24
Colin Allred keeps Kamala Harris at arms length as he makes a play for the center (www.texastribune.org)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/texas@lemmy.world
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

"On a recent appearance on MSNBC, U.S. Rep. Colin Allred was asked how Vice President Kamala Harris’ presumptive rise to the top of the party’s ticket was affecting his campaign in Texas to unseat U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz.

Allred’s response was polite, but muted: “Vice President Harris was a member of the congressional Black Caucus and I’ve known her for some time and I support her nomination.”

That five-second comment was all the time Allred spent discussing Harris. He quickly pivoted for the rest of the seven-minute segment to attacking Cruz for blocking bipartisan border security and immigration bills, opposing abortion access and leaving the state for Cancun when millions of Texans had lost power in their homes in 2021.

Harris’s impending nomination has injected the November election with renewed enthusiasm among Democrats, who are hoping the historic nature of her candidacy as a woman of color could also boost down-ballot candidates. But in Republican-dominated Texas, Allred — who has been running his campaign as a centrist — is not flocking to her side."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

This is what you said about Harris:

She’s a cop of the worst kind, draconian, ruthless, and power hungry.

This is what you said about Trump:

Yes, I understand, Trump sucks.

Yeah we know what side you are truly on.

My main point being that Kamala Harris is being painted as this beacon of progressivism by the media when her record says otherwise

So instead of talking about her voting record in the Senate, you want to post only about mostly her time before half a decade ago.

I could go on, but honestly it’s useless to argue politics online.

Yeah it's useless because we already know who you side with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (3 children)

    Yeah we know what side you are truly on.

    So instead of talking about her voting record in the Senate, you want to post only about mostly her time before half a decade ago.

    Yeah it’s useless because we already know who you side with.

    It's disturbing to me that political discourse in this country has basically become black and white boiled down to "If you don't like my candidate, that obviously means you're on the other side". No regard at all as to the points and sources I posted and the concerns I have, just hand waving away that that was over 5 years ago so it doesn't matter and I didn't do enough to condemn Trump so I must be some kind of right-wing chud and the down voting me.

    Listen, I know it's much easier to just close your eyes and throw away your moral integrity and back a candidate because you hate the other side so much. I understand that. What I want people to do is have at least a small amount of due diligence when participating in politics. I didn't write this because I want people to vote for Trump. I don't. I'm not voting for Trump nor do I think anyone should. Not only that, but what negative points can I possibly point to about Trump that haven't been said to death already?

    I'm asking that people don't let their bias affect their ethics. Vote for Kamala. Fine. But don't do so blindly. Don't ignore how problematic her choices have been and the lives she's destroyed to get where she's at. What we're witnessing now within the media is a perfect example of what Chomsky warned everyone about. The process of manufacturing consent.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No, you're just depressingly on message. And that's not always a bad thing. But in this case you're either letting yourself fall victim to rage bait that's been debunked or you're spreading it on purpose.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    If you are so unbiased then talk about her voting record as a senator. That doesn't seem to be brought up enough considering you were talking about Harris' progressiveness.

    Don’t ignore how problematic her choices have been and the lives she’s destroyed to get where she’s at.

    There are laws passed before her time in government. It was never her job to arrest people or to sentence them or to make laws as DA. It was never her job to judge anyone and yet Republican talking points make it seem like she was a judge. She was never a judge.

    If you want to continue you said she was Draconian. Again she didn't make the laws, and she didn't sentence them. But if you really want to go down that route then you might as well say that during her time as DA of Alameda County, there were 0 executions in the county. During time as DA in San Francisco there were 0 executions in the county. Her time as attorney general of CA from 2010 to 2017 there were 0 executions.

    You said you can go on and on, then go ahead but you keep on mentioning her voting record as a senator, a role she actually votes to pass laws. The you can mention her tie breakers in the Senate and see who she put in government positions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent