Kamala Harris

[CS]

@Jacob
That site is great. Thank you for the link.

[nomadscientist]

How so?

Germany doesn't accept the sort of abridgments of rule of law justified by rhetorical devices that are increasingly common in the US; that's not inherently a left thing, but in the US always done to advantage the left side.

Americans also overrate how re-distributive is the German "welfare state." Most of it is just protecting you from yourself, and protecting others from you if you are dysfunctional. It was created by Bismarck after all, not Marx. Meanwhile America has many re-distributive mechanisms Germany doesn't and wouldn't tolerate.

A good illustration of this is the approach to consumer debt. America has lots, Germany hardly has it at all. So Germany is anti-capitalist and America is capitalist, clear right/left divide, right? Well, not so fast because the American consumer debt system actually redistributes money from middle class to lower class via credit scoring and bankruptcy rules combined with the simply lack of options to physically recover debts from private individuals in America. In Germany, people who "can't handle it" aren't given the chance, but otherwise debts are seriously enforced.

This is more of a different of mindset than a different of position along one spectrum; there is more than one spectrum. Hard to see. Of course almost all Germans will say they would vote Democrat not Republican.

[CS]

@nomandscientist

I don't understand your first paragraph. Do you have an example that might illuminate it?

It would be interesting to see how much wealth is really re-distributed from middle class to lower in America. I've had friends who've done collections and the poor were generally contentious while the worst were the upper middle class when it comes to paying their debt. Many of them just don't. And then bankruptcy is filed and the cycle starts over again. I've worked with a nurse who was on that cycle with her builder husband. Hearing her talk was a trip. They had good incomes. Paying their debts was not seen as that high a priority because 'they couldn't'. But it was important to have the custom built house and landscaping. There was a also a local expose about a fancy lake hereabouts where the 'rich' live--- turns out most of those 'rich' could not afford it. At all.

The poor don't get a much credit as you might think - and the rates are astronomical. Many don't have bank accounts and have a significant chunk of their money lost to fees and haircuts on each check they have to cash. The wealth transfer is from the poor to the businesses.

The stockmarket here is an example of the wealth transfer from the lower to the upper classes. Dividends are prioritized over salary and all else.

[IlliniDave]

If I find out a person couldn't make, to me, a rational choice of voting for someone that could actually be elected, then their level of privilege and selfishness was not something I could tolerate.

I live in a state inked in for Trump in 2016 months before the election. My vote only counts in my state. Therefore I could only vote for Trump or be privileged and selfish to the point of being intolerable?

[Hristo Botev]

@ffj: If I can ask, who would have (or might have) tipped the scale for you to go with the Biden ticket? I think I said earlier that Tulsi or Bottoms might have done it for me, given Biden's self-imposed woman-of-color criteria.

[Alphaville]

It’s funny for me to see the diversity of perspectives, cuz to me Tulsi comes across as a self-absorbed kook that gives me the willies a little bit. I couldn’t think of a worse candidate.

For the Biden sidekick I originally liked Klobuchar, who didn’t do so great in the primaries either but seemed to me the most knowledgeable and competent of the lot, and a proud & willing centrist. I don’t value centrists on ideological grounds but rather on their ability to accomplish lasting practical changes. Standing on a soapbox is one thing; passing legislation enacting necessary policies by working with your adversaries is something altogether different.

Some people have spoken against Amy’s prosecutorial record as well, but unfortunately here we had a more vivid image of her failing to prosecute George Floyd’s actual murderer—of course this leftist complaint again becoming enlarged by concern trolling from the smearing right. That doomed her.

[bostonimproper]

I was idly hoping he'd pick Warren. Oh well.

[Sclass]

: she isn't likable and she comes across as inauthentic, although not a criminal as Clinton. Her primary record is a reflection of this fact.

Ya know I was listening to her this morning on the news and I realized what has been bothering me about all of this. She’s a politician. Their algorithm is to maximize votes.

I lived in the Bay Area the last thirty years and watched her rise on a campaign promise to stand by the cops and get tough on crime. It turned out she did the opposite a number of times and it made headlines. She bullied the police union and fought for lenient sentences for violent criminals. So at the end I thought of her as a soft on crim tough on cops candidate and forgot her campaign stance till I read the OP. I was like “huh? WTH?” When I read @DOF first line. There’s what people say and what they really did. Right, a chameleon. A politician.

