Ah yes, picking the fucking cop just as people are asking to defund cops.
Or as someone else put it, the field is now down to a segregationist/rapist & criminal prosecutor vs. a billionaire/rapist & christian dominionist, all four of whom are ardent capitalists.
2) Is she or is she not a duplicitous, self-serving finger-in-the-wind politician who will say anything and do anything to advance her own career and who has not a single conviction or belief or principle she's not willing to abandon at a moment's notice when convenient.
(2) is easier because it's a matter of opinion so I can state mine and leave it at that. I prefer not to argue politics so I'll resist the temptation to clap back on any disagreements of opinion about the lady. I lived in the SF area and have watched her career since her Willie Brown days so my opinion is not casual but is the result of decades of following her career. I just mention a couple of items but there are dozens.
*When she was the Attorney General of California she busted large numbers of pot smokers; then when she declared her candidacy she gave an interview and bragged about being a stoner and gave her trademark cloying giggle which frankly makes me want to strangle her. It's so effing insincere and shows that she is emotionally disconnected from the serious consequences in people's lives.
* She also gave that sadistic and not-cute-though-she-thinks-it-is giggle when she was interviewed about throwing an African-American single mom into jail because her kid was truant. Expect to see the Trump campaign playing this clip.
* She sought to keep prisoners is jail longer than their sentences for the free labor. Apologies for the RW source but a lot of the Internet's been scrubbed in prep for her candidacy. Yeah that happens.
Anyway I could pile on all day. She's devoid of compassion for the people she supposedly serves and has no principles or human decency whatever. I oppose her totally.
(1) That said, all in all I think it's a very good political pick, probably the best. One. Kamala's big with the Clinton and Obama people. She's part of the neoliberal centrist Dem establishment. The money will pour in from Wall Street and the big donors. The Biden/Harris ticket IS the centrist DNC. Now maybe a couple of months ago this wouldn't have been such a good idea. But today you have the Dems tacking back to the center amid the chaos in the cities. Rather than pick a bombthrower they're picking a prosecutor. The calculation is: The left will have to vote for us anyway because Trump. So the pick did NOT throw a bone to the left. They doubled down on the Biden wing. AOC and Bernie lost today no matter what kind of rhetoric they put in front of Biden to read. This is a centrist ticket. So the question is: Will the left show up for this pair of corporatists?
She has some big weaknesses. In the primaries voters sensed her insincerity a mile away. Her campaign faded before the first primary contest.
She is great with prepared soundbites. "That little girl was me." The problem is she ALWAYS backs down the next day. After hitting Joe on busing it turned out that Harris's busing policy is basically the same as Joe's. And she did that same thing over and over: deliver a sharp line one day and walk her position back the next. Voters didn't like her in the primaries and she didn't get any more likable since then.
Her street cred is dubious. Black? Her mom is Indian, her dad's Jamaican, her grandfather owned a slave plantation. And this is an election season where a lot of African-American voters are tired of the Dems' condescension as exemplified by Joe "you ain't black if you don't vote for me" remark and that other foot-in-mouth about Latinos being more diverse than Blacks. Kamala does not mitigate those issues in the least in my opinion.
Expect to hear the names of Anthony Bologna and his sons Michael and Matthew in the coming weeks. They were gunned down in San Francisco by an undocumented immigrant with multiple prior violent felonies. The killer had been protected from deportation by SF's sanctuary city policy as enforced by then-mayor Gavin Newsom and you-know-who Kamala, who was the SF district attorney at the time. The family pleaded with Harris to seek the death penalty but she opposed that. [For the record I also oppose the death penalty. I'm just talking about what the GOP will be saying here, not taking sides].
But does any of that matter? Middle class and elite liberals love her. The left can go pound sand, this is the DNC we're talking about, they ALWAYS screw their base. And where are the AOC and Bernie crowd going to go?
All the other possible candidates had much worse baggage. Liz might have had a chance but once Maxine Waters said that Joe better pick someone Black, that was the end of that.
So like I say, I hate her as a human being but I am not surprised and all in all, it's a solid pick. She does have appeal to a large segment of the Democratic voters and the mainstream big donors. The rest can shut up and accept the corporatocracy. The DNC has decreed it. Again. Whatever happens, do not be fooled by any leftist rhetoric. This is the Wall Street and war ticket. A big winner in Dem circles lately, isn't that sad?
Reply to Xtrix The Democrat strategy is to play the sex/race card. Narrowing your picks based on sex and race will severely limit your choices if you're also trying to win over a battleground state. So the Dems are putting all their political eggs in one basket - identity politics.
ps to my previous post ... She doesn't bring in a state. California goes to the Democrat, period. Running up the score in a state you've already won does not help you, as Hillary found out. The more I think about this, the more I wonder if she's going to turn people off. As we saw in the primaries, she has superficial appeal to a lot of people but once they see her in action they don't like her. But what was Joe's other choice? Every other African-American female had major problems (Bass = commie, Demings = cop, etc) and Liz and Tammy were too pale for Maxine Waters. So it goes in the late stages of the empire.
creativesoulAugust 12, 2020 at 04:16#4422210 likes
The last thing this imploding republic needs is 'more politicking sizzle & less governing steak' in the WH. Perhaps the senator would have made a great AG after Sessions' & Barr's banana republicanization of the DoJ ...
Wait I figured this out. Kamala is the white liberal's idea of an acceptable black person. Not unlike half-black Obama. That's the play. And the media are all calling her Black as if on cue. I'm thinking that actual African-American voters won't fall for it but we shall see.
Reply to StreetlightX It's a referendum on the incumbent and not a choice election, remember? re: "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" blah blah blah ...
Reply to fishfryI am black - and as far as we are concerned - Senator Harris is black, especially (though not only) because she identifies herself as black. Nonblacks - whether "whites" or not, "liberals" or not - don't get to define the color-ethnic identity of anyone else but themselves or their own. That's colonialist, sir; that's racist. :shade:
So the Dems are putting all their political eggs in one basket - identity politics.
Oh right. As if every other US presidential ticket of white males has not been rooted in "identity politics" ... STFD.
Enai De A LukalAugust 12, 2020 at 06:11#4422540 likes
Reply to 180 Proof no, see, white identity politics (like the white identity/grievance/fake-victim politics that got Donald Trump elected) magically doesn't count as identity politics, because reasons. Identity politics of any other identity, otoh, now that's identity politics.
Enai De A LukalAugust 12, 2020 at 06:14#4422560 likes
And the Harris pick is... meh. Would have preferred an actual progressive or someone with a less wildly inconsistent record, but there certainly were worse options than Harris and its not like the VP pick actually matters in any significant way anyways, so mostly its a whoopty-fucking-do afaic.
Enai De A LukalAugust 12, 2020 at 06:15#4422580 likes
the more positive news today, imo, is that Ilhan Omar steamrolled her rightwing-funded opponent in her primary this evening (woot!), which effectively means she was re-elected since the 5th Congressional district in MN is about as strongly/safely Dem as you can find, making the general election mostly a formality. :cool:
From where I sit (Australia, but with a son who is permanent US resident), Kamala Harris looks great. Liked her from the outset (and follow US politics with a keen interest.)
But the racial symbolism seems to be the headline - Black and of Indian Descent. (Oh yeah, and also a lawyer). How is it not about identity politics? It’s racial and gender identity first. I don’t want to comment on racial politics - what really strikes me is ‘the society of the spectacle’ the ‘panopticon’ or Baudrillard. Race/gender first - how s/he appears first, before anything about policy or principle. I would like to have thought that the principle of a non-racist culture was that ethnic heritage didn’t account for much, that it was secondary or incidental, but it’s so obviously front and centre.
Make no mistake, if I were a US voter I would be a Democrat - all my new in-laws are - and I’m hoping that moron in chief gets the shellacking he so richly deserves. But I wish it were more about policy.
Actually not even policy, so much, but ideas. World seems barrelling full-tilt towards some kind of Armageddon, yet the headline is....well, you know.....
On the other hand, to answer my own objection, 'it has to work on TV'. This being the situation we're in, whomever was chosen had to be telegenic and answer a variety of perceived needs. Hopefully it doesn't end there and I really don't believe it does - I'm longing for a big change in American politics, and hopefully Biden and Harris will be that change. There's only so much doom and gloom you can take in a single year. :sad:
How does she appeal to anyone besides establishment Democrats?
Biden has repeatedly said he will be a transition president, so he may be taking the long view. Black and brown voters will soon form the majority in America. When the Dems first pick Obama, and now Harris, they are essentially locking in a majority for some time to come. And then the Repubs help out by electing and then supporting a loud mouth ass who routinely disrespects both Blacks and Hispanics.
I am black - and as far as we are concerned - Senator Harris is black, especially (though not only) because she identifies herself as black. Nonblacks - whether "whites" or not, "liberals" or not - don't get to define the color-ethnic identity of anyone else but themselves or their own. That's colonialist, sir; that's racist. :shade:
I agree in part and disagree in part. Historically, bright line definitions of race have been used for nefarious purposes. Whether it be the discrimination of blacks, Jews, the Japanese, or any other group of people being placed upon particular suspicion, it's never a good sign when the majority population starts searching another's ancestral history for impurity and declaring who's fit and who's not.
There's a curious distinction in the Kamala Harris situation because those you accuse of racism are trying to declare her non-black. That is, they are trying to claim she's less qualified for the lofty position of VP due to her non-blackness, meaning being black in this situation is a benefit, not a detriment. An interesting consequence of progress, I suppose.
This situation reared its head more notoriously in the Rachel Dolezal case, which you'll recall was a white woman who self-identified and presented as black and rose to the position of president of her local NAACP chapter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal. That case challenges the significance of self-identification as being a basis to establish race, and it offers legitimacy to the argument that a search of ancestral history should be the final determinant in establishing one's race. That is to say, if we can negate Dolezal's claims of blackness based upon an analysis of her genes, then we can challenge Harris' claims of blackness based upon an analysis of her genes.
