Kamala Harris

[IlliniDave]

...
...
BLM has been the one situation he has been able to react to and while he has not necessarily won the encounter he has at least kept himself in the news with his reactions to the riots.
...

Has the peace deal between Israel and UAE hit the corporate media yet, besides Fox? Trump is the first president in my lifetime that can only get into the news by the leave of his enemies, meaning what gets through the filter is only what they think they can hurt him with. It backfired in 2016 because they misjudged most of the country. They've tried to correct the error by painting him as "the swamp" and it will probably work. He also pulled off a brilliant end around in 2016 via social media. But as mentioned, he and his supporters are being de-platformed there. Few people have the energy to seek the truth, and no one is going to provide it to them this go around.

I saw a pundit from some news outlet call Harris a "small-c conservative" this morning. Made me spit coffee through my nose.

[Campitor]

"And while no is perfect.."

Nevertheless some democrats feel she shouldn't get near the presidency.

https://miscellanynews.org/2019/02/27/o ... la-harris/:

However, perhaps Harris’ most egregious example of immoral conduct happened in 2014. A federal judge ordered that all non-violent second-strike offenders be eligible for parole in California in an action against constitutional prison crowding. Kamala Harris, then the Attorney General of California, disagreed with the decision. She argued in court that by releasing these inmates early, prisons would lose “an important labor pool” (Los Angeles Times, “Federal judges order California to expand prison releases,” 11.14.2014). Despite pitching herself as a lifelong champion for criminal justice reform, Harris had advocated that the need to keep nonviolent offenders as slaves outweighs their constitutional rights. How would the Democratic Party call itself progressive if members threw their support behind someone with such an atrocious record on civil rights issues?

Even worse, Harris has yet to apologize for her actions and in fact has refused to even acknowledge them (Reason.com, “Kamala Harris Hopes You’ll Forget Her Record as a Drug Warrior and Draconian Prosecutor,” 01.31.2019). At a town hall, she responded to a question calling her out on her past actions by answering “I’ve been consistent my whole career,” and then explained how the record supports her claim that she has been progressive on prison reform (CNN Twitter, “I’ve been consistent my whole career,” 01.28.2019).

I won’t delve into her argument because, in my view, it’s irrelevant. When you actively cover up police misconduct, try to keep a man who you know is innocent in prison and refuse to release nonviolent offenders because you need their involuntary labor, you don’t get to reframe your narrative.

Kamala Harris is not owed an audience. She is not entitled to one simply because she wants to be president. We should not give her the benefit of the doubt, because she refuses to even acknowledge her wrongdoings. We don’t have the right to forgive her; that right belongs to all the people she’s wronged over the course of her long career.

For that reason, I ask you not to vote for Kamala Harris in the primary, no matter how attractive a candidate she is or how well she explains away her inconsistent career. It’s possible that her past really won’t have much of an impact on how she’ll be as president, but why should we wait and see? The best-case scenario is that she’s a progressive who repeatedly violated her own principles so that she could promote her career. In the worst-case scenario, she’s just another corrupt, rotten, regressive prosecutor

I disagree with Trump and his economic policies. I've stated in other threads that I believe him to be a bloviator and his operations are influenced by what he learned as a NY real estate developer dealing with corrupt unions, corrupt officials, and mob influence. He reminds me of Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall.

But putting your eggs in the Kamala Harris basket doesn't seem like a winning strategy when so many democrats have vocally opposed her. I'm no political expert, and I'll most likely be proven wrong, but I don't see a huge voter turn out for a Biden/Kamala ticket. I predict another electoral college victory for Trump.

But regardless who wins - we still all lose.

[IlliniDave]

Huh? I recall Kamala Harris was easy on crime in 2003 when she became DA of SF. She had some big clashes against the SFPD over sentencing back then. I knew some Bay Area cops and they didn’t see her as an ally. I kind of forgot about her till now but my recollection was “easy on criminal punishment and tough on cops”. That’s just what I got from reading SF Chron headlines.

Yet she now has this hard stance on crime reputation.

So confusing. I guess it is pretty complicated. People grow. It was a long time ago.

I don't have the same up close view, but I did see Tulsi Gabbard (my favorite in the field) do a pretty good job tearing her a new one over her performance in that realm.

