RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/09/10/fact-checking-claims-made-in-trump-harris-debate/

The rules in this debate were the same as the June debate. Candidates’ microphones were silenced while the opponent answered questions.

1. Trump: We had no inflation

Trump repeatedly said he “had no inflation” during his tenure in the White House. While inflation grew much faster under Biden and Harris, prices also rose under Trump.

Prices overall rose 19% over the first 42 months of Biden’s term compared with 6% during Trump’s first 42 months, according to Forbes. Year-over-year inflation peaked under Biden at a four-decade hgh of 9% in 2022.

2. Opportunity economy

Harris said she is the only candidate promoting an opportunity economy, but Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act gave the 82% of middle-income earners a tax cut that averaged about $1,050, according to FactCheck.org.

“I was raised in a middle-class home,” Harris said, “And I am actually the only person on the stage who has a plan to lift up the middle class and the working people, and when you look at his economic plan, it’s all about tax breaks for the richest people.” 

But even the Biden-Harris administration’s Treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, acknowledged that Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut taxes for all.

The year following the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, new job openings surged, and about 83,000 more Americans voluntarily left their jobs for better opportunities at the end of 2019, compared with the trend before the reform.

3. Trump: Harris’ father Is a Marxist professor

The claim that Harris’ father is a Marxist was fact-checked by Snopes as “true” after a viral X post from political economist Maxine Fowé.

Donald Harris, a now-retired professor of economics at Stanford University, was the author of a 1978 book, “Capital Accumulation and Income Distribution.” It features ideas on Karl Marx’s theory of capital. “His book, ‘Capital Accumulation and Income Distribution’, published in 1978 and dedicated to Kamala and her sister, examines the pitfalls of relying on profit-seeking capitalists to direct an economy,” writes The Economist. The New Yorker wrote of Donald Harris being “a renowned Marxist economist from Jamaica who taught at Stanford University for decades.”

4. Border ‘Security’ Bill

With the border and illegal immigration being one of the most important issues among voters in the 2024 presidential election, it’s no surprise moderators raised the issue early on in the debate.

Muir began by asking Harris why the Biden administration waited “until six months before the election” to take action on the border, referring to Biden’s recent executive order limiting illegal border crossings.

Harris answered by touting her work prosecuting “transnational criminal organizations,” before attacking Trump for opposing a controversial border bill that failed in the Senate twice.

Harris said the failed bill “would have allowed us to stem the flow of fentanyl” coming into the U.S., and would have provided “more resources to prosecute transnational criminal organizations.”

The failed bill directed the Department of Homeland Security to close the southern border “during a period of seven consecutive calendar days, [if] there is an average of 5,000 or more aliens who are encountered each day.”

Over 1.8 million illegal aliens a year still would have been permitted to enter the United States under the now twice-failed legislation.

Harris blamed Trump for the bill’s failure, saying the former president “got on the phone” and told Republican members of Congress to “kill the bill.”

Trump, and many GOP members of Congress, were clear about their opposition to the proposed border security bill, arguing it would enshrine harmful border policies into law.

The Senate border bill “codified Joe Biden’s open border,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said of the bill in February.

Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., led the way in negotiating the terms of the bill with Democrats. Lankford was one of the few Republicans who voted in favor of advancing the border and foreign aid bill, along with Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Mitt Romney of Utah.

Even if the Senate had successfully passed the bill, House Speaker Mike Johnson said the bill would have been “dead on arrival” in the House.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/debate/

What was supposed to be a presidential debate between former President Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris hosted by ABC News, instead became a debate between the former president, his current challenger, and ABC’s two moderators: David Muir and Linsey Davis.

Even as Kamala Harris lied about her positions on fracking, gun control, and Israel, Muir and Davis repeatedly jumped in to argue with Trump under the guise of ‘fact-checking’ him.

The 3-on-1 debate format may very well mark the end of mainstream media presidential debates. It also represented a new low in not just media bias, but election interference.

The media marks each year by giving the public new reasons to distrust it, and ABC News, Muir, and Davis were clearly so insecure about the performance of their candidate that they repeatedly felt called on to argue with Trump instead of letting Kamala rebut him.

ABC News, Muir, and Davis also had no trust in the voters to decide for themselves. 