The problem, I'd submit, is our ethical acceptance that race matters. I live in the same world as you, and I fully understand that race does in fact matter, but I have a problem in claiming it ought matter. While Biden wants to be President and he realizes the reality is that he must choose a black running mate, the fact that he might choose someone on the basis of race does not make it the ethically right thing to do. Harris should be chosen by the content of her character and not the color of her skin. That sentence ends with a indelible period.
The point being that whether Harris is black, and whether you believe her to be black ought be entirely irrelevant to this whole discussion. To those who argue Harris is not black and therefore should not be voted for by other blacks, I share in your calls of racism and your objections to her trying to be delegitimatized. Logic, however, dictates the same calls of racism to any who might vote for her because she is black, meaning anyone who delves into the debate of whether she is or is not black enough seems to be conceding that her blackness matters. It shouldn't.
She's devoid of compassion for the people she supposedly serves and has no principles or human decency whatever. I oppose her totally.
(1) That said, all in all I think it's a very good political pick, probably the best. One. Kamala's big with the Clinton and Obama people.
Sounds like a great political pick! You couldn't have the Clinton and Obama people unhappy, could you?
I can feel the enthusiasm from other commentators here too.
CiceronianusAugust 12, 2020 at 15:49#4423670 likes
If the concern is solely whether the choice increases the chances of the Democrats winning the presidency--and I assume that was ultimately the sole concern--the choice is probably a good one, compared to others.
Someone to appease the donor class and someone for the media to faun over. That’s all the Dems need. Now they can run the campaign on “making history” while covering for both their garbage careers.
Her selection as VP strikes me as long term strategy by the Democratic elite to forcibly insert her as new face(ade) of the progressive wing of the democratic party, purely through her identity as black woman rather than actual political positions, at the expense of actual progressive women and men of color, in order to retain control of the technocratic/corporatist wing of the party. Despite lackluster support during her presidential run, which ended, laughably, prior to the primary election, she'll be well positioned for a presidential run and retain power for the technocrats in 2024 or 2028 through 2036 at the latest potentially thwarting actual progressive/left-wing women of color (or anyone else for that matter).
Pretty obvious that Kamala is Black since the Right is already trying to do birtherism on her
Enai De A LukalAugust 13, 2020 at 05:38#4425390 likes
Reply to Maw at least its been amusing to see the rightwingers twisting themselves into pretzels trying to figure out how to attack Harris- she's a cop but also she's anti-cop, she's not really black but also she was only selected as VP because she's black, etc. Poor hapless morons can't even get their stories straight.
Reply to Enai De A Lukal If someone in the Democratic party predicted that and chose Harris because of that, it would be pretty bloody smart.
Enai De A LukalAugust 13, 2020 at 07:16#4425780 likes
Reply to Benkei I mean, I know what you mean, but I tend to think that trying to anticipate and forestall whatever disingenuous BS Trump and the GOP is going to argue is a pointless endeavor. Its not like there was any VP selection that Biden could make that Trump or Republican voters were going to support, so why concern yourself with pre-empting their bad faith arguments at all? Nobody who was susceptible to such arguments was ever going to vote for Biden in the first place, such arguments are only ever intended to preach to the choir.
(although as it happens, I suspect that this was very explicitly part of their deliberation process and a major selling-point in favor of Harris- i.e. hard to label her as some "defund the police" leftist given her record as prosecutor/DA, and as always Dems are overeager to prove their commitment to "law and order" politics/rhetoric, i.e. the prison/industrial complex and modern police/incarceratory state)
Oh right. As if every other US presidential ticket of white males has not been rooted in "identity politics"
According to Joe Biden, all blacks think alike, and the only way to get you to vote for him is to choose a black person as VP.
The problem is seeing someone with a different skin color and thinking that there is no way that that person could possibly share any interests that you have, or can't be representative of you, because they have a different skin color.
If blacks want whites to see themselves in George Floyd, then blacks need to see themselves in the twice as many unarmed whites that get shot by police and protest when that happens too. The inconsistency of BLM is clearly indicative of their racism and privilege they posses.
If blacks want whites to see themselves in George Floyd, then blacks need to see themselves in the twice as many unarmed whites that get shot by police and protest when that happens too.
The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average.
It's misleading to look at raw numbers and not proportionality to population if you want to determine if there's racial bias.
Also, to pre-empt one possible "excuse":
As such, the results of this study provide evidence that there is racial bias in police shootings that is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates, and is related to either: 1) racial bias in police encountering suspects/civilians, or 2) racial bias by police in the use of force upon encountering suspects/civilians.
Deleted UserAugust 13, 2020 at 10:31#4426050 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
The US left is a cesspool of Identity politics and interfering with individual freedom.
Kamala Harris fits right in. Its notable that she is considered "black" when she has an Indian mother.
This highlights the absurdity of "race" as a descriptor and the purely political reason for identifying as a particular race. The left loves its racism and sexism.
Kamala! She’s black, she’s definitely not a socialist, and best of all... she’s not Hilary! Hooray... :roll:
Kamala is black. Yes. Does she have “soul”. No. (Very sorry to say).
Looks like the DNC is screwing the “real Left” (whatever that is... or was) gently with a chainsaw...
Biden: “Yea, thanks for the help kids and Bernie Bros... nice protesting there. Real passion, very believable. Now, if y’all don’t mind, let the grownups, the real pros take over from here... ”
I was trying to swallow the prospect of Biden as president, because Trump. But dammit, it’s only getting harder. I’m starting to wretch again. You can’t polish a turd or swallow it... but you can choose one to steer the USS TITANIC to greater glory. Vote for Bile/Hairball 2020!
[i]I know your deeds; you are neither cold nor hot. How I wish you were one or the other! So because you are lukewarm— neither hot nor cold— I am about to vomit you out of My mouth!
-Rev 3:16[/i]
(I’m voting for an independent candidate: Matt Foley. At least then we can be guaranteed some gov’t cheese while living in a van down by the river.)
Thanks @fishfry for the in-depth look at Harris’s dubious career. :up:
Her selection as VP strikes me as long term strategy by the Democratic elite to forcibly insert her as new face(ade) of the progressive wing of the democratic party, purely through her identity as black woman rather than actual political positions, at the expense of actual progressive women and men of color, in order to retain control of the technocratic/corporatist wing of the party. Despite lackluster support during her presidential run, which ended, laughably, prior to the primary election, she'll be well positioned for a presidential run and retain power for the technocrats in 2024 or 2028 through 2036 at the latest potentially thwarting actual progressive/left-wing women of color (or anyone else for that matter).
:up: Yep. (Unfortunately).
When someone on the far left starts to wonder if there’s an upside to a Chump/Pants second term... not good. (“When’s the next train for Canada leaving? What’d ya mean Canada closed its borders? The USA would never do tha... oh, wait. Never mind...”).
I voted good pick. I think her and Corey Booker are similar, Corey perhaps a bit more articulate. Nevertheless, I like that she's a woman of mixed race who can effectively speak to dumper-trumper's racism, misogyny and other character flaws.
Being a moderate independent, this is the closest we'll get to center (I am partial to folks like John Kaisick and other moderate Republican's). I think it's a winning formula. If nothing else, it's a protest vote just to get the guy out ( much like what some did when voting for dumper-trumper viz Hillary).
Deleted UserAugust 13, 2020 at 14:06#4426700 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
If I could have a wish, it would be that the US right would find its Jim Jones and have their own Jonestown.
Umm, what? :chin: Just calling it like I see it. Not going to make excuses for anybody’s actions, whatever “side” they are on. Though left-leaning, I appreciate the Republicans who call out Trump (it’s a full time job) for his activities. I would criticize Bernie when it was warranted... if he were even running, lol.
Sounds like a great political pick! You couldn't have the Clinton and Obama people unhappy, could you?
Remember, the DNC would rather lose with the centrists than let the Bernie brigade take over the party. That's their mission. Hence Biden. And now hence Kamala. The GOP are making a mistake trying to call her a leftist. If only! Friend of the little guy? Don't get me started on the African-American single mom with two kids and two jobs who Kamala laughed about putting in jail because her kid was truant. Kamala got hammered from the left for that.
But the main point is to watch what the DNC did in 2016 and again in 2020. The DNC is at war with their own left. The GOP is a secondary target. If Biden wins, fine. If Biden loses, at least the Biden/Clinton/Obama wing of the party is in control for the next four years. That is the lens through which one processes the Kamala appointment.
And Bernie's on board. Don't know if his followers will be, but Bernie himself is meek as a newborn kitten lately. The DNC gave AOC 60 seconds of speaking time. LOL. That's what the DNC thinks of the new radical left.
Pretty obvious that Kamala is Black since the Right is already trying to do birtherism on her
Hi Maw, I just want to make one point here which is that the GOP so far is missing the mark on their attacks on Kamala. There's so much substantive stuff but Trump's calling her names and GOPs claim she's a leftist and so forth. I wouldn't put much stock in that. I hate Kamala but I am capable of noticing that the GOP attacks are wildly off the mark so far. And calling her names is cheap and low, it's not 2016 anymore and Trump's no longer funny and refreshing.
It's a matter of political fact that Kamala did very poorly with African-Americans during the primaries. Sank like a stone.
I do distinguish between her personal racial identity, which I don't care about; and her political racial identity, which changes depending on her audience. I don't care if you call her black or not. The question is, does she resonate with American blacks? And the answer is no. That's not an opinion, that was demonstrated in the primaries.
A Rasmussen poll came out today. 1/3 of likely black voters say they are LESS likely to vote Dem as a result of Kamala's selection as veep. Guess black folk can spot a phony, what do you think?