Sorry for linking a too-often untrustworthy source, but when she was the enemy of Biden and Warren, this was the official talking points.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opin ... stice.html

[7Wannabe5]

@IDave: The UAE/Israel news is on front page Wall Street Journal this morning along with article about Trump promoted seizure of Iranian oil heading to Venezuela.

[jacob]

At https://www.memeorandum.com/ which is a quick and comprehensive (alogorithmically run) way to see who is covering what and how much (note this may have changed 30 minutes from now), the UAE/Israel agreement is currently #3 and has been covered by: NYT, WaPo, NBC News, Breitbart, Politico, NYPost, theepochtimes, The Daily Beast, Haaretz, midleeastmonitor.com, WSJ, and Fox.

#1 is about USPS cuts and mail-in ballots (are they reporting THAT story on right-wing news? )
#2 is about how Biden chose Harris.

Memeorandum is also a good way to see if a given story is dominating or being completely ignored by one or more sides (serious-left, serious-right, conspiracy-left, conspiracy-right). They do track almost everything in real time, even government agency statements and significant bloggers.

[IlliniDave]

@IDave: The UAE/Israel news is on front page Wall Street Journal this morning along with article about Trump promoted seizure of Iranian oil heading to Venezuela.

That one doesn't surprise me. Typically I don't lump WSJ in with what I'm calling "corporate media" since their primary endeavor isn't to promote one political party over the other. And to be fair I did see later in the evening (indirectly) that MSNBC had picked it up, apparently live, and that Biden also apparently mentioned it at some point (to claim partial credit for the accomplishment). I didn't see it anywhere on CNN or MSNBCs front page last night just prior to responding to nomadscientist's remarks on Trump's recent reduced profile in the media. Very well could be there on both this morning as well.

Hadn't heard about the oil seizure, although the only news I've seen this morning is a passive glance on AOL (ie huff post) a few minutes ago which I have to endure (2 pages worth) to get to my personal email. A paraphrase of the top headlines: A baseball player admits he didn't follow covid protocols, Biden promises to make everyone wear a mask, Trump is stupid, criticism of KH are lies, and administration escalates assault on affirmative action (i.e., DoJ warns Yale their admissions policy is discriminatory and action will follow if they don't change it). So in their defense more of a national than international focus.

[Hristo Botev]

I know it's not for everyone, or a possibility for everyone, but I've absolutely LOVED abandoning all the various online and TV news outlets in exchange for my local city paper (in print). I feel a bit like I'm living back in 1985, but I start the morning with about 30 minutes or so of reading the paper, which I think does a pretty good job of unbiased reporting, or at least trying to tell both sides of a story. I get all the news I need, without feeling as if someone--be they on the right or the left--is trying to weaponize me. FWIW, the paper this morning covered the UAE/Israel story (on page 2 I think), the Iran oil thing (on page 4), and mask fight stories (page 1).

[bottlerocks]

This narrative of boring => no votes is funny. What was so exciting about the 2018 midterms that got people out in numbers? Also, I see a bit of a Streisand Effect when it comes to mail-in ballots. Lots of young adults (ignorantly) didn't realize how low-effort and effective it was to vote by mail before DT started running his mouth and posturing.

[Hristo Botev]

This narrative of boring => no votes is funny.

I hope I'm wrong; but I worry that with boring we're left exactly where we were in 2016, with the Dems carrying the popular vote and the Repubs carrying the electoral college, with no mandate one way or the other and a whole lot of screaming and finger pointing about cheating. If Trump's base really is just 30-some percent, how wonderful if we had "boring" Biden/Harris winning with something over 60%, with a landslide "mandate" (1) against Trump and (2) for boring (and moderate).

[IlliniDave]

HB, I've never been a news hawk and unfortunately the local paper has shrunk to almost nothing. I quit receiving it nearly 20 years ago when I learned that I could tunnel into my echo chamber of choice online (centered on the sports teams I follow, not politics). I get passive exposure to CNN at work (24-7 in the lobby) and as mentioned above, AOL/Huff Post to get to personal email. I used to try to balance ~20 min of NPR news on the radio when commuting in the morning with the same amount of time during the evening commute with either Hannity or Levin depending on the time. That spans left and right, but it was news on one hand versus opinion shows on the other. I don't listen to either any more. Instead once or twice a week I'll put Tucker Carlson on while noodling on a guitar and watch one or two of Bret Weinstein's Darkhorse Podcasts on YT each week to sort of balance right/left. I find both entertaining and thought-provoking although I don't align with either of them particularly well.