And so what was supposed to be a debate between two candidates instead became a debate between the establishment and an insurgent. Paradoxically this cut against efforts by the Kamala campaign to brand her an “underdog: and an insurgent candidate swimming upstream.

https://nypost.com/2024/09/11/us-news/trump-debate-performance-panned-as-well-prepped-harris-gets-help-from-abc-moderators-three-on-one/

PHILADELPHIA — Former President Donald Trump repeatedly found himself on the back foot Tuesday night during his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris — as Republicans seethed over repeated fact-checks of the GOP candidate and a noticeably lighter touch for the Democrat’s own disputed statements.

Harris, 59, arrived well-prepared to rattle Trump by claiming that military leaders had told her that the Republican nominee and 45th president was a “disgrace,” that world leaders were “laughing” at him and even asserting that “people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom” after he was “fired by 81 million people” in 2020.

Trump, 78, found himself having to answer not only Harris’ repeated and pointed attacks on both his pride and policy, but also a pair of moderators who quibbled with some of his statements despite what his supporters viewed as a lack of even-handedness.

When Trump argued that crime in the US is increasing because of migrants allowed into the country on Harris’ watch, “World News Tonight” anchor David Muir interjected: “President Trump, as you know, the FBI says overall violent crime is actually coming down.”

https://thespectator.com/politics/kamala-harris-won-debate-philadelphia-2024/

If Kamala Harris is elected president — and that’s a big “if” since the race is still tight — she won it on the debate stage in Philadelphia Tuesday night. True, her answers were often vague, but they were also inspirational and forward-looking. She avoided the “word salads” that have so often marred her (rare) comments without a teleprompter. She was clear and articulate throughout. 

Harris showed the skill of a professional politician as she avoided being pinned down on her most extreme policy pronouncements from 2019-2020, often denying she ever made them. Trump could have pressed her on those but seldom did. 

Harris effectively stressed her winning position on “women’s right to choose” and damned Trump for his position. (She misstated his views on in-vitro fertilization, but he rebutted her on that.) She also underscored her support for Obamacare, a smart position nationally, and tied it to John McCain’s vote, a smart position in the swing-state of Arizona. 

Most important of all, Harris displayed the control, sureness and coherence voters demand of their president and commander-in-chief. Demonstrating her ability to occupy the Oval Office was job number one in the debate — and Kamala Harris accomplished it. 

Donald Trump, by contrast, hurt himself time and again. He was constantly angry and defensive, qualities that engage his rallies but alienate all Democrats and many Independents, especially women. On the plus side, he repeatedly emphasized his main points on immigration, crime and endless wars — all winning issues for him. He made a strong case that he would encourage fracking, a vital issue in Pennsylvania, and that a Harris administration would kill it. (She denied it.)

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/09/10/theres-nothing-new-about-kamalas-new-way-forward-except-stuff-she-stole-from-trump/

Fifty days after Joe Biden quit his re-election campaign – and one day before she debates Donald Trump — Kamala Harris finally posted an “Issues” page on her website, detailing her plans if she wins the election in November. Now we know why she waited so long.

She calls this “A New Way Forward.” But it’s actually just the Biden plan with a few added wrinkles — which either have been widely panned or were stolen from Donald Trump.

The day after Biden made his announcement, Harris had her own campaign website set up. And it included an “Issues” page, which was a copy of what Biden had put up on his campaign website. You can still find this page on the Wayback Machine. (To the left is a screenshot of that page. The Harris campaign deleted it after a few days, and it remained blank until Monday.)

Her new Issues page is a bit more fleshed out than Biden’s, but looking through the proposals, you see that she is offering nothing new at all. It’s just stuff copied over from the Biden plan, with a few added details. Examples:

Harris says she’ll “cut taxes for middle-class families” and make “the wealthiest Americans and the largest corporations pay their fair share.”  Biden-Harris said they “are fighting to give tax cuts to the middle class while making the ultra-wealthy and big corporations finally pay their fair share.”
She promises that “no one earning less than $400,000 a year will pay more in taxes.” Biden-Harris promised that “Under their plan, nobody earning less than $400,000 will pay an additional penny in federal taxes.”
She says she “will make affordable health care a right, not a privilege by expanding and strengthening the Affordable Care Act.” Biden-Harris said they “believe health care is a right, not a privilege” and are “fighting to expand affordable care.”