That's not my metric. Trump just got a peace deal today. Biden falsely claimed it was his and the Dems are upset. Remember that in 2016 and 2020 it's Trump who is the peace candidate. That's important to me and informs my vote. For what it's worth I live in California so my vote doesn't matter no matter what I do. The Clinton/Obama neoliberal wing of the party loves war. That was and is a great point of departure of my own political sensibilities from that of the Democratic party and even contemporary liberals. Joe Biden has a fifty year track record of supporting every war that came along. And the Dems and liberals have embraced the national security state (as long as it's framing Trump); which they used to instinctively distrust. My views didn't change but the Democrats did.
Reply to fishfry Your metric, as an American, is that two other countries signed a peace treaty formalising how their relation has been for years? Maybe you should get your priorities straight and look closer to home.
? Maybe you should get your priorities straight and look closer to home.
As I took pains to indicate, I vote in California so that there is no danger that my political opinions could have any effect on the presidential race. I thought that might perhaps forestall anyone from jumping in only to say that they hold an opinion different than mine. I see I was mistaken. That said, my priorities are straight. It's the Dems and the left who went insane.
Most people voted "don't care." You really should. The science is pretty clear about what humanity is facing, and it will effect all of us and all of our children. I'm talking specifically about climate change. This election is too important not to care.
Deleted UserAugust 17, 2020 at 02:32#4437300 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
But the main point is to watch what the DNC did in 2016 and again in 2020. The DNC is at war with their own left. The GOP is a secondary target. If Biden wins, fine. If Biden loses, at least the Biden/Clinton/Obama wing of the party is in control for the next four years. That is the lens through which one processes the Kamala appointment.
The fact is that Democratic party is a centrist party that knows it will get leftists to vote for it ...because there is no leftist party in the US!
Of course, there are many European Social Democratic Parties which leave capitalism and globalization alone and even promote them (starting with the Blairite wing of the Labor Party in the UK).
It's the Dems and the left who went insane.
— fishfry
In what way?
Even if you don't agree with the points I might make in response; I'm sure that if you follow politics you can at least imagine the points that might be made. Consider them made. I haven't got time over the next few days to respond to the comments I'd elicit from a more detailed response; otherwise I'd just let 'er rip. But really, it's a very long story. The day Teddy killed a girl and the Dems and liberals rallied behind him, that was the first time my leftist faith was shaken. It's been a long journey. But just two nights ago Colin Powell spoke at the DNC. Colin Powell who lied to the UN to assist Bush and the New York Times in lying the country into a ruinous war. You see the Dems are all in for the wars now. From Hillary's historic vote for the Iraq war, to Colin Powell speaking at the Democrat convention, is a straight line of descent into madness.
?fishfry I am black - and as far as we are concerned - Senator Harris is black, especially (though not only) because she identifies herself as black. Nonblacks - whether "whites" or not, "liberals" or not - don't get to define the color-ethnic identity of anyone else but themselves or their own. That's colonialist, sir; that's racist. :shade:
Thank you for such a heartfelt and, may I say, provocative post. For what it's worth, questions of Ms. Harris's race are all over the media, both right and left. I'm not the only one who has questions and comments about her ethnic identity as it pertains to politics.
I don't care how she personally identifies or what her race is. But as a political player competing for high office and great power; everything about her is in play, including her race. She was chosen for her race. So I must stand my ground on at least one point: That I have every right, as a political observer, to discuss her race in the context of politics.
If I implied that I had any interest in her race of a non-political, or personal nature, that was surely not my intention and if I did that it would have been a case of poor writing on my part to fail to make that clear. I'm talking politics; and when it comes to politics, everything is in play.
You represent modern sensibilities. You think your ethnic identity informs or amplifies or contextualizes the words you say. I'm from an older generation. I'm with Dr. King. I dream of the day when we are judged on the content of our character; and not the color of our skin. For that matter I'm with Michael Jackson: "It don't matter if you're black or white."
So I do understand that when you say you're black, it's important to you for rhetorical purposes. But for me, the meaning and power of your writing is in the writing; and not in the "meat pack" as some white rapper used to say.
- and as far as we are concerned - Senator Harris is black,
[/quote]
You act like you speak for all black people. But you can only speak for yourself. I could link African-Americans saying this past week that Harris has not lived an authentic African-American life. Black opinion is not monolithic, despite what Joe Biden thinks. There is some evidence that your certainty of what black people think is inaccurate. Harris did very poorly in the Democratic primaries and polled very badly among blacks. I'm not saying they didn't think she was black ... but whatever they thought about her race, they didn't think much about her as a candidate.
especially (though not only) because she identifies herself as black.
Oh my gosh are you going to make me bring up the spectacular case of Rachel Dolezal? An emotionally disturbed young woman who frizzed her hair and claimed she was black? She was even president her her local chapter of the NAACP, until news of her complete absence of African-American ancestry was revealed and she was forced to resign. Is she black because she says she is? Am I?
How about Liz Warren? Claimed to be Native-American, did use that lie for professional advantage even though she says she didn't. When the issue finally blew up after her fiasco of a DNA test, the actual Native-American leaders blasted her six ways from Sunday.
Self-identification is not much of a standard in my opinion. Is that all she's got? Indian mom, Jamaican dad (going back generations, no African ancestors in sight, and ownership of a slave plantation to boot), Jewish husband. So she fits a checkmark for black on the Dem ticket? You really think the African-American voters will buy it? We shall see. Myself I think it's a cynical play by the Dems. That is a point of politics. Her "actual" race doesn't matter. Some experts think there's no such thing as race. The politics of her race are what matters; and that is a legitimate subject of discussion.
Nonblacks - whether "whites" or not, "liberals" or not - don't get to define the color-ethnic identity of anyone else but themselves or their own.
Bullshit. I have freedom of speech and the Constitution does not say I can't make political observations of a racial nature. I am NOT making a personal judgment about Harris's race, I don't care about her race on a personal basis. Politically, I think it's quite cynical of the Dems to slot in someone like Kamala for an ethnic slot. I think deep down you know exactly what I'm saying.
I'm so not a racist that remark didn't even push my buttons. It's silly. That the best you can do?
By the way can you just tell me exactly what it was that I said that led you to this? You didn't quote any of my text and I don't remember writing anything about Harris that isn't already well-known by people who've followed her career.
creativesoulAugust 21, 2020 at 02:54#4451630 likes
Yes most definitely. He has not started any new wars. The Dems are chomping at the bit for more wars. The selection of Biden is a huge win for the war party. Don't you remember the 2016 GOP debates when Trump knocked Jeb! out of the contest by attacking him for his brother W's war? Trump has always been for peace and against the bipartisan War party. What can I do to wake liberals up to that? Hillary was a bloodthirsty warmonger. On Obama's watch we destroyed Libya, Syrian, and Yemen. The neoliberal Democrats are ascendent in the party. Only Trump stand for peace. If the fools on the left manage to elect Biden, you will see.
Are you claiming to be completely unaware of Biden's fifty year record of passionate warmongering? Serious question. Do you know his record? Biden voted for the Iraq war and promoted it with passion. He has been for every war since he's been in Washington. Don't you even know this? Trump is the only one out there for peace.
Reply to fishfryRes ipsa loquitur (or, more your speed, "it is what it is" re: your remarks). You doth protest too much - with ahistorical and banal rhetoric of privilege - methinks.
If an abortion was happening in front of me, i'd stop it. I think people would be tempted to as much evil if it was made illegal. All kinds of stuff. So I just ignore the issue
Res ipsa loquitur (or, more your speed, "it is what it is" re: your remarks). You doth protest too much - with ahistorical and banal rhetoric of privilege - methinks.
You think people's free speech rights are determined by the color of their skin. You're an actual racist.
That said, we're talking politics. Harris polls very badly with actual African-Americans. She flopped miserably in the primaries.
I'm disappointed you chose not to engage with anything I said. You claimed that self-identification is all that matters when it comes to race. I gave you the examples of Rachel Dolezal and Liz Warren and asked your opinion. Your silence speaks for you.
Deleted UserAugust 23, 2020 at 00:19#4457410 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
"Two weeks ago, Sen. Elizabeth Warren released the results of a genetic test showing she has a small but detectable amount of Native American DNA. The report concluded there is “strong evidence” she had a Native American ancestor approximately six to 10 generations ago. But many have misconstrued the results — including President Donald Trump, who wrongly claimed Warren “doesn’t have any Indian blood.”
I'm sure if you read into the details of your (unreferenced) article you would know that first, there are insufficient samples for scientists to have a specific marker for Native American blood. She might have something like 1/1024 south or central American indigenous blood: about as much as the average white person walking around. Your post is disingenuous in the extreme based on the factual content of that incident. And more to the point, actual Native American tribes were furious with her. It turns out that DNA tests are politically incorrect in the Native American community. Who knew! We all (except for you) learned that from the extensive reporting around her bungled DNA test.
Are you claiming to not have read these facts at the time?
Come on, man. This was beneath you. Do your homework. That test was a major political embarrassment for her. And it wasn't two weeks ago, it was in 2018.
[s]You[/s] think people's free speech rights are determined by the color of their skin. [s]You're[/s] an actual racist.
Yep, again you've no clue WTF you're talking about. At least from 1791 to 1965 non-white citizens of the United States effectively had no "free speech rights"which was/is racist (Faulkner). You clearly take for granted that just because you have "free speech" that I have to accept how you, a white person, uses that "right" to tell me, a non-white person, how we think, or should think, and whether or not non-whites have 'properly self-identified' according to your ignorant (old colonialist) standards. Well, that's the prerogative of a 173+ year old legacy of racist presumption. :shade:
Your words betray your oblivious, or willful, ignorance, mister, and I won't be baited into making futile attempts to drill through your privileged incorrigibility to inform or correct you now that you've flaunted your true colors. Agree to disagree, or not; there's surely no benefit on my end to talk at you any further (or past one another) about Kamala Harris or the social-political perceptions and proclivities ofnon-white citizenslike me.
