citing completely false reasons! Because it would be “wrong” for the NYT to tell the truth instead of just presenting the false views of undecideds uncritically and demanding that Democrats stop doing all the bad things these undecideds say they were doing and start appealing to them.
Lucky for Trump, the NYT has made it clear that if they can’t find even one Democrat to legitimize the false attacks on Harris and Walz so they can write 400 stories to sow doubt, that won’t stop them from regularly having the false views of the totally uninformed “undecideds” presented with no context explaining that none of this is true.
Lucky for Trump, the NYT will find one statement in the mess of a press conference to present as if he had some legitimate “plan” for the country.
Of course the election will be close, given how the media always favors Trump no matter how unfit he shows himself over and over again.
LikeLike
Again with the NYT?
LikeLike
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/08/22/opinion/young-voters-focus-group.html
LikeLike
“For the final 11 weeks of the presidential race, Times Opinion is doing something new: We have assembled a panel of 15 undecided voters between the ages of 18 and 27 and will check in with them regularly through Election Day to track their opinions of Kamala Harris, Donald Trump and the issues and news that matter most to them.
….The participants are wary of Ms. Harris right now — they say she is too far left, and that she covered up President Biden’s aging issues — and want to know what she would do about inflation, public safety and the Israel-Gaza war. But they are also skeptical of Mr. Trump, and many of them were appalled by his behavior on Jan. 6, 2021. Several saw Mr. Trump more positively after the assassination attempt on him last month, but they were quickly turned off by his attacks on Ms. Harris and her race.
So, as Mr. Luntz asked, why are they undecided? What became clear is that these 15 Americans grew up in a really negative time, and they care deeply about their country but are worried about it, and don’t want to see the White House in the wrong hands.”
LikeLike
And?
LikeLike
Compare the two lists of words used to describe Trump and Harris.
If you believe that both lists are equally accurate characteristics of the two candidates, then I would say that your own bias is showing.
Can you actually make a semi-reasonable attempt to argue that any of the words they used about Trump are untrue? Trump is that way in full view of everyone!
The Kamala words are entirely the kind of negatives that the right wing says about Trump and to call them “accurate” at all is questionable.
If you think those lists of words are wildly unfair to BOTH candidates, that speaks for itself.
One list is fact. The other is biased opinion.
LikeLike
^^”The Kamala words are entirely the kind of negatives that the right wing says about Kamala and to call them “accurate” at all is questionable.”
LikeLike
The Times is doing something truly idiotic here. Anyone who is an “undecided voter” at this point, given Trump, is an utter moron, and what he or she has to say is worth nothing.
LikeLike
Totally agree. Moronic focus groups with undecideds. Waste of time to determine what a set of jerks hope to learn to help them decide.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It may be a silly series, that’s a legitimate subject to debate. But I dispute the idea that this is a dangerous amplification of misinformation.
LikeLike
Bob,
That is my point exactly!
And the NYT has promised that they plan to go back to these voters regularly throughout the rest of the campaign!
This isn’t even a one-off. This is them pushing a narrative to amplify the false anti-Kamala things that “undecided voters” believe because reporters can’t get any prominent Democrats to legitimize the right wing narratives they desperately want to present as “non-partisan” truth to undermine Kamala.
Until MOST Americans use those negative words to describe Kamala and create distrust and doubt about Kamala, the NYT will feel it is not doing its job to be “fair and balanced”. They did exactly this to she who may not be named.
Those negative words are going to be what more and more people think of Kamala. Remember that in 2016, it was the Democrat who was dishonest and untrustworthy — words used even by the people who held their nose and voted for her! Which is crazy because it was the other candidate who those words far better described! He was the leading birther lying about Obama, for god’s sake, but he wasn’t “untrustworthy and dishonest” like the Dem.
The media rarely informs, just amplifies narratives and most of the time they amplify right wing narratives because it is safer for them.
LikeLike
NYT Hoping to find a swiftboat. Too late.