You are lucky to have a print newspaper that still tries to practice journalism. The paper here is almost 100% printouts of the news feed services with a sprinkling of local interest stories (if theu don't get picked up by the services).

[Hristo Botev]

You are lucky to have a print newspaper that still tries to practice journalism. The paper here is almost 100% printouts of the news feed services with a sprinkling of local interest stories (if theu don't get picked up by the services).

Definitely lucky about the paper. I'd say probably half of the stories in Section A are from the AP, the NYT, or the WaPo, etc., but honestly I rarely read much past the first paragraphs of those stories because, to quote Emerson, "If I know your sect, I anticipate your argument"; the AP seems to be an exception to that, however. But the stuff written by the paper's staff, which are either the local version of a national story (e.g., masks), or a purely local story, are really quite good and informative. A couple of my friends who are very smart and thoughtful (if left-leaning ) used to write for the paper, and though they've since moved on to more profitable outlets where they write viewpoint-driven journalism, they convinced me that the $$$ for the paper was worth it (though they tried to convince me to do the much cheaper e-paper, but I knew getting my news from a computer would lead me to chasing down rabbitholes of other online news outlets).

To be fair, however, I still consume plenty of narrative-affirming opinion "news," I just do it in the form of podcasts (First Things; Conservative Minds; The Classicist; and NYT's The Argument (I listen for Douthat); along with various Catholic podcasts). And, of course, through this forum!

[IlliniDave]

At https://www.memeorandum.com/ which is a quick and comprehensive (alogorithmically run) way to see who is covering what and how much (note this may have changed 30 minutes from now), the UAE/Israel agreement is currently #3 and has been covered by: NYT, WaPo, NBC News, Breitbart, Politico, NYPost, theepochtimes, The Daily Beast, Haaretz, midleeastmonitor.com, WSJ, and Fox.

#1 is about USPS cuts and mail-in ballots (are they reporting THAT story on right-wing news? )
#2 is about how Biden chose Harris.

Memeorandum is also a good way to see if a given story is dominating or being completely ignored by one or more sides (serious-left, serious-right, conspiracy-left, conspiracy-right). They do track almost everything in real time, even government agency statements and significant bloggers.

Cool resource. Have to add MSNBC (I saw the clip myself on YT) and allegedly Don Lemon mocked Trump over someone involved in the negotiations suggesting DT should be considered for Nobel Peace Prize, or some such, so they have to be included too.

Post office cuts have been ongoing for some time (my SiL and his mother work there). Fox and their ilk must be asleep at the switch--I don't think Trump has the authority to cut funding, but him opposing additional funding to facilitate massive mail-in voting (what could possibly go wrong with that?) would be something most of the Trump demographic (editorialists and their reader/viewership) would laud, I would think.

Edit: Did you see #4 is that Trump requested a Florida mail-in ballot for himself? The next three months will be the Mariana Trench of irony.

[jacob]

... in exchange for my local city paper (in print). I feel a bit like I'm living back in 1985, but I start the morning with about 30 minutes or so of reading the paper, which I think does a pretty good job of unbiased reporting, or at least trying to tell both sides of a story. I get all the news I need, without feeling as if someone--be they on the right or the left--is trying to weaponize me. ...

One book to add to your reading list. It describes how local news were systematically used (or weaponized) in "poisoning the well" strategies by sending in articles, opeds, etc. which the papers would publish w/o much diligence/verification due to their relatively small budgets and research apartments. Being generally believed to be unbiased it also means that local news and their readers aren't checking/aware when such bias is deliberately injected.

https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/Book-Re ... s-of-Doubt

I don't know how much of an issue this is now that we have social media and troll farms which offers an even cheaper and more effective way than having a bunch of think tank wonks mailing out "free" articles to thousands of small newspapers. It might have resolved entirely in favor of the internet for all I know, but never assume for a moment that something is pure or not part of the information battleground just because it's local.