Deleted UserAugust 23, 2020 at 01:32#4457510 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Yep, Read it then. And apparently the methodology was good. and yes, somewhere between 1/64th and 1/1024th. And yes, being a member of a tribe according to some tribes is political rather than blood. But what, exactly, did she claim? That family lore had her as part Indian, and that she was part Indian. The lore was wrong, but that's how it is with lore, but the testimony of her DNA supported her claim. And where does that leave us? With this question: what is your problem?
As with my remarks about Kamala Harris, my comments on Liz are political and not personal. Whatever you may think is the truth of the matter, as if such a thing exists ... after all we're all quarks from the Big Bang, all in the same quark tribe ... but there is no question that she was hurt badly POLITICALLY. Enough to peel off just enough support to keep her from going all the way in the primaries. She'd be a hell of a lot better candidate than Biden. I don't agree with Liz on much but I totally admire her brilliance and force of will.
That is why I linked a New York Times article whose main theme was the political damage she had done to herself with the DNA test.
I am just surprised you'd bring this up. The talking points are well known and thoroughly litigated in the media and online; and at this point even if it turned out that she was a full-blooded Native-American after all -- IT WOULD NOT MATTER. She had "phony" attached to her persona in a portion of the public's mind.
I can distinguish between political analysis and one's personal feelings. Not everyone does, especially these days. Why do you ask what is my problem? You are taking something personally, and I'm willing to listen to what you think that might be. Because even the NYT admits that the DNA stunt backfired and hurt her badly. Surely you do not dispute this, regardless of your feelings for her policies.
Why do you accuse me of personal ... what ... malevolence? wrongthink? whatever ... when from where I sit, I am typing in my opinions about the state of politics.Which might be different than yours.
And if you recall there was a greater point on the table (still is) so you are taking my remarks about Ms. Warren totally out of context.
I'm shaken by how 'mercans make an individual's race so pivotal.
There's a probably correct assumption that tribalism controls at some level and so people expect that someone of similar ethnic likeness will better protect their interests than someone not. That results in race based voting and in placing one's own in positions of power, which only perpetuates the problem.
It's especially a problem in Australia. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/world/australia/study-diversity-multicultural.html
Maybe because the point was already made rather clearly in this thread.
I wasn't reading the entire thread and I'm afraid I don't recall the referent for this remark. I'm pretty sure I've said my piece here. One individual (@180 Proof I'm discussing you so as a courtesy I'm tagging you so you'll see this. I'm not soliciting a reply or meaning to address you. Just think it would be rude to refer to you without letting you know) believes that not only are my ideas wrong, but that I don't even have the right to express them by virtue of personal characteristics of mine that the individual hasn't even bothered to inquire about and can't possibly know! Whether this kind of thinking will peak, crest, and fade away; or whether the US is headed for a re-run of Chairman Mao's cultural revolution, I can't say.
I do know that these political discussions sometimes turn into struggle sessions. Here's a photo of me after I shot off my two cents about Kamala.
Differing conclusions (or interpretations) are worthy of probitive discussion but not incommensurable premises (i.e. "facts").
If you ever want to exchange views I'd enjoy that. I know you're sincere. I think you're a victim of a terrible ideology that's sweeping the country. You have no idea of the struggles that have gone before.
But one thing. You have not given me the courtesy of telling me exactly what it is I said that bothered you. Tell me exactly what I said so that at least I know what you're talking about.
And on what evidence do you decide I have certain ethnic characteristics; decide that I'm the enemy on that basis; and declare that even speaking to me is unthinkable? Where did this insanity come from? You can't run a society that way. You hate me and you haven't a single shred of evidence as to who I am and what I am and where I've been. The fact that you "feeeeel" angry at me is enough for you to point the finger and cast me out of the world.
Your teachers and your society have failed you to have allowed you to believe this poison. It's on them, not you. You yourself are a perfectly decent person, one who should study a little history. I hope that you're young and that in your journey through life, you will come to some compassion and understanding. If you're old, there's no hope. Either way ... you've been led astray. You have toxic ideas.
Point and shame. If you get enough people to think and act the same way you can terrorize an entire country. For the record, I stand opposed. I stand for free speech, free expression, and free exchange of ideas, especially with those with whom you disagree.
180 ProofSeptember 10, 2020 at 05:11#4509750 likes
FOX Noise: fu45 to Bob Woodward, 2.7.20
https://youtu.be/5Z8nV10dFcw
"Trump knew in February. He knew that Covid-19 virus passed through the air. He knew it is deadlier than the flu. He knew it is dangerous to more than just our elderly and vulnerable. He purposely downplayed the pandemic. And now 190,000 Americans are dead."
~next VPOTUS, Sen. Kamala Harris, 9.9.20
Yes most definitely. He has not started any new wars.
Got very close with Iran. Really close.
After the drone attack on Qasem Soleimani, Iranians did retaliate by firing ballistic missiles into several US bases. First time US troops were attacked with ballistic missiles. With huge luck no US servicemen were killed, wounded casualties were 110 which, of course, the Trump administration was totally silent about and Trump lied about it:
The number of US troops who sustained traumatic brain injury when Iran launched missiles at their base in Iraq last month has risen to 110, the Pentagon said Friday.
The figure is one higher than the last toll, which was announced on February 10.
All of the wounded were diagnosed with mild traumatic brain injury, the Pentagon said in a statement, adding that 77 had already returned to duty. President Donald Trump had initially said that no Americans were hurt in the strike on the Ain al-Asad base in western Iraq on the night of January 7-8, although authorities later reported that nearly a dozen troops were wounded.
(The reason for brain injury and concussions was the blast wave from the explosions.)
. The Dems are chomping at the bit for more wars. The selection of Biden is a huge win for the war party. Don't you remember the 2016 GOP debates when Trump knocked Jeb! out of the contest by attacking him for his brother W's war?
He as the neocons were Republicans, as you likely know.
Reply to ssu
I was thinking of this as well - along with the many images shared on social media by supporters of Trump atop a tank in a cartoonish fashion, things exploding everywhere, Trump holding a bazooka or rifle. We also have neocon backers of Trump - the American Enterprise Institute is one, I believe. And then we have the Erik Prince association with the Administration through DeVos. Trump's book, [I]Time to Get Tough[/I], has a chapter simply entitled, "Take the Oil." I also recall a sort of to and fro "saber rattling" between Trump and North Korea. I also recall when Trump first announced his "America First" campaign in such a way that basically said something like we're steering the world order unilaterally - that's how it sounded to me at the time anyway - with the fairly ridiculous sounding sugar coating "as all nations should put their nations first" - I wondered how "peaceful" he struck the rest of the world watching. Trump kicking around the "China Virus" in concert with Pompeo reportedly encouraging the G7 to refer to it as the "Wuhan Virus" also raise an eyebrow.
Yes most definitely. He has not started any new wars.
— fishfry
Got very close with Iran. Really close.
Most definitely. Bolton was lusting for war and Trump wouldn't let him have it and fired him. Trump blusters about military strength and then avoids war. That's his style. Ignore everything Trump says, watch what he does. He's the most peace-oriented president we've had since Eisenhower, another guy who understood that you achieve peace by making your war threat credible.
In other words I disagree that Trump was ever close to war with Iran. He was never close to war with Iran. His words were not intentions, they were negotiating maneuvers in the service of peace. The actual results bear that out.
The Dems are chomping at the bit for more wars. The selection of Biden is a huge win for the war party. Don't you remember the 2016 GOP debates when Trump knocked Jeb! out of the contest by attacking him for his brother W's war?
— fishfry
He as the neocons were Republicans, as you likely know.
Yes indeed. Recall that in the 2016 GOP primaries, Trump blew Jeb! off the stage by going after 43's disastrous invasion of Iraq; an unthinkable heresy in the GOP up till then but a hugely popular position with the American people. There is an unholy alliance of GOP neocons and Dem neolibs wanting more wars. That's why you have all these generals throwing rocks at Trump in the media. A Biden win puts the war wing of the Democratic party in charge of the country. Not a pleasant thought if you value peace. Obama's foreign policy represented Bush's third and fourth terms, and those are the people hoping to get back into power.
If you look at the actual record, Trump is the peace candidate. The Dems and the left do the country a disservice by failing to see that. As far as the GOP in general, I have nothing good to say about them, if that was your point. They love the wars too. Not much of a constituency for peace in DC. That's one of the reasons Trump won. Peace is very popular with the people.
I was thinking of this as well - along with the many images shared on social media by supporters of Trump atop a tank in a cartoonish fashion, things exploding everywhere, Trump holding a bazooka or rifle. We also have neocon backers of Trump - the American Enterprise Institute is one, I believe. And then we have the Erik Prince association with the Administration through DeVos. Trump's book, Time to Get Tough, has a chapter simply entitled, "Take the Oil." I also recall a sort of to and fro "saber rattling" between Trump and North Korea. I also recall when Trump first announced his "America First" campaign in such a way that basically said something like we're steering the world order unilaterally - that's how it sounded to me at the time anyway - with the fairly ridiculous sounding sugar coating "as all nations should put their nations first" - I wondered how "peaceful" he struck the rest of the world watching. Trump kicking around the "China Virus" in concert with Pompeo reportedly encouraging the G7 to refer to it as the "Wuhan Virus" also raise an eyebrow.