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/09/09/dear-kamala-we-want-to-go-back-and-so-should-everyone-else/

At every rally, without fail, Vice President Kamala Harris gets the crowd to start chanting “we’re not going back!”

“Well, look,” she said in Pennsylvania last month, “America has tried those failed policies before, and we are not going back! We are not going back! Not going back!”

Well, look, Kamala, we want to go back! And we fervently hope and pray that most Americans do as well. And that they vote that way in November.

We want to go back to a time before Joe Biden and Kamala Harris wrecked the economy, before they unleashed the inflation monster, before they threw open the border, let criminals run free, and exuded weakness abroad.

In other words, we want to go back to a time when a tax-cutting, pro-growth, anti-regulation, strong defense president was in the White House and America was prosperous and the world at peace.

What we don’t want is to go forward with the Biden-Harris disaster, which is what Kamala Harris and Tim Walz will give us, good and hard.

So, as a reader service, we’ve gathered a brief sampling of reasons why the public should join us in desperately wanting to go back to the “failed policies” we had under Trump, and not continue with the “leadership” we’ve seen under Biden-Harris. (Readers are invited to add to this list using the comment section below.)

https://dianebederman.com/dear-american-jews-who-vote-democrat/

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.  Sun Tzu: The Art of War

It is narrated in the hadith that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said:

“The Hour will not begin until you fight the Jews, until a Jew will hide behind a rock or a tree, and the rock or tree will say: ‘O Muslim, O slave of Allah, here is a Jew behind me; come and kill him – except the gharqad (a kind of thorny tree).’

We have been told by Islam that we are to be made extinct. Yet, you vote for the Democrats who are proud of their Hamas Squad. Why? Walz has told you his views on Israel and the war. “We can’t allow what’s happened in Gaza to happen. The Palestinian people have every right to life and liberty themselves. We need to continue to put the leverage on to make sure we move towards a two-state solution.” Walz complimented anti-Israel protesters.

We are approaching October 7. A day in infamy. Barbaric Muslims invaded Israel during a ceasefire and mutilated and murdered men, women, children, babies. The worst attack on Jews since the Shoah. And within days, the event was denied, people shared rachmunus(pity) for Gazans after Israel retaliated. Jewish organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace, IfNotNow, and J Street stood with the Gazans. What did you do? And following the discovery of six hostages murdered in Gaza, Jewish Voice for Peace described Israel’s hostage-rescue operation earlier in the day as part of an ongoing “genocide” in Gaza.

Seems many Jews want to be “included” rather than respected.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/4864694-goldman-sachs-trump-economy-harris

Democrats and their media allies are celebrating a report from Goldman Sachs concluding that the economy would be worse off under a second Trump administration than under Kamala Harris. 

Given that voters consistently rate Donald Trump more highly than Harris on their respective handling of the economy, this was a breakthrough for the left. Never mind that the much-hyped report concluded that the election of Harris and a Democratic “sweep” would result in only a “very slight boost” to 2025 GDP. Or that the reasons for the Harris edge are unpalatable, unsustainable and, essentially, idiotic.

Sorry, Goldman Sachs, but any leader who has specialized in increasing regulations, plans to significantly hike taxes, routinely bashes Big Business for profiteering and wants to break up America’s leading companies, like Google, can possibly foster a positive environment for growth.

The Goldman Sachs analysts argue that Trump’s tariffs on imported goodswill raise costs to consumers, which could “help spur an economic slowdown” and “likely cost the gross domestic product about 0.5 percent in growth, a negative headwind that would persist throughout 2025.” So, one year’s minor impact. (Not to mention that 60 percent of U.S. CEOs in a recent survey think a recession is imminent, if not already underway.) 

Meanwhile, the folks at Goldman Sachs see Trump as likely to oversee a slowdown in illegal immigration. To them, this means lower job growth. “Under a President Harris, job growth would be 10,000 a month higher than if Trump wins with a divided government and 30,000 higher if the GOP controls the White House and both chambers of Congress.”  

I have written in the past about the Biden-Harris economy teetering on a wobbly foundation of excessive federal spending and illegal immigration. Astonishingly, the Goldman Sachs analysts propose that the U.S. cannot grow satisfactorily unless the migrant floodgates remain open. This is extremely odd, given that our country had been managing quite well for years before Biden and Harris threw the floodgates open.