I was tickled this morning to hear her use a subtle African American accent with her intonation. She did not sound this way early in her career. Her speeches came across like a network newscaster back then. While stunning at the moment, I say more power to her. An obvious political gambit. She’s using her tools to get to where she wants to go. And she has gone far from unseating her weak (soft on crime boss) in San Francisco with a tough on criminals support the police campaign stance that wasn’t consistent after she took office.

I’m kind of numb to it all. Trump isn’t a great promise keeper either so he doesn’t get a pass. He’s dishonest too. It’s a game after all and to level up like these people you need to be a gamester. Too bad the selection system has evolved into this.

[CS]

@IlliniDave

People don't exist in a vacuum. They take cues from those around them. I've had people make the same argument in MN and CA but they had friends and family in KY that they could have influenced. They talked openly about their choices which does affect others, whether they choose to acknowledge it or not. Also "I could do nothing" tends to be self-fullfilling.

[CS]

Too bad the selection system has evolved into this.

I hate the political ads which are "Donate now! If they raise more money they'll win".

Is it an auction?

[Sclass]

@ffj. Yes! That was the clip!

[Alphaville]

Haha, I just watched a clip of her sarcastically talking about Biden's " audacity to select a black woman as a running mate" a

“sarcastically”? that completely misses the point of what she said

here is the actual video. please notice context and full statement: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... i-BB17Yckd

please see definition #1a here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/audacity “intrepid boldness” knights admired for their audacity

also, further, echoes obama’s “the audacity of hope” which ultimately derives from this painting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hope_(painting)

anyway, tl;dr: she’s praising biden as a bold ally of black women.

[IlliniDave]

@IlliniDave

People don't exist in a vacuum. They take cues from those around them. I've had people make the same argument in MN and CA but they had friends and family in KY that they could have influenced. They talked openly about their choices which does affect others, whether they choose to acknowledge it or not. Also "I could do nothing" tends to be self-fullfilling.

CS, good pivot away from the question, maybe you should consider politics!

Joking aside, what is the "argument" you are talking about?

Reading between the lines you seem to be suggesting the acceptable options are restricted to voting for whomever the Republicans choose to run on their behalf, or whomever the Democrats pick to run on their behalf. Is that a fair characterization?

Not directed at any particular individual:

I've come to the conclusion that the major political parties have no intent to further the welfare of the people in a substantial way (save the few among the people who do the heavy lifting keeping them in power--the uber-elites). The belief began to crystallize in the aftermath of the 2008 "financial crisis" when two successive administrations, one form each side of the aisle, made sure Wall St and the surrounding knot of elites were made whole and left the rest of us holding the bag, and in a sadly regressive manner. Having been a voter for 38 years now, and following "civics" (they used to teach that in schools) for something over 40 years, I realized a lot of flip-flopping of issues has gone on over time (e.g., 40 years ago the Dems were for protecting American jobs and restraining immigration, which are now Republican planks), but all the politicking is still over the same unresolved issues that were concerns in the late 70s and 80s. I've been voting and funding treasuries for decades believing the promises (lies) that the various personalities and public institutions were there for the welfare of the people. But enough is enough.

The major parties squabble with each other, and there is some ebb an flow in the balance of power between them, but there seems to be tacit agreement that each of them, and only them, along with their elite sponsors, get a spot at the hog trough. In even numbered years they promise to toss a couple bucketfuls out into the barnyard for the rest of us to curry votes, then it's back to the trough for them to get on with the real work of fattening up. In other words, the present two party system is corrupt and rigged and carefully crafted to sustain itself. People sense that. Those in precarious life positions develop a lot of angst over it. That's why Obama was elected (hope and change). That's why Occupy happened. That's why the Tea Party happened. That's why Trump got elected (drain the swamp). That's why it took some dubious maneuvering to keep Bernie off the ballot. It's a big part of what is sustaining the recent demonstrations and riots. The politicians are deft and deflect by identifying some of us to hold up as the enemies of the rest of us lest we recognize them for what they are and vote them out.

In broad terms there are three choices:

1). Continue to enable the present corrupt system by holding our collective noses and trying to make a least bad choice among evils (which seem to get worse each successive election), perhaps along with maintaining the insane intellectual position that maybe it will produce better results this time.

2). Use the mechanisms that are built into the system to affect change, primarily by voting the the corrupt two-party duopoly out of power.

3). Burn it all down and hope something benevolent rises from the ashes.

I just can't get behind 3), and I've come to fear that is where we're headed if there is no course correction.