Trump: No new wars. Obama: Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia Niger, probably a few others we don't even know about. Trump hasn't taken anyone's oil. Watch what he does, not what he says. His words are negotiating tactics designed to keep his opponents off-balance. He has not started any new wars. That is a LOT more than you can say for the Obama/Hillary/Kerry foreign policy. And if those people return to power? It's bombs away.
Reply to fishfry
If you're making it a political party association, why are you 1) ignoring Bush Admin and 2) ignoring Trump qua political party Dem/opportunist?
I also found the reports of our 'presence' in Venezuela during pandemic curious.
(I'm not trying to defend 'Obama/Hillary/Kerry' on this score. I just don't see him as a man of peace at all.)
Trump blusters about military strength and then avoids war. That's his style. Ignore everything Trump says, watch what he does.
Yep.
And also there's the simple fact that war with Iran is useless and really a bad idea, militarily. There are so many downsides to it and many ways for Iran to make the position of the US miserable, starting from Iraq. Hence no American President has invaded Iran... just like they have not done with North Korea since the armstice.
Of course, someone would say that he simply is the classic bully.
But it's true that we should look at what Trump has done... especially when he had a majority in both houses. Well, a tax cut! Great, and the corona response wasn't the best when compared to other OECD countries. Trump showed there what a president he is during a severe crisis.
But perhaps that doesn't matter so much to the Trump voter. Those criticisms just blend with the more outrageous criticism about Trump. Speaking of Trump as Hitler is just annoying and makes the Trump supporter support his or her president even more, because Trump obviously isn't Hitler. Starting from the lack of ideology.
So really, what is a better person to be the US president? A self centered narcissist who constantly follows what is said about him in the television or a born again Christian who starts quoting the book of Revelation to the French President and really literally starts a war against another country by his own (and neocon) initiative?
Choose which Republican president you like. Perhaps it's the inability of Trump to act on the World stage is something positive. As I recall one American who voted Trump saying: "If Hillary is elected, the media will be her lapdog, whereas if Trump is elected, the media will do it's job it is supposed to do."
So perhaps it's the fear of Kamala being a newborn Hillary that takes power if Sleepy Joe is incapable for some reason or another. So....better vote Trump??? :chin:
Kamala by the way is "terrible" or "horrible" in Finnish.
Trump blusters about military strength and then avoids war.
[Edit to last post: just saw your response to ssu which touched on GOP question above...]
What he says appears to me to cater to warmongering energies within his supporters (see also Nos characterizing the justification of Kyle Rittenhouse's actions as "slaying people" and "unleashing fury" for an additional example in the Trump thread) along with the campaign imagery already mentioned and "saber rattling" rhetoric.
If Trump is ignorant of this - and your assessment is true - this makes him an ignorant, ineffective 'man of peace' - and presumably also - in language he might endorse, a loser. It would be #verysad if this is the case.
If he is tacitly endorsing these energies or outright encouraging them and/or fully cognizant but ignoring them in what he says but somehow nevertheless "striving for peace in what he does" - this seems to me to lead to something like contributing to a more warmongering public in order to get votes whilst playing 11d chess as StreetlightX put it elsewhere - which is both very difficult to believe and to whatever extent accurate would make him seem to me to be even more of a sloppy disaster.
If he is tacitly endorsing these energies or outright encouraging them and/or fully cognizant but ignoring them in what he says but somehow nevertheless "striving for peace in what he does" - this seems to me to lead to something like contributing to a more warmongering public in order to get votes whilst playing 11d chess as StreetlightX put it elsewhere
You know what. I don't think Trump plays even the two dimensional chess. Too many rules, not interesting.
Trump is really what he looks like, what all the books written about him say in uniform. What Trump understands is how present media works, how to get the limelight fixed on yourself and how a great showman takes over a show. And how to speak to your followers.
Reply to StreetlightX
To be fair, most of her work relates to the Mexican Mafia, as well as that she's on the Church Committee, which I am hoping to be put somehow into effect.
I didn't actually even vote in this election, though, as I was too disappointed by that the Democratic Socialists of America's campaign to elect Bernie Sanders was unsuccessful.
FrankGSterleJrJanuary 20, 2021 at 20:54#4909540 likes
Reply to ssu I think Trump might even lose a game of checkers against a girl scout.
FrankGSterleJrJanuary 20, 2021 at 20:57#4909550 likes
I recall watching with great disappointment then-president Barack Obama capitulate—like other neo-liberal presidents before him and likely after him—to big money politics in the very worst way, with the Flint, Michigan drinking-water atrocity.
I call it an atrocity due to safe drinking water being the second most immediate, fundamental necessity of life (the first, of course, being clean air).
A then admirer of Obama, I muttered ‘Please say it isn’t so’ as he drank (at least what supposedly was) a glass of the Flint water; this signified that the health-hazardously lead-laden water is actually safe to drink, which he must have known is not.
It became clearer to me that U.S. presidents, and no less Canadian prime ministers, mostly serve as large corporate and power interest puppets.
The political system essentially involves two established conservative and (neo)liberal parties more or less alternating in governance while habitually kowtowing to the interests of the very wealthy but especially big business’s crippling threats (whether implied or explicit) of a loss of jobs, capital investment and/or economic stability, etcetera.
This of course fails to mention, amongst other things, the corporate-welfare-cheque subsidies doled out annually to already very profitable corporations and the forgiveness of huge loan debts owed to taxpayers.
(Not helping matters is that almost all of our information is still produced and/or shared with us by concentrated corporate-owned media.)
This corporate-political reality may be why so many low-income citizens have felt futility in voting at all, let alone waiting in a long line-up in the weather to do so.
Comments (104)
Or as someone else put it, the field is now down to a segregationist/rapist & criminal prosecutor vs. a billionaire/rapist & christian dominionist, all four of whom are ardent capitalists.
1) Is it a good or bad pick politically; and
2) Is she or is she not a duplicitous, self-serving finger-in-the-wind politician who will say anything and do anything to advance her own career and who has not a single conviction or belief or principle she's not willing to abandon at a moment's notice when convenient.
(2) is easier because it's a matter of opinion so I can state mine and leave it at that. I prefer not to argue politics so I'll resist the temptation to clap back on any disagreements of opinion about the lady. I lived in the SF area and have watched her career since her Willie Brown days so my opinion is not casual but is the result of decades of following her career. I just mention a couple of items but there are dozens.
*When she was the Attorney General of California she busted large numbers of pot smokers; then when she declared her candidacy she gave an interview and bragged about being a stoner and gave her trademark cloying giggle which frankly makes me want to strangle her. It's so effing insincere and shows that she is emotionally disconnected from the serious consequences in people's lives.
* She also gave that sadistic and not-cute-though-she-thinks-it-is giggle when she was interviewed about throwing an African-American single mom into jail because her kid was truant. Expect to see the Trump campaign playing this clip.
https://twitter.com/WalkerBragman/status/1089831581030797312?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1089831581030797312%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2F2010-video-shows-kamala-harris-gleefully-talking-about-prosecuting-parents-including-a-homeless-mom-with-two-jobs-whose-kids-missed-classes
She was savagely criticized FROM THE LEFT for this policy. See for example
Also see https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-kamala-harris-truancy-20190417-story.html
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/05/kamala-harris-spins-facts-on-truancy-law/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kamala-harris-truancy-arrests-2020-progressive-prosecutor_n_5c995789e4b0f7bfa1b57d2e.
* She sought to keep prisoners is jail longer than their sentences for the free labor. Apologies for the RW source but a lot of the Internet's been scrubbed in prep for her candidacy. Yeah that happens.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/kamala-harris-office-sought-to-keep-inmates-locked-up-so-that-california-could-use-them-for-cheap-labor
Anyway I could pile on all day. She's devoid of compassion for the people she supposedly serves and has no principles or human decency whatever. I oppose her totally.
(1) That said, all in all I think it's a very good political pick, probably the best. One. Kamala's big with the Clinton and Obama people. She's part of the neoliberal centrist Dem establishment. The money will pour in from Wall Street and the big donors. The Biden/Harris ticket IS the centrist DNC. Now maybe a couple of months ago this wouldn't have been such a good idea. But today you have the Dems tacking back to the center amid the chaos in the cities. Rather than pick a bombthrower they're picking a prosecutor. The calculation is: The left will have to vote for us anyway because Trump. So the pick did NOT throw a bone to the left. They doubled down on the Biden wing. AOC and Bernie lost today no matter what kind of rhetoric they put in front of Biden to read. This is a centrist ticket. So the question is: Will the left show up for this pair of corporatists?
She has some big weaknesses. In the primaries voters sensed her insincerity a mile away. Her campaign faded before the first primary contest.
She is great with prepared soundbites. "That little girl was me." The problem is she ALWAYS backs down the next day. After hitting Joe on busing it turned out that Harris's busing policy is basically the same as Joe's. And she did that same thing over and over: deliver a sharp line one day and walk her position back the next. Voters didn't like her in the primaries and she didn't get any more likable since then.
Her street cred is dubious. Black? Her mom is Indian, her dad's Jamaican, her grandfather owned a slave plantation. And this is an election season where a lot of African-American voters are tired of the Dems' condescension as exemplified by Joe "you ain't black if you don't vote for me" remark and that other foot-in-mouth about Latinos being more diverse than Blacks. Kamala does not mitigate those issues in the least in my opinion.
Expect to hear the names of Anthony Bologna and his sons Michael and Matthew in the coming weeks. They were gunned down in San Francisco by an undocumented immigrant with multiple prior violent felonies. The killer had been protected from deportation by SF's sanctuary city policy as enforced by then-mayor Gavin Newsom and you-know-who Kamala, who was the SF district attorney at the time. The family pleaded with Harris to seek the death penalty but she opposed that. [For the record I also oppose the death penalty. I'm just talking about what the GOP will be saying here, not taking sides].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_the_Bologna_family
But does any of that matter? Middle class and elite liberals love her. The left can go pound sand, this is the DNC we're talking about, they ALWAYS screw their base. And where are the AOC and Bernie crowd going to go?
