 |
| We’re transforming your reading experience by removing all ads and focusing on high-quality, in-depth geopolitical analysis. Enjoy a cleaner, more enjoyable news experience, free from distractions.
Help us continue to provide exceptional content by donating today. Your support ensures we remain independent and reader-funded. Visit linktapgo.com/thedumshow to contribute. Thank you for making The DUM News better than ever! – Matt |
SOMEWHERE IN A PARALLEL UNIVERSE: It’s almost unreal that I’m even typing this, even as I hear the keys clicking away in my own office. But stick with me and hear me out—I promise it’ll be worth it. When Hillary Clinton ran for president, many on both sides of the political spectrum had strong feelings—mostly negative. Her tenure as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State left a trail of scandals, bad decisions, and arrogance that seemed unmatched. Remember “basket of deplorables”? The private email server? The Benghazi disaster? Hillary’s political career was a lesson in how not to inspire voters. Yet, as disastrous as her reputation was, Kamala Harris has somehow managed to lower the bar even further.
Kamala Harris: The Socialist Ticking Time Bomb
Kamala Harris’s policies, far more radical than Clinton’s, push the United States toward socialism with alarming efficiency. From supporting government control over major sectors like healthcare and energy to endorsing wealth redistribution, Harris is a true advocate for leftist ideals that threaten our republic. Let’s break down some of her most concerning policy positions:
Universal Healthcare—or Universal Bureaucracy?: Clinton pushed for healthcare reform in the ‘90s and was instrumental in Obamacare’s expansion as Secretary of State. But Harris’s endorsement of Medicare for All takes the concept of government healthcare to new extremes. Her plan doesn’t just seek to expand coverage; it eliminates private insurance altogether, placing everyone in a one-size-fits-all government program. Socialism 101: If the government controls your healthcare, it controls your life.
Economic Justice, or Forced Redistribution?: Harris has a long history of supporting wealth redistribution under the guise of “economic justice.” This involves taxing successful individuals and businesses to fund welfare programs and government initiatives. Clinton, for all her faults, at least tried to temper her socialist tendencies with more market-friendly rhetoric. Harris, on the other hand, is fully committed to the Bernie Sanders school of economics, where the answer to every problem is to give more power and resources to the government.
A Prosecutor’s Record in Disguise
Kamala Harris’s time as a prosecutor is a masterclass in political hypocrisy. She built her career by being “tough on crime,” advocating for policies that disproportionately affected minority communities, then pivoted to denouncing the criminal justice system when it became politically advantageous. Harris’s selective application of justice reveals a pattern of self-serving opportunism rather than genuine concern for justice. From keeping people locked up to use them as cheap labor, to supporting wrongful convictions until pressured to correct them, Harris’s record is a parade of questionable ethics.
A Presidential Candidate Who Picks a Socialist Running Mate?
Kamala Harris didn’t just consider Tim Walz, she chose him—a move that should alarm anyone who values individual liberty and economic freedom. Walz is a known advocate for socialist policies, and selecting him shows that Harris is fully aligned with the far-left agenda. With Walz by her side, Harris’s administration would embrace expanded government control, higher taxes, and a focus on social engineering. Even Clinton, as calculating as she was, knew how to steer clear of such blatant socialism.
The Cackling Hyena: A Muddled Mess
One of Harris’s defining features is her infamous laugh, a forced and awkward cackle she rolls out whenever she’s cornered by a tough question or uncomfortable situation. The more she tries to suppress it, the more it comes across as disingenuous. It’s a cringe-inducing attempt to hide her lack of real answers or conviction. Where Clinton could at least feign sincerity when needed, Harris’s struggle to suppress her “cackling hyena” laugh only highlights her inability to project genuine confidence or leadership.
Flip-Flopping on Core Values
Harris’s constant shifting of positions reflects a politician who lacks any real convictions. Whether it’s jumping from being a hardline prosecutor to suddenly calling for criminal justice reform, or supporting Medicare for All one day and backtracking the next, she can’t seem to stick to a stance. Her inconsistent positions make it clear that her political ambition comes before any core principles.
