Throughout Kamala Harris's political career her biggest weakness was her sobriety according to those closest to her. In her first run for the presidency donors were especially reluctant to fund her campaign forcing her out of the race. According to various reports, Obama did NOT want to appoint her to be the Democrat nominee and he lobbied fellow Democrats for a week after Biden withdrew to pick someone else. Anyone who has watched videos of Kamala Harris at events over the past four years can recognize the telltale signs that she is often drunk and/or on mood altering medications. Should Democrats have taken more time to pick a candidate who doesn't struggle with alcoholism and addiction? Can we afford ANOTHER incapacitated president? Of course, Tim Walz is worse given his criminal record related to drunk driving...
Reminder the media knew all about Kamala Harris's addition problem throughout Biden's term - they were all calling for her replacement in his second term.
Throughout President Biden’s first term, the mainstream media repeatedly questioned the fitness of Vice President Kamala Harris, casting doubt on her capability not only as the second-in-command but also as a potential successor to the presidency. The calls for Biden to select a new running mate for his second term were not mere whispers—they were headlines that dominated the news cycle.
Headlines Over the Years
"Kamala Harris Struggles to Define Role as Vice President Amid Criticism" – The New York Times, July 2021Just months into her tenure, Harris faced widespread criticism for her inability to establish herself as a strong and independent leader. The article highlighted her floundering performance and the lack of a clear role, leading many to question whether she was the right choice for such a crucial position.
"Biden's Border Czar Under Fire: Can Kamala Harris Handle the Immigration Crisis?" – CNN, October 2021As the border crisis escalated, Harris, who was tasked with handling the issue, failed to provide effective leadership. Her reluctance to visit the border and her ambiguous statements on immigration raised concerns about her competence in managing such a critical national issue.
"Kamala Harris’ Approval Ratings Plummet: What Does It Mean for 2024?" – ABC News, December 2022Harris’s approval ratings tanked, reaching record lows for a sitting vice president. The media began openly discussing whether Biden should consider replacing her on the 2024 ticket, citing her unpopularity as a potential liability for the Democratic Party.
"Democrats Quietly Question Harris’ Leadership: Is It Time for a Change?" – The Washington Post, March 2023Prominent Democrats, frustrated with Harris’s lackluster performance and dwindling influence, began voicing their concerns more openly. The article suggested that even within her own party, there was growing support for Biden to consider a different running mate for his reelection campaign.
"Kamala Harris Faces Backlash Over Foreign Policy Missteps" – Politico, June 2023Harris’s foreign policy gaffes, particularly during her trips to Europe and Asia, were widely covered and criticized. Her apparent lack of preparation and inability to articulate coherent positions on key issues fueled further speculation about her unsuitability for the vice presidency, let alone the presidency.
"Is Kamala Harris the Weakest Vice President in Modern History?" – The Atlantic, November 2023The Atlantic didn’t mince words in its scathing assessment of Harris’s term as vice president. The article detailed her numerous failures, from domestic policy to international diplomacy, and argued that Biden’s legacy could be at risk if he did not choose a more competent running mate for 2024.
Unfit for Office?
Kamala Harris’s time as vice president has been marked by a series of blunders, missteps, and a lack of decisive leadership. The mainstream media, usually an ally of the Democratic establishment, has not shied away from criticizing her, leading to widespread calls for her to be replaced on the 2024 ticket.
Her inability to effectively handle major issues such as the border crisis, her plummeting approval ratings, and her numerous foreign policy missteps have made it clear that she is not just unfit for the presidency but perhaps even for the vice presidency. With Biden’s age and declining health, the possibility of Harris stepping into the role of president is a scenario that should give every American pause. The media’s consistent scrutiny and criticism over the last four years highlight the growing consensus that Harris was a poor choice from the start, and that the country deserves better leadership moving forward.
h/t @rmlunn
Drunk…
Drunk…
Drunk…
Drunk…
Drunk…
Drunk…
Drunk…
Alcohol takes its toll…
Alcohol is on the ballot…
Drunk…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
TSA WEAPONIZATION🧵: Bombshell reporting by @tracybeanz and @wmahoney5 reveals that a TSA whistleblower informed @LaboscoSonya, Executive Director of the Air Marshal National Council, that Tulsi Gabbard is actively under surveillance via the TSA's Quiet Skies Program.
TSA WEAPONIZATION🧵: If the TSA whistleblower's report is accurate and the Biden admin has weaponized the Quiet Skies Program against a former member of Congress and presidential candidate, the next question should be: Which other political enemies is the president monitoring?
TSA WEAPONIZATION🧵: @UncoverDC - Federal Air Marshal Whistleblowers Report Tulsi Gabbard Actively Under Surveillance via Quiet Skies Program. uncoverdc.com/2024/08/04/fam…
🧵A declassified FBI document confirms longstanding suspicions of the agency's active involvement with Patriot Front for years. With 950 pages of details (heavily redacted), it’s evident that numerous federal assets are deeply embedded within the organization. Interestingly, the group's only documented criminal activity appears to be the illegal placement of posters on public and private property. I'll post links to the FBI's documents (again, not terribly interesting given the fact they've been heavily redacted).