[Hristo Botev]

Where's the "Smilie" for Jacob raining on my parade?

[horsewoman]

In that regard I found the book "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media" by Noam Chomsky very scary/enlightening. Lots of it is analysis of the coverage of the Vietnam War and similar past wars, but I suppose the mechanisms are still the same or worse.

I'm almost afraid to post this.... don't eat me, I know Chomsky is way too left for most American sensibilities, but remember I'm German ;) your "left" is our "moderate, going towards right", or something like that).

[IlliniDave]

...

But regardless who wins - we still all lose.

I didn't spot this last night. Probably the most succinct summary of the 2020 election possible.

[Frita]

In that regard I found the book "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media" by Noam Chomsky very scary/enlightening.

I'm almost afraid to post this.... don't eat me, I know Chomsky is way too left for most American sensibilities, but remember I'm German your "left" is our "moderate, going towards right", or something like that).

I like Chomsky. Personally, I think both sides (of the same coin) participate in the same strategies.

Here’s a link to a video summarizing “Manufacturing Consent,” just scroll down. (Note that I have not read the book.) http://www.openculture.com/2017/03/an-a ... nsent.html

[nomadscientist]

That's true and false - in some ways the American right is way to the left of Germany.

[CS]

That's true and false - in some ways the American right is way to the left of Germany.

How so?

But regardless who wins - we still all lose.

Absolutely not true. I would like to keep my healthcare, thank you very much. I would like my trans friends to keep their lives. I would like to live in a country where we have a rational response to a pandemic. Where rule of law is protected.

I also like social security, medicaid, medicare, good working hours and paid time off, banking protections for the consumer. Were theses things enacted equally by both sides? No. Not even close.

I've worked in many different states and there is a huge difference in the experiences of people based in where they live. I've grown up in a land of strong consumer protections, aka hugely democratic stronghold, and in some states it is a constant experience of why do you put up with this? Many states I refused to even consider working in because it was worse than that. Kansas ffs was bad enough and they had some progressive laws on the books.

But 2016 took it to a level I'd never seen in my lifetime. The knuckling under of any principles I could have gotten behind in the Republican party, such as a balanced budget have removed any pretense of them being close to the same.

After 2016 I kicked to the curb any purity voters in my personal life and that ban still holds. 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. That ban still holds today. I come here to read other opinions, but when it come to real life and standards, those are mine.

ETA - I recently had an experience with a healthcare facility in Arizona, having gone to an Urgent Care during a vacation. They threatened and bullied with a huge bill. The contempt and outright cruelty in which they behaved was unbelievable. Clearly, this is something they get away with. I think the first guy actually laughed at me. If I had not lived in the state I lived in, with the people here, I don't know what would have happened. Turns out what they were doing was illegal. My insurance company had to call several times to them and finally file formal legal complaint. I would NEVER live in that state. I doubt I'll ever set foot in it again. It is dangerous.

[Loner]

https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/Book-Re ... s-of-Doubt

One book to add to your reading list. It describes how [national] news [is] systematically used (or weaponized) in "poisoning the well" strategies by sending in articles, opeds, etc. which the papers would publish w/o much diligence/verification due to their relatively small budgets and research apartments. Being generally believed to be unbiased it also means that [national] news and their readers aren't checking/aware when such bias is deliberately injected.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/279 ... earth-news

All jokes aside, it is true that local news is less likely to less biased in some circumstances. The reason big media is biased on national politics is due to where they get their funding from (big corporation) advertisers, who take a lot of interest in national politics since it can affect them very much. So their coverage and biais will reflect this. Small, local media OTOH, get their money from (small and local business) advertisers. As long as the paper writes about topics that are not of primary interest to them (i.e. local and international politics), they are much more at liberty to publish whatever, since those small business aren't as likely to complain/stop advertising. Sure, they have small research budgets, and they might publish poorly worked-out pieces, but in terms of bias, they are sometimes a good source of information. (National papers are now run by PR people, really.) Many times they'll be the only papers covering certain topics that should be of much higher importance (Chomsky documents instances of this in many of his books).