All the other possible candidates had much worse baggage. Liz might have had a chance but once Maxine Waters said that Joe better pick someone Black, that was the end of that.
So like I say, I hate her as a human being but I am not surprised and all in all, it's a solid pick. She does have appeal to a large segment of the Democratic voters and the mainstream big donors. The rest can shut up and accept the corporatocracy. The DNC has decreed it. Again. Whatever happens, do not be fooled by any leftist rhetoric. This is the Wall Street and war ticket. A big winner in Dem circles lately, isn't that sad?
Getting things back to normal...
Quoting 180 Proof
:100:
Probably this. Also there's the anti-Trump Republicans to consider. Someone like Harris is more likely to win their vote than someone like Warren.
But at the end of the day, what do Vice Presidents do other than break ties in the Senate and take over if the President is incapacitated or removed?
:up:
I am black - and as far as we are concerned - Senator Harris is black, especially (though not only) because she identifies herself as black. Nonblacks - whether "whites" or not, "liberals" or not - don't get to define the color-ethnic identity of anyone else but themselves or their own. That's colonialist, sir; that's racist. :shade:
Quoting Harry Hindu
Oh right. As if every other US presidential ticket of white males has not been rooted in "identity politics" ... STFD.
(btw, aren't you a MN/U of MN guy? You see that Ilhan Omar won her primary- and effectively her re-election- tonight?)
But the racial symbolism seems to be the headline - Black and of Indian Descent. (Oh yeah, and also a lawyer). How is it not about identity politics? It’s racial and gender identity first. I don’t want to comment on racial politics - what really strikes me is ‘the society of the spectacle’ the ‘panopticon’ or Baudrillard. Race/gender first - how s/he appears first, before anything about policy or principle. I would like to have thought that the principle of a non-racist culture was that ethnic heritage didn’t account for much, that it was secondary or incidental, but it’s so obviously front and centre.
Make no mistake, if I were a US voter I would be a Democrat - all my new in-laws are - and I’m hoping that moron in chief gets the shellacking he so richly deserves. But I wish it were more about policy.
:up:
//I mean, it’s like a sitcom./
Biden has repeatedly said he will be a transition president, so he may be taking the long view. Black and brown voters will soon form the majority in America. When the Dems first pick Obama, and now Harris, they are essentially locking in a majority for some time to come. And then the Repubs help out by electing and then supporting a loud mouth ass who routinely disrespects both Blacks and Hispanics.
I agree in part and disagree in part. Historically, bright line definitions of race have been used for nefarious purposes. Whether it be the discrimination of blacks, Jews, the Japanese, or any other group of people being placed upon particular suspicion, it's never a good sign when the majority population starts searching another's ancestral history for impurity and declaring who's fit and who's not.
There's a curious distinction in the Kamala Harris situation because those you accuse of racism are trying to declare her non-black. That is, they are trying to claim she's less qualified for the lofty position of VP due to her non-blackness, meaning being black in this situation is a benefit, not a detriment. An interesting consequence of progress, I suppose.
This situation reared its head more notoriously in the Rachel Dolezal case, which you'll recall was a white woman who self-identified and presented as black and rose to the position of president of her local NAACP chapter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal. That case challenges the significance of self-identification as being a basis to establish race, and it offers legitimacy to the argument that a search of ancestral history should be the final determinant in establishing one's race. That is to say, if we can negate Dolezal's claims of blackness based upon an analysis of her genes, then we can challenge Harris' claims of blackness based upon an analysis of her genes.
The problem, I'd submit, is our ethical acceptance that race matters. I live in the same world as you, and I fully understand that race does in fact matter, but I have a problem in claiming it ought matter. While Biden wants to be President and he realizes the reality is that he must choose a black running mate, the fact that he might choose someone on the basis of race does not make it the ethically right thing to do. Harris should be chosen by the content of her character and not the color of her skin. That sentence ends with a indelible period.
The point being that whether Harris is black, and whether you believe her to be black ought be entirely irrelevant to this whole discussion. To those who argue Harris is not black and therefore should not be voted for by other blacks, I share in your calls of racism and your objections to her trying to be delegitimatized. Logic, however, dictates the same calls of racism to any who might vote for her because she is black, meaning anyone who delves into the debate of whether she is or is not black enough seems to be conceding that her blackness matters. It shouldn't.
Quoting fishfry
Sounds like a great political pick! You couldn't have the Clinton and Obama people unhappy, could you?
I can feel the enthusiasm from other commentators here too.
(although as it happens, I suspect that this was very explicitly part of their deliberation process and a major selling-point in favor of Harris- i.e. hard to label her as some "defund the police" leftist given her record as prosecutor/DA, and as always Dems are overeager to prove their commitment to "law and order" politics/rhetoric, i.e. the prison/industrial complex and modern police/incarceratory state)
According to Joe Biden, all blacks think alike, and the only way to get you to vote for him is to choose a black person as VP.
The problem is seeing someone with a different skin color and thinking that there is no way that that person could possibly share any interests that you have, or can't be representative of you, because they have a different skin color.
If blacks want whites to see themselves in George Floyd, then blacks need to see themselves in the twice as many unarmed whites that get shot by police and protest when that happens too. The inconsistency of BLM is clearly indicative of their racism and privilege they posses.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4634878
It's misleading to look at raw numbers and not proportionality to population if you want to determine if there's racial bias.
Also, to pre-empt one possible "excuse":
Kamala Harris fits right in. Its notable that she is considered "black" when she has an Indian mother.
This highlights the absurdity of "race" as a descriptor and the purely political reason for identifying as a particular race. The left loves its racism and sexism.
Kamala is black. Yes. Does she have “soul”. No. (Very sorry to say).
Looks like the DNC is screwing the “real Left” (whatever that is... or was) gently with a chainsaw...
Biden: “Yea, thanks for the help kids and Bernie Bros... nice protesting there. Real passion, very believable. Now, if y’all don’t mind, let the grownups, the real pros take over from here... ”
I was trying to swallow the prospect of Biden as president, because Trump. But dammit, it’s only getting harder. I’m starting to wretch again. You can’t polish a turd or swallow it... but you can choose one to steer the USS TITANIC to greater glory. Vote for Bile/Hairball 2020!
[i]I know your deeds; you are neither cold nor hot. How I wish you were one or the other! So because you are lukewarm— neither hot nor cold— I am about to vomit you out of My mouth!
-Rev 3:16[/i]
(I’m voting for an independent candidate: Matt Foley. At least then we can be guaranteed some gov’t cheese while living in a van down by the river.)
Thanks @fishfry for the in-depth look at Harris’s dubious career. :up:
:up: Yep. (Unfortunately).
When someone on the far left starts to wonder if there’s an upside to a Chump/Pants second term... not good. (“When’s the next train for Canada leaving? What’d ya mean Canada closed its borders? The USA would never do tha... oh, wait. Never mind...”).
I voted good pick. I think her and Corey Booker are similar, Corey perhaps a bit more articulate. Nevertheless, I like that she's a woman of mixed race who can effectively speak to dumper-trumper's racism, misogyny and other character flaws.
Being a moderate independent, this is the closest we'll get to center (I am partial to folks like John Kaisick and other moderate Republican's). I think it's a winning formula. If nothing else, it's a protest vote just to get the guy out ( much like what some did when voting for dumper-trumper viz Hillary).
Quoting tim wood
Quoting tim wood
Umm, what? :chin: Just calling it like I see it. Not going to make excuses for anybody’s actions, whatever “side” they are on. Though left-leaning, I appreciate the Republicans who call out Trump (it’s a full time job) for his activities. I would criticize Bernie when it was warranted... if he were even running, lol.
how I long for sweet death
Komm, süßer Tod
Remember, the DNC would rather lose with the centrists than let the Bernie brigade take over the party. That's their mission. Hence Biden. And now hence Kamala. The GOP are making a mistake trying to call her a leftist. If only! Friend of the little guy? Don't get me started on the African-American single mom with two kids and two jobs who Kamala laughed about putting in jail because her kid was truant. Kamala got hammered from the left for that.
But the main point is to watch what the DNC did in 2016 and again in 2020. The DNC is at war with their own left. The GOP is a secondary target. If Biden wins, fine. If Biden loses, at least the Biden/Clinton/Obama wing of the party is in control for the next four years. That is the lens through which one processes the Kamala appointment.
And Bernie's on board. Don't know if his followers will be, but Bernie himself is meek as a newborn kitten lately. The DNC gave AOC 60 seconds of speaking time. LOL. That's what the DNC thinks of the new radical left.
Hi Maw, I just want to make one point here which is that the GOP so far is missing the mark on their attacks on Kamala. There's so much substantive stuff but Trump's calling her names and GOPs claim she's a leftist and so forth. I wouldn't put much stock in that. I hate Kamala but I am capable of noticing that the GOP attacks are wildly off the mark so far. And calling her names is cheap and low, it's not 2016 anymore and Trump's no longer funny and refreshing.
It's a matter of political fact that Kamala did very poorly with African-Americans during the primaries. Sank like a stone.
I do distinguish between her personal racial identity, which I don't care about; and her political racial identity, which changes depending on her audience. I don't care if you call her black or not. The question is, does she resonate with American blacks? And the answer is no. That's not an opinion, that was demonstrated in the primaries.