LikeLike
I don’t think it is too late at all. I am in complete agreement with flerp! that these elections now turn on a dime, and if one swiftboat attack doesn’t work, the next one might. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Bengazi, Benghazi, her emails. Her emails works! Never mind about Benghazi, that was never important! It’s all about her emails all the time, in every news story, in every analysis, sowing doubt, raising questions.
The NYT is testing different negative narratives and as soon as they can get disgruntled Dems to turn it into a bi-partisan “truth”, we will have 500 or 1,000 stories amplifying that narrative for the rest of the campaign and NOTHING — no negative about Trump – is likely to be reported.
How is it that Trump can be the most unfit person to ever be on the ballot and the NYT writes a story about the importance of undecided voters who are saying that all Trump has to do is stop insulting the Dems to get their vote. While at the same time those same “undecided” voters are demonizing Kamala with every right wing smear with the NYT presenting their views as absolutely necessary to amplify not just once but REGULARLY, many times! Never once mentioning that these views are false.
It’s depressing, however, when even folks here who present themselves as Democrats say is it equally valid to say both candidates are untrustworthy because they both might or might not be untrustworthy, and the jury is still out about whether Trump can be trusted or not — maybe he can be trusted! – just like maybe Kamala can be trusted, too.
Both Trump and Kamala are just as likely to be trustworthy as not trustworthy. Because if someone believes Kamala is untrustworthy, that makes her just as likely to be untrustworthy as the man who led the birther movement, ran a fake university and fake charity, lied about winning an election he lost, and incited an insurrection and so on and so on and so on.
Depressing that someone here believes that it is correct for the NYT to present the untrustworthiness of Trump and Kamala as something that can never be known for sure.
.
LikeLike
NYT: “What is the most important issue that’s going to determine who you’re going to vote for in November?”
Answers:
“Will Kamala Harris be a leftist on gender policy and education policy or not?”
“Lowering the national debt for future generations in order to preserve Social Security.”
They talk about social media:
“I wouldn’t know about a lot of things that have happened without Twitter or X, right?”
“I agree with Abigail. You can find certain news things and just unedited clips compared to the regular mainstream media.”
NYT: I want to understand in a single word or phrase how you feel about Kamala Harris.
Flip-flop.
Unworthy.
Not genuine.
I don’t know her.
Toxic.
Inauthentic.
Untrustworthy.
Unqualified.
Disingenuous.
Incompetent.
Invisible.
Charismatic.
Unlikable.
Certain.
Fake.
It just goes on and on with people who are almost all Republicans who are definitely concerned about Trump but would still vote for him, but who all seem to really hate Kamala Harris.
Why amplify these uninformed views of a small group of voters who are mainly Republicans? And why promise to do so again and again as if Kamala has some duty to change their minds?
So they can bash Kamala Harris for her abject failure for “not appealing” to these voters and write endless stories implying that the distrust and negative feelings these few folks have must be amplified as legitimate.
The people who DO trust Kamala are almost never heard from in the NYT, but the ones who say negative things will now have a regular amplification of their views, to sow distrust in Kamala.
LikeLike
I don’t know how Frank Luntz picked these 15 people and I don’t really care because I see this as just one opinion piece among a sea of opinion pieces that flow out of the Times each day, so it does not terrify me like it seems to terrify you.
That said, if doesn’t seem like they’re all Republicans.
If you need a palate cleanser, go skip to one of the many gushingly pro-Harris opinion pieces on the site right now.
One from today begins like this: “I’m reluctant to write about Kamala Harris’s smile because I’m going to get all gushy and mushy about it, and the Harris lovefest is a jammed jamboree without need of another journalist. She’s enjoying more than a routine political honeymoon; she’s in the priciest suite on the poshest cruise ship sailing through a tropical paradise where coconuts tumble juicily from their trees into her aloe-moistened hands.
But I can’t stop noticing and basking in her happy face. . . .”
Another one has the headline “What’s Vexing Donald Trump Now? Kamala Harris’s Looks.” The subheading: “From the vice president’s looks to the ‘angel’ judge at his trial, the former president can’t help commenting on the appearance of others — especially in relation to himself.”
You need to find a way to deal with the fact that not every NYT story will say exactly what you want it to say.