I've been guilty of 1) for a long time, it plays to the lazy side of my nature, and it's still in my own short-term best interest to opt to preserve "normal", and be mollified by the modest ownership I have, grab what scraps I can, and hope it can sustain itself long enough to see me into the grave.

When I set my personal best interests aside and think of others, especially our youngest generations and those of the future, 2) becomes the only choice. I won't try to claim it would win a most-rational award, it's draw is more in the moral/ethical realm, and probably therefore somewhat emotional in nature. And it is not purely altruistic as I have children and grandchildren that are stakeholders in the future.

Choice 2) is not easy nor is it quick. The party duopoly has sheathed itself in pretty thick armor. The last time we had a sustained 3+ party system we had a extremely bloody civil war. But that was also the time we made our most significant advancement since the nation's founding--the abolition of slavery. I think we can avoid the civil war this time. But if we want to curb the exploding wealth gaps and limit the rising elite oligarchy, and the hoarding of opportunity, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are the answer because they're are just instruments of the former. Some argued 2016 was not the time to remove support from the duopoly. Some argue now is not the time. But if not now, when?

There's still a couple months to go, and I don't even know yet who will be on the ballot in my state, so I can't say what I'll do. But once again I have a hard time seeing myself voting status quo, red or blue. In the big picture sense it's a distinction without a difference although different individuals do benefit somewhat more from one or the other, including me. But at the same time I understand the rationale behind the lesser of evils route. I don't think it is fair to hold it against someone because when offered a shit sandwich they took a bite off a different side than I did. In the end it's we the people that will have to work together to fix the mess, or at least motivate the ruling class to put the needs of the broader populace first. Hating each other won't get us there.

Sigh. I must sound like a raving lunatic.

[Alphaville]

2). Use the mechanisms that are built into the system to affect change, primarily by voting the the corrupt two-party duopoly out of power.

this is hard to do, due principally to the structure of big tent parties.

but parties can change, and do from the inside. big tent parties always include extreme or insurgent factions that often take over as time passes.

republicans are in the process of being taken over by QAnon (!!), previously they were taken over by the tea party. the neocons that dominated the bush administration ised to be democrats in the 60s and 70s. eisenhower, a republican, warned about the military-industrial complex that reagan embraced 2 decades later with star wars.

democrats today have “the squad” which in spite of all the noise are just 4 congresswomen. bernie caucuses with democrats but isn’t one, yet attempted the nomination twice. democrats used to be the party of southern racism, after the civil rights act they lost the south, and then lee atwater mastered the dog whistle to consolidate things for republicans. labor unions care about jobs, greens care about the environment; both factions are often at odds.

so: a great many constituencies are actually represented by the major parties, but they work out their compromises internally towards a national platform. nevertheless, big tent parties are never monolithic, and this is how compromise and horse trading actually make new legislation possible. new legislation of course will tend towards the center because it’s the only place that can get enough votes after a myriad compromises. having said that, the american center is to the right of most of the world. we don’t have communists, we don’t have any socialists in spite of all the name calling. this is a center-right country at heart.

and this is also a country of 50 states and 330 million people.

the EU has 27 states and 450 million people but no continental parties.

our national parties are massive by sheer necessity.

as for money in politics, yes... it’s always been there, but we’re still here.

politics by nature will always be a struggle, and the tax rates will continue to change accordingly.

[Alphaville]

Sarcastic in the sense [...] Is this meant as comedy?

[..]

Her and Joe had better up their game beyond racial discord if they want to prevail.

irony + insult = sarcasm. she was addressing another black woman in earnest. you might find their exchange funny for whatever reason, but that’s on you, not on them.

concern trolling is fair game i suppose, but misrepresenting quotes is a different thing.

[IlliniDave]

this is hard to do, due principally to the structure of big tent parties.

but parties can change, and do from the inside.

True. One way to motivate them to reform is to challenge their hold on power. With simply a third party, each party knows it could lose it spot at the trough via a coalition of the other two. The tea parties and squad-type internal factions make splashes, but once on the inside the ripples tend to die down. No threat to power. I guess I tend to see most of the internal change as window dressing that never persists enough to improve the lot of the rank and file, just soothes some segment briefly. And there's also a tiny chance some exceptional leaders will emerge organically and transform one or both parties into something benevolent.