A Rasmussen poll came out today. 1/3 of likely black voters say they are LESS likely to vote Dem as a result of Kamala's selection as veep. Guess black folk can spot a phony, what do you think?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/harris-divides-blacks-one-third-diss-pick-now-less-likely-to-vote-for-biden
That's not my metric. Trump just got a peace deal today. Biden falsely claimed it was his and the Dems are upset. Remember that in 2016 and 2020 it's Trump who is the peace candidate. That's important to me and informs my vote. For what it's worth I live in California so my vote doesn't matter no matter what I do. The Clinton/Obama neoliberal wing of the party loves war. That was and is a great point of departure of my own political sensibilities from that of the Democratic party and even contemporary liberals. Joe Biden has a fifty year track record of supporting every war that came along. And the Dems and liberals have embraced the national security state (as long as it's framing Trump); which they used to instinctively distrust. My views didn't change but the Democrats did.
As I took pains to indicate, I vote in California so that there is no danger that my political opinions could have any effect on the presidential race. I thought that might perhaps forestall anyone from jumping in only to say that they hold an opinion different than mine. I see I was mistaken. That said, my priorities are straight. It's the Dems and the left who went insane.
In what way?
The fact is that Democratic party is a centrist party that knows it will get leftists to vote for it ...because there is no leftist party in the US!
Of course, there are many European Social Democratic Parties which leave capitalism and globalization alone and even promote them (starting with the Blairite wing of the Labor Party in the UK).
Even if you don't agree with the points I might make in response; I'm sure that if you follow politics you can at least imagine the points that might be made. Consider them made. I haven't got time over the next few days to respond to the comments I'd elicit from a more detailed response; otherwise I'd just let 'er rip. But really, it's a very long story. The day Teddy killed a girl and the Dems and liberals rallied behind him, that was the first time my leftist faith was shaken. It's been a long journey. But just two nights ago Colin Powell spoke at the DNC. Colin Powell who lied to the UN to assist Bush and the New York Times in lying the country into a ruinous war. You see the Dems are all in for the wars now. From Hillary's historic vote for the Iraq war, to Colin Powell speaking at the Democrat convention, is a straight line of descent into madness.
Thank you for such a heartfelt and, may I say, provocative post. For what it's worth, questions of Ms. Harris's race are all over the media, both right and left. I'm not the only one who has questions and comments about her ethnic identity as it pertains to politics.
I don't care how she personally identifies or what her race is. But as a political player competing for high office and great power; everything about her is in play, including her race. She was chosen for her race. So I must stand my ground on at least one point: That I have every right, as a political observer, to discuss her race in the context of politics.
If I implied that I had any interest in her race of a non-political, or personal nature, that was surely not my intention and if I did that it would have been a case of poor writing on my part to fail to make that clear. I'm talking politics; and when it comes to politics, everything is in play.
Quoting 180 Proof
You represent modern sensibilities. You think your ethnic identity informs or amplifies or contextualizes the words you say. I'm from an older generation. I'm with Dr. King. I dream of the day when we are judged on the content of our character; and not the color of our skin. For that matter I'm with Michael Jackson: "It don't matter if you're black or white."
So I do understand that when you say you're black, it's important to you for rhetorical purposes. But for me, the meaning and power of your writing is in the writing; and not in the "meat pack" as some white rapper used to say.
Quoting 180 Proof
- and as far as we are concerned - Senator Harris is black,
[/quote]
You act like you speak for all black people. But you can only speak for yourself. I could link African-Americans saying this past week that Harris has not lived an authentic African-American life. Black opinion is not monolithic, despite what Joe Biden thinks. There is some evidence that your certainty of what black people think is inaccurate. Harris did very poorly in the Democratic primaries and polled very badly among blacks. I'm not saying they didn't think she was black ... but whatever they thought about her race, they didn't think much about her as a candidate.
Quoting 180 Proof
Oh my gosh are you going to make me bring up the spectacular case of Rachel Dolezal? An emotionally disturbed young woman who frizzed her hair and claimed she was black? She was even president her her local chapter of the NAACP, until news of her complete absence of African-American ancestry was revealed and she was forced to resign. Is she black because she says she is? Am I?
How about Liz Warren? Claimed to be Native-American, did use that lie for professional advantage even though she says she didn't. When the issue finally blew up after her fiasco of a DNA test, the actual Native-American leaders blasted her six ways from Sunday.
Self-identification is not much of a standard in my opinion. Is that all she's got? Indian mom, Jamaican dad (going back generations, no African ancestors in sight, and ownership of a slave plantation to boot), Jewish husband. So she fits a checkmark for black on the Dem ticket? You really think the African-American voters will buy it? We shall see. Myself I think it's a cynical play by the Dems. That is a point of politics. Her "actual" race doesn't matter. Some experts think there's no such thing as race. The politics of her race are what matters; and that is a legitimate subject of discussion.
Quoting 180 Proof
Bullshit. I have freedom of speech and the Constitution does not say I can't make political observations of a racial nature. I am NOT making a personal judgment about Harris's race, I don't care about her race on a personal basis. Politically, I think it's quite cynical of the Dems to slot in someone like Kamala for an ethnic slot. I think deep down you know exactly what I'm saying.
Quoting 180 Proof
I'm so not a racist that remark didn't even push my buttons. It's silly. That the best you can do?
By the way can you just tell me exactly what it was that I said that led you to this? You didn't quote any of my text and I don't remember writing anything about Harris that isn't already well-known by people who've followed her career.
You believe Trump is for peace?
:vomit:
Yes most definitely. He has not started any new wars. The Dems are chomping at the bit for more wars. The selection of Biden is a huge win for the war party. Don't you remember the 2016 GOP debates when Trump knocked Jeb! out of the contest by attacking him for his brother W's war? Trump has always been for peace and against the bipartisan War party. What can I do to wake liberals up to that? Hillary was a bloodthirsty warmonger. On Obama's watch we destroyed Libya, Syrian, and Yemen. The neoliberal Democrats are ascendent in the party. Only Trump stand for peace. If the fools on the left manage to elect Biden, you will see.
Are you claiming to be completely unaware of Biden's fifty year record of passionate warmongering? Serious question. Do you know his record? Biden voted for the Iraq war and promoted it with passion. He has been for every war since he's been in Washington. Don't you even know this? Trump is the only one out there for peace.
You think people's free speech rights are determined by the color of their skin. You're an actual racist.
That said, we're talking politics. Harris polls very badly with actual African-Americans. She flopped miserably in the primaries.
I'm disappointed you chose not to engage with anything I said. You claimed that self-identification is all that matters when it comes to race. I gave you the examples of Rachel Dolezal and Liz Warren and asked your opinion. Your silence speaks for you.
I'm sure if you read into the details of your (unreferenced) article you would know that first, there are insufficient samples for scientists to have a specific marker for Native American blood. She might have something like 1/1024 south or central American indigenous blood: about as much as the average white person walking around. Your post is disingenuous in the extreme based on the factual content of that incident. And more to the point, actual Native American tribes were furious with her. It turns out that DNA tests are politically incorrect in the Native American community. Who knew! We all (except for you) learned that from the extensive reporting around her bungled DNA test.
Are you claiming to not have read these facts at the time?
Come on, man. This was beneath you. Do your homework. That test was a major political embarrassment for her. And it wasn't two weeks ago, it was in 2018.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-dna-test-2020.html
Yep, again you've no clue WTF you're talking about. At least from 1791 to 1965 non-white citizens of the United States effectively had no "free speech rights" which was/is racist (Faulkner). You clearly take for granted that just because you have "free speech" that I have to accept how you, a white person, uses that "right" to tell me, a non-white person, how we think, or should think, and whether or not non-whites have 'properly self-identified' according to your ignorant (old colonialist) standards. Well, that's the prerogative of a 173+ year old legacy of racist presumption. :shade:
Your words betray your oblivious, or willful, ignorance, mister, and I won't be baited into making futile attempts to drill through your privileged incorrigibility to inform or correct you now that you've flaunted your true colors. Agree to disagree, or not; there's surely no benefit on my end to talk at you any further (or past one another) about Kamala Harris or the social-political perceptions and proclivities of non-white citizens like me.
:up:
As with my remarks about Kamala Harris, my comments on Liz are political and not personal. Whatever you may think is the truth of the matter, as if such a thing exists ... after all we're all quarks from the Big Bang, all in the same quark tribe ... but there is no question that she was hurt badly POLITICALLY. Enough to peel off just enough support to keep her from going all the way in the primaries. She'd be a hell of a lot better candidate than Biden. I don't agree with Liz on much but I totally admire her brilliance and force of will.
That is why I linked a New York Times article whose main theme was the political damage she had done to herself with the DNA test.
I am just surprised you'd bring this up. The talking points are well known and thoroughly litigated in the media and online; and at this point even if it turned out that she was a full-blooded Native-American after all -- IT WOULD NOT MATTER. She had "phony" attached to her persona in a portion of the public's mind.
I can distinguish between political analysis and one's personal feelings. Not everyone does, especially these days. Why do you ask what is my problem? You are taking something personally, and I'm willing to listen to what you think that might be. Because even the NYT admits that the DNA stunt backfired and hurt her badly. Surely you do not dispute this, regardless of your feelings for her policies.
Why do you accuse me of personal ... what ... malevolence? wrongthink? whatever ... when from where I sit, I am typing in my opinions about the state of politics.Which might be different than yours.
And if you recall there was a greater point on the table (still is) so you are taking my remarks about Ms. Warren totally out of context.
I'm disappointed that you prefer not to dialog at all with people you disagree with. A lot of that going around these days. All the best.
Quoting Hanover
Differing conclusions (or interpretations) are worthy of probative discussion but not incommensurable premises (i.e. "facts").
Same to you.
There's a probably correct assumption that tribalism controls at some level and so people expect that someone of similar ethnic likeness will better protect their interests than someone not. That results in race based voting and in placing one's own in positions of power, which only perpetuates the problem.
It's especially a problem in Australia. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/world/australia/study-diversity-multicultural.html
Don't you live in Oz?