LikeLike
Below is what the “kids” said when asked to describe Trump in one word. Somewhere there is a MAGA fanatic hyperventilating because the liberal media “amplifies” this.
“Just terrible.”
“Fake.”
“Prideful.”
“Deteriorating.”
“Strong.”
“Behemoth.”
“Bombastic.”
“Egotistic.”
“A felon.”
“Self-centered.”
“Narcissist.”
“Childish.”
“Just too much.”
“Narcissist.”
“Untrustworthy.”
LikeLike
NYT “negative” coverage of Trump campaign today:
“Vance finished speaking in Georgia, where he explicitly blamed Vice President Harris for allowing drug dealers in the country; destroying San Francisco; enabling riots in Atlanta in 2020; and for the death of Laken Riley, the nursing student killed earlier this year. “We have got a screwed up vice president calling the shots, and I think it’s time to fire Kamala Harris, not give her a promotion,” he said.”
Stenography.
I am simply pointing out that the NYT is NOT convening a regular panel of “undecided” voters whose doubts about Trump are being amplified whether they are true or not like “I don’t like Trump because he has raped a lot of women, and also Jeffrey Epstein used to provide Trump with underage girls for sex”, and “balancing” it with the voters also expressing true things about Kamala like “she doesn’t support Medicare for All and I do” and “I wish she’d give me more details about her policies”.
If the NYT wrote that story over and over again, would you be posting here questioning the “dominant narrative in the Discourse” because it isn’t accurate about Trump, like you did here? Or would you treat Trump the way you treat Kamala and Biden and defend the NYT reporting because responsible journalism is to pick out a few undecided voters who explain they don’t like Trump because he is a rapist and pedophile and present those people and their views as so important that they will be featured regularly to see if they ever change their mind about not wanting to vote for a rapist and pedophile? Maybe the Trump campaign can get them to WANT to vote for a rapist and pedophile and those undecided voters will turn into Trump voters! Would you defend that NYT story, or object to the “dominant narrative”?
Is it the Trump campaign’s job to convince those voters to change their mind about voting for a rapist and pedophile after the NYT has presented them as important undecided voters who need to be listened to in dozens of articles where they amplify these voters’ certainty that Trump is a rapist and pedophile?
After all, it’s true that the NYT has found a few voters who believe that, so why shouldn’t the NYT report that in dozens of articles that don’t address whether or not it’s true.
Just saying you never seemed to worry about the “dominant narrative” when the “dominant narrative” was extremely negative about Biden.
LikeLike
You compared a list of words that by pretty much any definition apply to what Trump has done and how he has acted right out in the open.
With a list of extremely negative words about Kamala that are opinions that are not based in fact but based on something they heard someone else say about Kamala.
They didn’t say Kamala laughed too much. They said she was toxic.
Every single negative word about Kamala far more accurately describes Trump. That isn’t opinion, it’s fact.
LikeLike
“Every single negative word about Kamala far more accurately describes Trump. That isn’t opinion, it’s fact.”
Wow, this really does get right at the issue. All of these statements about Trump and Harris are opinions. Your problem here is you don’t agree with the negative opinions about Harris, and because you disagree with them, you think they’re factually wrong. And because you think they’re factually wrong, you think the Times shouldn’t print them.
People disagree about things. Step outside the bubble and you will learn that a lot of people do not like Kamala Harris. They have negative views about her, and those negative views are their opinions. It’s fine to disagree. But your instinct tells you that that’s not enough, that their opinions should be stifled. You would be a great propaganda minister!
How any of this has anything to do with my narrow initial comment about how people who are feeling the Harris buzz should be wary of getting complacent, I have no idea.
LikeLike
I’m really having a hard time understanding what you’re trying to say.
My point in my initial comment, which I thought was quite clear, is that there is a notion that Trump has imploded. In reality, this is a 50-50 affair statistically. To be in that position after having the worst month of the entire campaign is pretty darn good. It’s like a basketball team that gets completely outplayed in the first half but at halftime it’s only down two points. That’s a great result because there is a measure of cyclicality in most things, including athletic performance and including political campaigns. Because when/if the cycle turns the other way, even modestly, everything can change drastically.
