←back to thread

I'm the Canadian who was detained by ICE for two weeks

(www.theguardian.com)
1009 points n1b0m | 10 comments | 19 Mar 25 11:21 UTC | HN request time: 1.058s | source | bottom
Show context
Swoerd123[dead post] ◴[19 Mar 25 12:37 UTC] No.43411056[source]▶
[flagged]
Zambyte ◴[19 Mar 25 12:43 UTC] No.43411102[source]▶
What was wrong with Harris?
replies(12): >>43411121 #>>43411128 #>>43411133 #>>43411146 #>>43411203 #>>43411223 #>>43411248 #>>43411296 #>>43411442 #>>43411552 #>>43411640 #>>43412970 #
AlexandrB ◴[19 Mar 25 12:46 UTC] No.43411128[source]▶
Extremist positions on trans issues. To quote Sam Harris: "Congratulations, Democrats. You have found the most annoying thing in the fucking galaxy and hung it around your necks."[1]

[1] https://samharris.substack.com/p/the-reckoning

replies(3): >>43411159 #>>43411231 #>>43411239 #
1. Trasmatta ◴[19 Mar 25 12:49 UTC] No.43411159[source]▶
Harris said almost nothing about trans issues during the election. You're attempting to rewrite history if you're claiming it was somehow a core tenant of her campaign. That was entirely propaganda by the opposing party.
replies(3): >>43411242 #>>43411265 #>>43411678 #
2. blindriver ◴[19 Mar 25 12:55 UTC] No.43411242[source]▶
Are voters only supposed to limit their votes about things candidates say during the election? If so does that mean voting against Trump for Jan 6 insurrection was wrong? Or can voters vote against Harris because of policies she has endorsed before the election?
replies(1): >>43411290 #
3. AlexandrB ◴[19 Mar 25 12:56 UTC] No.43411265[source]▶
In various outlets she said she would change little from Biden's administration. And of course there's the classic: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harris-gender-surgeries-ja...

Are you suggesting that Harris would have reeled in some of the most outrageous policies on this issue? She said no such thing so the reasonable assumption anyone would make is that it would be business as usual. Not talking about it is the problem.

replies(1): >>43414115 #
4. skyyler ◴[19 Mar 25 12:58 UTC] No.43411290[source]▶
>If so does that mean voting against Trump for Jan 6 insurrection was wrong?

Well, no, because he campaigned on that. Including pardons for people that participated.

replies(1): >>43414951 #
5. jl6 ◴[19 Mar 25 13:28 UTC] No.43411678[source]▶
She was loudly accused of having extreme positions on a hot button issue. Saying nothing was tantamount to admitting the accusation was true. That's how the court of public opinion works.
replies(1): >>43412042 #
6. eagleislandsong ◴[19 Mar 25 13:54 UTC] No.43412042[source]▶
> She was loudly accused of having extreme positions on a hot button issue.

She was accused of many things in bad faith, e.g. not being Black, being a Marxist, being a communist, and more. Spending time and effort to address every single one of these would have been tantamount to allowing her opponent to dictate her campaign.

replies(1): >>43413350 #
7. jl6 ◴[19 Mar 25 15:31 UTC] No.43413350{3}[source]▶
None of those things had attack ads with this kind of impact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_is_for_they/them

It was and is an important issue to a lot of voters and by ignoring it she let her opponent explain her position for her.

8. skyyler ◴[19 Mar 25 16:25 UTC] No.43414115[source]▶
What exactly is the issue with prisoners getting medical care?
9. loeg ◴[19 Mar 25 17:32 UTC] No.43414951{3}[source]▶
It is reasonable for voters to consider politicians' behavior before the most recent election cycle and ridiculous to say voters should have ignored Harris' earlier statements. (And I say that as someone who voted for Harris.)
replies(1): >>43415188 #
10. skyyler ◴[19 Mar 25 17:49 UTC] No.43415188{4}[source]▶
Oh, no, I definitely agree with you on that, was just pointing out that specific premise is factually incorrect.