She went to Guatemala to try and find out why people were fleeing to the boarder (apparently). I assume its because their county is a piece of shit and they want out so by her going there and if that is the case what can she do to fix that problem?
Yes, very much so. These two aren't even in the same branch of government. Having "elected official" as the comparison group would be like saying "You can't compare mayor of small town to head of Senate? C'mon man, they're both elected officials!" They aren't comparable.
Though state visits are diplomatic in nature. The purpose of this trip was in her Presidential appointed role to solve the border crisis. You all but said the same.... The border crisis is all she, her people, the White House, and the News talked about regarding this trip. You asked what would a trip to the border gain and cost. Again, when it comes to solving the border crisis, what did her trip to Mexico and Guatemala gain and cost?
We do make loans, and sell goods. I know, I know. We're sooooo indebted to China (but some people are indebted to us...)
You think she went in a singular capacity? As in, the only reason she rolled was in relation to the border? Ok. Seems pretty simple minded, but I guess you wouldn't have asked those questions if you thought people were capable of doing multiple things. If she went down, asked the major thing that Guatemala and Mexico needed to slow traffic through their countries, and then wrote that down, and took it back to the White House, that would be a gain, at the cost of a state visit. Had she done the same, and just gone to the border, what would the border have told her its needs were?
Funny, The folks on this board have been telling us for years why they have been fleeing. She had to go there to find out.
You think she went there to research? Why? Why do you think she her visit is limited to "go there to find out?"
If not research, what would you call - asked the major thing that Guatemala and Mexico needed to slow traffic through their countries, and then wrote that down, and took it back to the White House
These are people who nod their heads at the suggestion to "build a wall." Nuance is not something they are interested in engaging in. Part of me wishes there is a wall built, just to see what the excuses will be when illegal immigration persists and the maintenance bill ends up being over a billion dollars a year.
Thank goodness we do not have to worry about that anymore because she went to the source of the problem.
If I'm a business, looking to implement a third party solution, I would research vendors (South America, Central America, Mexico, the border) and I would determine which set of characteristics each vendor provided, and decide which was right for my organization. I'd then have a sales call. After that sales call, I might ask to see a facility, or demo a product. At that facility or demo, I might ask more pointed questions. But by that point, the research is done, and now we're negotiating. At the end of it all, the negotiations might fall through, the ask might be too high, and/or the vendor can't deliver. And then I'll look somewhere else. I call asked the major thing that Guatemala and Mexico needed to slow traffic through their countries, and then wrote that down, and took it back to the White House the negotiation. The research was choosing where to start negotiating. You want politics to run like a business, but then fail to see it running like a business.
I do not care what it takes to solve the "Border Crisis". Go to the source, stand on your head and whistle dixie, I do not care. With that said, being put in charge of the border crisis and then avoiding it like it is a hot lava field is bad optics.
What is gained from going to the border? You realize it's just open space right? It's a line drawn in the sand. One empty field is as good as any other empty field. There is no need to go to the border.
By not going to the border she is asked the question by Lester Holt and gives a stupid response. One that even folks on her side of the aisle criticized. She would never have been asked the question and looked foolish if she had gone there. She caused herself an unnecessary gaffe.
Holy shit. Why the hell does that matter? She should waste time and money and effort for a superficial reason of "unnecessary gaffe." Does she also need to worry about being voted prom queen?
For a Political person like herself. Looking stupid on the World stage and making your boss (the President) look stupid is an issue. Administration officials perplexed by Harris' border answer and worry it will overshadow her trip https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/08/politics/kamala-harris-border/index.html