Somehow that prompted you to go down another New York Times spiral.
As for the story, it is what it is. They have 15 undecided Gen Z voters. 5 voted for Dem in 2020. 2 voted Republican (but only two for Trump). The rest were two young to vote. The Times asks them their opinions of various political issues, including the presidential race, their feelings about the direction of the country, what issues they’re concerned about, etc. Not at all surprisingly, they have different opinions on each topic. For the most part they don’t like Harris or Trump much. Which makes sense, because they’re undecided voters. (Unless we think undecided voters are struggling with their choice because they think Harris and Trump are each outstanding choices lol.) I don’t see this as a titanic problem and I don’t know (and don’t really care at this point) why you do.
LikeLike
And yet never once did you marvel that after MORE months of negative coverage and the worst months of his campaign, Biden was in a very similar position as Trump is now.
“Because when/if the cycle turns the other way, even modestly, everything can change drastically.”
Just wondering why you only made that observation when Trump’s campaign was said to be imploding, but posted here many times about how Biden needed to step down to give the Dems any chance whatsoever of winning.
I’d expect you to feel the same about Trump. Did I miss where you cited the cyclical nature of campaigns that can change drastically with a tiny change when it came to Biden’s flailing campaign?
I agreed with you about the cycle turning for Trump just like I thought it also could turn for Biden. I was surprised that if you felt this way, since you never mentioned it when Biden was down.
Are football games played by Republicans different from football games played by Dems? The cycle Biden couldn’t change but it could for Trump?
Don’t worry, you will soon see hundreds of negative articles about Kamala in the NYT posting whatever negative narrative damages her the most.
And you did what the NYT did and equated true characteristics about Trump with extremely questionable negative words unsupported by fact about Kamala. Both siderism indeed. I can see why you would like the NYT.
LikeLike
Biden sort of was in a similar position to Trump now, and I would have told any Trump supporters who thought victory was assured that they were being way too complacent.
LikeLike
The caveats are, first, my recollection is the electoral math for Biden was looking substantially worse in June/early July than it looks for Trump right now. And second, Biden was in a death-spiral of coverage about his age, based on the very real and accurate public perception that he was not able to speak coherently, culminating in the most spectacularly terrible performance in the history of televised presidential debates.
LikeLike
Re: your accusation of “both siderism,” I absolutely am very comfortable hearing the best and worst possible cases that people can make for Biden, Harris, Trump. I don’t fear debate and I have no interest in shutting it down. It’s just not in my constitution.
LikeLike
If your idea of “debate” is Trump spewing non-stop lies and equating that with a fact-checker parsing every word Kamala says looking for something that could, under certain circumstances, be deemed to be inaccurate, then the NYT is certainly for you.
I don’t find it useful to have lies and truth equated with a lie’s validity based on whether or not enough people believe it, rather than whether or not it is actually a lie.
If one side is not interested in honest debate, there is no worthwhile discussion. But if you prefer to read what “both sides” SAY versus whether or not both sides have evidence and facts to back up what they say, I am not surprised.
Having a “debate” with someone who has no interest in facts seems like a waste of time to me. And it is not journalism. It is stenography.
LikeLike
“Biden was in a death-spiral of coverage about his age, based on the very real and accurate public perception that he was not able to speak coherently, culminating in the most spectacularly terrible performance in the history of televised presidential debates.”
Correct, Trump will NEVER have to worry about that kind of death-spiral of coverage because he has consistently shown how he can speak coherently and his debate performance was not spectacularly terrible and his speech at the RNC was not spectacularly terrible and his performance at the NABJ was not spectacularly terrible, and his performance at his sort of press conference was not spectacularly terrible, right?
It’s ironic that Biden followed up that spectacularly terrible debate with a perfectly good long interview and a perfectly good press conference. Trump followed up his spectacularly terrible RNC speech with a bunch of spectacularly terrible nonsense and more nonsense without ever showing any sign that he isn’t demented and a liar.