🧵The FBI declassified two packages of documents on the suspected federal front group Patriot Front on Monday:
This story keeps getting more bizarre. CNN is reporting Crooks bought 50 rounds of ammo, a 12' ladder from Home Depot and walked a mile to the rally with his father's AR-15, the ammo, and the ladder in tow. Nobody noticed him or stopped him?
UPDATE: So there is much debate about where the car was parked and how far he walked. Here is what I can parse from all of the reporting -
The shooter went to Home Depot to buy the telescoping ladder. He either left his car at Home Depot and walked about a mile as the crow flies (two miles via road) or he drove closer to the rally, parked, and walked a shorter distance. I went back and reviewed the CNN reporting and it isn't clear which they meant. They simply said he bought the ladder and walked to the rally - they may have omitted the short drive down the road in their reporting.
At the end of the day, we know that the shooter walked some distance - a mile, a half mile, a quarter mile - carrying a ladder, an AR-15, and ammo.
PROJECT 2025🧵: While Trump is not involved with Project 2025 there are concerns that he will follow some of the paper's recommendations. This thread will outline the ones most likely to be implemented. First, it will bring back the Atari 2600 in every home.
PROJECT 2025🧵: Project 2025 is set to make parachute pants, the iconic baggy trousers made of lightweight synthetic fabric that gained massive popularity in the 1980s, required on Fridays.
PROJECT 2025🧵: Project 2025 will mandate that all music played on the radio must be from the 1980s. This initiative aims to revive the era's iconic tunes, bringing back the decade's unique sound and nostalgia to modern airwaves.
FLASHBACK: A NYC jury determined E. Jean Carroll was lying. The Democrats who funded her lawsuit were so desperate to be able to call Trump a 'r pist' they decided they didn't care that the jury exonerated the former president - they keep repeating the lie.
FACTCHECK: A NYC Jury Exonerated Trump in Determining he did NOT 'R_pe' E. Jean Carroll.
FLASHBACK: A New York jury of Democrats who hate Trump found E. Jean Carroll’s 'r pe' claims were not credible. The jury determined that Trump did NOT 'r pe' her - it is in black and white on the verdict form.
Case Summary:
The Supreme Court ruled on the "good neighbor" policy case concerning the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its regulations to limit cross-state air pollution. The central issue was whether the EPA had the authority to enforce stringent rules on states to curb air pollution that affects neighboring states.
Opinion:
The Supreme Court granted applications for a stay, effectively halting the enforcement of the EPA's "good neighbor" policy. The decision underscores the limits of the EPA's regulatory authority, emphasizing state sovereignty in managing local environmental issues.
Majority Opinion:
Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh joined Gorsuch in the majority. The Court's decision reflects a conservative approach to federal regulatory power, aligning with principles of state autonomy and limited federal intervention.
Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The dissent argued in favor of the EPA's authority to implement the "good neighbor" policy, highlighting the importance of federal oversight in addressing interstate environmental challenges.
SCOTUS DECISION🧵: The second case - Harrington v. Purdue Pharma
Case Summary:
The Supreme Court reviewed the case involving Purdue Pharma L.P., the company notorious for its role in the opioid crisis. The central issue was whether the bankruptcy court had the authority to approve a settlement that granted immunity from opioid-related lawsuits to the Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma, as part of the company's bankruptcy proceedings.
Opinion:
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. This decision effectively blocks the proposed settlement that would have shielded the Sackler family from liability.
Majority Opinion:
Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joining. The majority opinion emphasized the limits of bankruptcy courts in approving settlements that extend immunity beyond the bankrupt entity itself, ensuring accountability for those responsible for the opioid crisis.
Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The dissent argued that the settlement was a practical solution to compensate victims and address the fallout from the opioid crisis, and that blocking the settlement could delay or reduce compensation for those affected.
Vote:
The decision was a 5-4 split, with the majority favoring the reversal and remand, while the dissent supported upholding the settlement.
Case Summary:
The Supreme Court reviewed the case involving the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and George Jarkesy, a hedge fund manager accused of securities fraud. The central issue was whether the SEC's administrative law judges (ALJs) have the constitutional authority to adjudicate such enforcement actions, or if these cases must be heard in federal court.
Opinion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. This ruling upholds the constitutionality of the SEC's use of administrative law judges for enforcement actions.
Majority Opinion:
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joining. The majority opinion supports the SEC's current practice, emphasizing that the use of ALJs is consistent with the Constitution and essential for the efficient enforcement of securities laws.
Concurring Opinion:
Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. The concurrence highlighted specific constitutional principles supporting the majority decision, particularly the importance of maintaining the separation of powers and the role of administrative agencies.
Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The dissent argued that the SEC's use of ALJs undermines the constitutional right to a jury trial and proper judicial oversight, asserting that such enforcement actions should be handled by federal courts.