The flaw in voting the establishment out and voting in an alternate is that the alternate could easily devolve into what it replaced. A lot of the power in the establishment is immune to elections. And realistically a new entry into the arena would have to start in the oval office, so there would be a second round of battles against the duopoly. No guarantees of success no matter where a person looks. It's a matter of identifying where the best possibility of success lies.

Even though it's hard, I think it's time for choices outside what the duopoly gatekeepers allow. In saying that I have to acknowledge Trump is an anomaly in the model in that he got past the gatekeepers. I don't think the Republicans will make that "mistake" again.

Probably time for me to let this topic rest.

[Jason]

a whole lot of screaming and finger pointing about cheating. I

Unless there is a Reagan vs. Carter landslide, it's an inevitability. In 1960, Nixon of all people, didn't want to challenge the election because it "was bad for the country" and later accepted resignation because fighting it would be "bad for the party." Which elected official do we know now who is going to take either of those stances in front of their constituencies? You know both sides have already hired a CGI army of local attorneys with their post-dated November 4 injunctions filled out. Does anyone think this will be a 2000, where the country accepted Bush but compromised by allowing The New Yorker to question his legitimacy to this day? We have two parties that don't just want to win, but want the other to go away at a moment when there is a significant anti-institutional fervor already spilling out in the streets. When we live in a time when people confuse the presidency for democracy so a Trump loss is to some, not the loss of an election but an event equivalent to a toppling of king after the loss of a war? No matter what candidate you prefer, its in everyone's best interest that one of these guys gets their old ass handed to them on a political platter so the whole country doesn't go postal. Russia sent more Facebook bullshit after the 2016 election because they understood destabilization was now an actual possibility. It's hard to argue against that possibility, especially with such perfect shitstorm conditions in place.

And talk of a third party? When and both Trump and Bernie proved how easy the existing ones are too crash? When both a bi-polar rap star and his famous for her phat phake ass wife are getting Oval Office meetings? And lest we forget, we missed out on John John because he wanted to fly his own planes. I think Don Don is perfectly happy banging hookers in the cabin of a private luxury jet and don't think Mitch McConnell hasn't wacked off to the idea of Jr. being Pence's VP pick in 2024. Trump has taught the party that dumbing down is how to smarten up.

[Jason]

Everyone who knew anything knew that Joe Biden was picking Kamala Harris because that was what Beau Biden would have wanted. This was death and taxes, not horseshoes. Ann Richards accused Yale/Harvard W of a playing up a fake Texas accident when they were competing for governor of Texas. It's linguistic carpetbagging. Big deal. Like Ronald Reagan was a real fucking cowboy? All or at least most of the African American community just cares about is getting rid of Trump. That's why its Biden/Harris not Harris/Biden or Booker/Biden or Harris/Booker or Booker/Harris. If you think the President is Jefferson Davis, you'll settle for someone less than Harriet Tubman.

[CS]

@IlliniDave
What I was giving you was the reason why.

@Jason
I'm with you on this election. It needs to be a wipeout. The recent map of the were the bulk mail sorters were taken out is making this more difficult to see happen - primary blue areas of red states and swing states. It was done with razor precision. Someone posted a photo of the massive junked mail sorter in our own city. I am scared for what the next few months are going to hold. Real fear is not a good experience.

@alphaville
I'm with you on Tulsi. *Shiver*.

@Sclass
Agree. The identity wars are going to be ugly. I see a lot of dismissal of any conservative complaints because they've been paid for lock, stock and barrel by the blue states. A law requiring states put in equal amounts to what they get from the federal government would address this resentment (and frankly rage) at the economic drain these states represent combined with their outsized political influence, but then as always, there were would unintended consequences, some probably quite ugly. Also, Texas does not follow that I think so it's not a universal rule as it is often take to be.

Getting away from the polarization between the two sides would be best, but I can't quite see how when the living conditions vary so widely across this country. This was brought home to me on the "gun in the city versus the gun in the country argument." It's lack of population density is both it's greatest boon and its greatest challenge.

The internet making bubbles more prevalent and not less is certainly not helping.

[7Wannabe5]

@ffj:

Hilary Clinton was reading a spoken word piece by the Rev. James Cleveland in that clip. Not the greatest reading, perhaps, but clearly not meant to be her own voice. It would likely be equally difficult to attempt to read the Preamble to the Constitution aloud at a podium without coming off a bit Founding Father ( and/or Schoolhouse Rock if you spent Saturday mornings in the 1970s eating Froot-Loops in your pjs in front of the TV.)