But you are right that Trump is still likely to win because no matter how bad he is, Trump will never have to be concerned about a death-spiral of coverage of his unfitness to be president so he always has a chance. But think about what your perception says about how the media covers him.
But I suspect that Kamala will be getting a taste of that death-spiral coverage very, very soon. Maybe you’ll be saying she should step down because she can’t win with that kind of death-spiral coverage – the same that she who may not be named got.
LikeLike
Trump probably mentions going to Venezuela because we have no extradition treaty with them, and going to jail is likely looming over his addled brain. I doubt most of his “basement dwellers” in the cult even notice the unraveling.
LikeLike
Road Trip | Bob Shepherd | Praxis (wordpress.com)
LikeLike
It’s hard to tell the difference between “normal” Trump and incoherent Trump. Yesterday he criticized Kamala for attending the national convening of her college sorority and another black sorority, part of “the divine nine.” She’s free to campaign wherever she wishes. He is a jerk. The sorority was first to set up a massive fund-raising zoom. 40,000 women joined the call. Smart campaigning.
LikeLike
I want to add something about the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
When Traitor Trump was pretending to be President, while planning to become a dictator, the Orange Toddler awarded Rush Limbaugh the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
President Ronald Reagan dubbed Limbaugh “the voice of conservatism”.
Rush Limbaugh’s score card for fact checks:
How many fact-checks did Limbaugh’s talk show fail?
True 0%
Mostly True 4%
Half True 10%
Mostly False 21%
False 36%
Pants on Fire 26%
PolitiFact | Rush Limbaugh
Limbaugh’s fact-check scorecard defines “the voice of conservatism” for the last 40 years. Traitor Trump is the perfect example of that voice of conservatism. When Limbaugh died, he passed that torch to Trump.
LikeLike
Thanks, Lloyd. Not surprising, but interesting to see the stats. You make an important point.
LikeLike
Wonderful Lampoon. Trump is becoming more and more of a cartoon.
Time to get the harpoon. If this was a boxing match, the ref would have stopped the fight, because Trump doesn’t know where he is.
To quote Michael Tomasky on Trump’s inability to land a punch: He hasn’t come close to finding Harris’s (weakness). She is not a lunatic Communist, she’s not stupid, she’s not any of things Trump is saying she is.
He might have added–She’s not even Black.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“He might have added–She’s not even Black.“
Thank you.
LikeLike
It’s way past time to let go the “One Drop Rule” and stop dragging it into the future only to perpetuate reproducing racism’s consequences we often say we don’t want and are quick to fight against, asserting it is not us, it is not who we are. Kamala Harris is Kamala Harris. Full stop.
LikeLike
cx: My favorite line of the campaign so far was when Kamala, being a former prosecutor of perpetrators of sex crimes, said of Trump, “I know his type.”
LikeLike
Gad. I didn’t realize that, as a Democrat, I was demanding death camps for all conservatives and Christians. [I’d LOVE to be able to confiscate all guns, lower food prices and set wages. How about a minimum wage of $15 an hour?]
My brother once told me that Obama was killing Christians and Jews in FEMA camps.
What’s sickening is that there are people who read this BLAH and believe that Kamala is a Kommunist because of her radical left-wing fascist agenda.
I wonder what Trump is? I’d say he’s a R-wing fascist.
This is another writing coming from Brighteon. Trump isn’t the only one melting down.
………………………………………………………….
Democrats call for nationwide conservative re-education camps
Perhaps this comes as no surprise, but Democrats are now promising to confiscate all guns from citizens, control food prices, set private sector wages, while demanding re-education camps (i.e. death camps) for all conservatives and Christians.
This is their promise if they manage to maintain control over the White House. America will be finished, replaced by Kommunist Kamala and her radical left-wing fascist agenda.
LikeLike
Is BLAH French for shit?
LikeLike
Duane: that would be merde, usually uttered in gutteral fashion, probably directed at the English at Waterloo
LikeLike
“I fart in your direction!”
LikeLike
Nothin’ like a bit of good old-fashioned Republican unhinged paranoia!
LikeLike