Kamala’s Phoniness vs. Hillary’s Occasionally Human Side
For all the disdain people had for Hillary, she could at least display a semblance of human emotion—albeit in rare moments. Whether it was her “What difference, at this point, does it make?” outburst during the Benghazi hearings or her attempts to be relatable on late-night TV, there was at least a trace of personality. Sure, it was awkward, forced, and often insincere, but it existed.
Kamala Harris, on the other hand, is the epitome of inauthenticity. Her infamous, cackling laugh whenever faced with tough questions isn’t just annoying—it’s a blatant attempt to dodge accountability. Harris’s entire political career is built on surface-level optics rather than substance. Whether it’s her awkward attempts to sound relatable in speeches or her ever-shifting policy positions depending on what’s popular with the progressive base, Harris has perfected the art of being a political chameleon. Yet, unlike Clinton, whose calculating nature was obvious but consistent, Harris’s lack of genuine principles makes her even more dangerous. At least with Hillary, you knew what you were getting: a ruthless power player. With Kamala, you’re getting someone who will say and do anything to stay in the good graces of the far-left.
A Record as Fake as Her Smile
Hillary Clinton, for all her faults, had actual accomplishments—albeit tainted by corruption and controversy. Kamala Harris’s record, by contrast, is as thin as her political credibility. As California’s Attorney General, she built a reputation as a tough-on-crime prosecutor, but as soon as the political winds shifted, she began pandering to the “defund the police” crowd. Her inconsistency reveals a politician who has no core beliefs other than advancing her own career. Hillary may have been calculating, but Kamala is downright opportunistic.
Harris’s rise to power wasn’t about principles or policy; it was about identity politics. She was selected as Biden’s running mate not for her skills, but because she checked certain demographic boxes. Her track record as a senator is laughable; she sponsored few significant bills and spent most of her time grandstanding in Senate hearings. This is the person one heartbeat away from the presidency.
Comparing the Two: A Lesser Evil Debate?
In a strange twist of fate, many Republicans find themselves looking back at Hillary Clinton and thinking, “Maybe she wasn’t the worst possible option.” Sure, Clinton represented the worst of establishment politics, but she had experience and a clear (albeit dangerous) agenda. Harris, by contrast, is a walking contradiction whose policy positions are dictated by whatever will score her points with progressive activists.
For those who care about the survival of our republic, Harris’s combination of socialist policy positions and fake authenticity is a lethal mix. Hillary was bad enough, but at least you knew where she stood. Kamala Harris represents the hollowing out of the Democratic Party, where principles are replaced by platitudes, and policy is dictated by the most extreme factions of the left.
The Future if Kamala Takes the Reins
Should Harris ascend to the presidency, we’re looking at a future where the United States moves even further toward centralized control and economic collapse. Her Green New Deal priorities would devastate American industries. Her healthcare plans would lead to a bloated government bureaucracy that would make even the worst of Clinton’s policies seem tame. Harris’s vision for the country is not one of freedom, opportunity, or prosperity—it’s one of dependency, control, and social engineering.
Be Careful What You Wish For
For years, conservatives and independents have dreaded the idea of Hillary Clinton in power. But as we watch Kamala Harris rise within the Democratic ranks, it’s clear we’re now dealing with something far worse. Hillary was many things—corrupt, calculating, and cold—but at least she was real. Kamala Harris, on the other hand, is a fake, a phony, and a dangerous socialist whose policies would bring America to its knees.
So next time you find yourself lamenting Hillary’s legacy, take a good look at Kamala Harris. In a twisted way, Harris’s sheer incompetence and radicalism almost make Clinton seem like a moderate by comparison. And that, folks, should terrify us all.
“The Don’t Unfriend Me Show” explores a broad range of political themes, from satire to serious topics, with Matt Speer, a Navy Intel veteran, husband, and father, leading the show. Matt shares his views to stimulate constructive discussions. The show aims to provide a balanced perspective on complex issues, welcoming participants of all political affiliations to share their unique viewpoints.