I wasn't reading the entire thread and I'm afraid I don't recall the referent for this remark. I'm pretty sure I've said my piece here. One individual (@180 Proof I'm discussing you so as a courtesy I'm tagging you so you'll see this. I'm not soliciting a reply or meaning to address you. Just think it would be rude to refer to you without letting you know) believes that not only are my ideas wrong, but that I don't even have the right to express them by virtue of personal characteristics of mine that the individual hasn't even bothered to inquire about and can't possibly know! Whether this kind of thinking will peak, crest, and fade away; or whether the US is headed for a re-run of Chairman Mao's cultural revolution, I can't say.
I do know that these political discussions sometimes turn into struggle sessions. Here's a photo of me after I shot off my two cents about Kamala.
If you ever want to exchange views I'd enjoy that. I know you're sincere. I think you're a victim of a terrible ideology that's sweeping the country. You have no idea of the struggles that have gone before.
But one thing. You have not given me the courtesy of telling me exactly what it is I said that bothered you. Tell me exactly what I said so that at least I know what you're talking about.
And on what evidence do you decide I have certain ethnic characteristics; decide that I'm the enemy on that basis; and declare that even speaking to me is unthinkable? Where did this insanity come from? You can't run a society that way. You hate me and you haven't a single shred of evidence as to who I am and what I am and where I've been. The fact that you "feeeeel" angry at me is enough for you to point the finger and cast me out of the world.
Your teachers and your society have failed you to have allowed you to believe this poison. It's on them, not you. You yourself are a perfectly decent person, one who should study a little history. I hope that you're young and that in your journey through life, you will come to some compassion and understanding. If you're old, there's no hope. Either way ... you've been led astray. You have toxic ideas.
Point and shame. If you get enough people to think and act the same way you can terrorize an entire country. For the record, I stand opposed. I stand for free speech, free expression, and free exchange of ideas, especially with those with whom you disagree.
https://youtu.be/5Z8nV10dFcw
"Trump knew in February. He knew that Covid-19 virus passed through the air. He knew it is deadlier than the flu. He knew it is dangerous to more than just our elderly and vulnerable. He purposely downplayed the pandemic. And now 190,000 Americans are dead."
~next VPOTUS, Sen. Kamala Harris, 9.9.20
Got very close with Iran. Really close.
After the drone attack on Qasem Soleimani, Iranians did retaliate by firing ballistic missiles into several US bases. First time US troops were attacked with ballistic missiles. With huge luck no US servicemen were killed, wounded casualties were 110 which, of course, the Trump administration was totally silent about and Trump lied about it:
(The reason for brain injury and concussions was the blast wave from the explosions.)
Quoting fishfry
He as the neocons were Republicans, as you likely know.
I was thinking of this as well - along with the many images shared on social media by supporters of Trump atop a tank in a cartoonish fashion, things exploding everywhere, Trump holding a bazooka or rifle. We also have neocon backers of Trump - the American Enterprise Institute is one, I believe. And then we have the Erik Prince association with the Administration through DeVos. Trump's book, [I]Time to Get Tough[/I], has a chapter simply entitled, "Take the Oil." I also recall a sort of to and fro "saber rattling" between Trump and North Korea. I also recall when Trump first announced his "America First" campaign in such a way that basically said something like we're steering the world order unilaterally - that's how it sounded to me at the time anyway - with the fairly ridiculous sounding sugar coating "as all nations should put their nations first" - I wondered how "peaceful" he struck the rest of the world watching. Trump kicking around the "China Virus" in concert with Pompeo reportedly encouraging the G7 to refer to it as the "Wuhan Virus" also raise an eyebrow.
Most definitely. Bolton was lusting for war and Trump wouldn't let him have it and fired him. Trump blusters about military strength and then avoids war. That's his style. Ignore everything Trump says, watch what he does. He's the most peace-oriented president we've had since Eisenhower, another guy who understood that you achieve peace by making your war threat credible.
In other words I disagree that Trump was ever close to war with Iran. He was never close to war with Iran. His words were not intentions, they were negotiating maneuvers in the service of peace. The actual results bear that out.
Quoting ssu
Yes indeed. Recall that in the 2016 GOP primaries, Trump blew Jeb! off the stage by going after 43's disastrous invasion of Iraq; an unthinkable heresy in the GOP up till then but a hugely popular position with the American people. There is an unholy alliance of GOP neocons and Dem neolibs wanting more wars. That's why you have all these generals throwing rocks at Trump in the media. A Biden win puts the war wing of the Democratic party in charge of the country. Not a pleasant thought if you value peace. Obama's foreign policy represented Bush's third and fourth terms, and those are the people hoping to get back into power.
If you look at the actual record, Trump is the peace candidate. The Dems and the left do the country a disservice by failing to see that. As far as the GOP in general, I have nothing good to say about them, if that was your point. They love the wars too. Not much of a constituency for peace in DC. That's one of the reasons Trump won. Peace is very popular with the people.
Trump: No new wars. Obama: Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia Niger, probably a few others we don't even know about. Trump hasn't taken anyone's oil. Watch what he does, not what he says. His words are negotiating tactics designed to keep his opponents off-balance. He has not started any new wars. That is a LOT more than you can say for the Obama/Hillary/Kerry foreign policy. And if those people return to power? It's bombs away.
If you're making it a political party association, why are you 1) ignoring Bush Admin and 2) ignoring Trump qua political party Dem/opportunist?
I also found the reports of our 'presence' in Venezuela during pandemic curious.
(I'm not trying to defend 'Obama/Hillary/Kerry' on this score. I just don't see him as a man of peace at all.)
Yep.
And also there's the simple fact that war with Iran is useless and really a bad idea, militarily. There are so many downsides to it and many ways for Iran to make the position of the US miserable, starting from Iraq. Hence no American President has invaded Iran... just like they have not done with North Korea since the armstice.
Of course, someone would say that he simply is the classic bully.
But it's true that we should look at what Trump has done... especially when he had a majority in both houses. Well, a tax cut! Great, and the corona response wasn't the best when compared to other OECD countries. Trump showed there what a president he is during a severe crisis.
But perhaps that doesn't matter so much to the Trump voter. Those criticisms just blend with the more outrageous criticism about Trump. Speaking of Trump as Hitler is just annoying and makes the Trump supporter support his or her president even more, because Trump obviously isn't Hitler. Starting from the lack of ideology.
So really, what is a better person to be the US president? A self centered narcissist who constantly follows what is said about him in the television or a born again Christian who starts quoting the book of Revelation to the French President and really literally starts a war against another country by his own (and neocon) initiative?
Choose which Republican president you like. Perhaps it's the inability of Trump to act on the World stage is something positive. As I recall one American who voted Trump saying: "If Hillary is elected, the media will be her lapdog, whereas if Trump is elected, the media will do it's job it is supposed to do."
So perhaps it's the fear of Kamala being a newborn Hillary that takes power if Sleepy Joe is incapable for some reason or another. So....better vote Trump??? :chin:
Kamala by the way is "terrible" or "horrible" in Finnish.
Quoting fishfry
[Edit to last post: just saw your response to ssu which touched on GOP question above...]
What he says appears to me to cater to warmongering energies within his supporters (see also Nos characterizing the justification of Kyle Rittenhouse's actions as "slaying people" and "unleashing fury" for an additional example in the Trump thread) along with the campaign imagery already mentioned and "saber rattling" rhetoric.
If Trump is ignorant of this - and your assessment is true - this makes him an ignorant, ineffective 'man of peace' - and presumably also - in language he might endorse, a loser. It would be #verysad if this is the case.
If he is tacitly endorsing these energies or outright encouraging them and/or fully cognizant but ignoring them in what he says but somehow nevertheless "striving for peace in what he does" - this seems to me to lead to something like contributing to a more warmongering public in order to get votes whilst playing 11d chess as StreetlightX put it elsewhere - which is both very difficult to believe and to whatever extent accurate would make him seem to me to be even more of a sloppy disaster.
You know what. I don't think Trump plays even the two dimensional chess. Too many rules, not interesting.
Trump is really what he looks like, what all the books written about him say in uniform. What Trump understands is how present media works, how to get the limelight fixed on yourself and how a great showman takes over a show. And how to speak to your followers.
That simply isn't 11d chess.
Agreed (the usage was sarcastic).
"... a Black woman, of South Asian descent ..."
~President-elect Biden referring to Vice President-elect Harris, January 19, 2021
You dug up a four month old thread to troll me with this? You'll have to do better.
To be fair, most of her work relates to the Mexican Mafia, as well as that she's on the Church Committee, which I am hoping to be put somehow into effect.
I didn't actually even vote in this election, though, as I was too disappointed by that the Democratic Socialists of America's campaign to elect Bernie Sanders was unsuccessful.
I call it an atrocity due to safe drinking water being the second most immediate, fundamental necessity of life (the first, of course, being clean air).
A then admirer of Obama, I muttered ‘Please say it isn’t so’ as he drank (at least what supposedly was) a glass of the Flint water; this signified that the health-hazardously lead-laden water is actually safe to drink, which he must have known is not.
It became clearer to me that U.S. presidents, and no less Canadian prime ministers, mostly serve as large corporate and power interest puppets.
The political system essentially involves two established conservative and (neo)liberal parties more or less alternating in governance while habitually kowtowing to the interests of the very wealthy but especially big business’s crippling threats (whether implied or explicit) of a loss of jobs, capital investment and/or economic stability, etcetera.
This of course fails to mention, amongst other things, the corporate-welfare-cheque subsidies doled out annually to already very profitable corporations and the forgiveness of huge loan debts owed to taxpayers.
(Not helping matters is that almost all of our information is still produced and/or shared with us by concentrated corporate-owned media.)
This corporate-political reality may be why so many low-income citizens have felt futility in voting at all, let alone waiting in a long line-up in the weather to do so.