What an empty, unresearched, ahistorical [archive link], vapid yet typical punditocracy hit piece. We're talking about someone who, as a state prosecutor had sufficient anti-death penalty...
Exemplary
What an empty, unresearched, ahistorical [archive link], vapid yet typical punditocracy hit piece. We're talking about someone who, as a state prosecutor had sufficient anti-death penalty convictions to go against the wishes of both California U.S. Senators and alienate the California police unions, which refused to endorse her for a decade.
In the essay I linked, the writer had the opportunity to interview with Harris during her first Presidential run in 2020. This quote is revealing about how holistically she arrived at her criminal justice strategy:
“In the criminal-justice system,” Harris replied, “the irony, and, frankly, the hypocrisy is that whenever we use the words ‘accountability’ and ‘consequence,’ it’s always about the individual who was arrested.” Again, she began to make a case that would be familiar to any progressive about the need to make the system accountable. And while I found myself agreeing, I began to fear that the point was just to find ways to treat officers in the same brutal way that we treat everyone else. I thought about the men I’d represented in parole hearings — and the friends I’d be representing soon. And wondered out loud to Harris: How do we get to their freedom?
“We need to reimagine what public safety looks like,” the senator told me, noting that she would talk about a public health model. “Are we looking at the fact that if you focus on issues like education and preventive things, then you don’t have a system that’s reactive?” The list of those things becomes long: affordable housing, job-skills development, education funding, homeownership. She remembered how during the early 2000s, when she was the San Francisco district attorney and started Back on Track (a re-entry program that sought to reduce future incarceration by building the skills of the men facing drug charges), many people were critical. “ ‘You’re a D.A. You’re supposed to be putting people in jail, not letting them out,’” she said people told her.
I'm content that she's someone who can embrace complexity, works with the world as it exists, has a vision for improving intolerable situations, and can hold both empathy and a sense of justice. I'm concerned that her brief hasn't involved enough military, foreign policy, and economic management experience, but reporting on her Vice Presidential role is atrocious. Kamala Harris has, by virtue of sitting in the same briefings as the President for 3+ years, certainly been exposed to the expectations, responsibilities, and knowledge required.
Much of the "dislike" of Harris is being manufactured for the same reasons progressives (particularly women) have always been denigrated. She's in favor of Medicaid for All policies, labor rights, fair taxation, environmental protection including climate change mitigation, attacking the root causes of crime, public housing support, gay rights, global human rights... I'm not going to give the whole Wikipedia laundry list. Of course she's an object of hatred for the billionaire class, the fossil fuel barons, the racists and sexists, the small-town and Southern feudalists. Personally, I think we could do a lot worse; she's charming enough, articulate in a way Biden has never been, quick on her feet, and deserves better press coverage than she's been given.
If I was stacking the deck, I'd give her a running mate like Andy Beshear or Mark Kelly - moderate white guys with good narratives who've managed to get elected in swing or conservative states.
I'm tired of criticism, often times from the left, that the mere fact that she was a prosecutor means she cannot be progressive. Leftists often live in a fantasy world that works perfectly in...
I'm tired of criticism, often times from the left, that the mere fact that she was a prosecutor means she cannot be progressive.
Leftists often live in a fantasy world that works perfectly in their heads that if just we provided healthcare, education, reformed drug laws, and social safety nets, there wouldn't be a need for the criminal justice system and people like DAs and state attorneys are what's keeping us back from that utopia.
There's a semblance of truth there, in that those things would obviously reduce crime, but there has always been, and will always be crime. A justice system will always be necessary, and in an adversarial criminal justice system, there will always need to be an offense to persue justice, just as there will always need to be an defense to guard personal freedoms.
Furthermore, that utopia that leftists often talk about does not exist, anywhere in the world. It's certainly not likely to exist any time soon in the US, because we live in a democratic system with people who don't agree with us, a political establishment, and monied interests. A dose of realpolitik is needed when examining this stuff, especially in the case of Harris.
Sometimes, the political left is so eager to distance themselves from both conservatives and liberals that they throw the baby out with the bathwater, and law and order becomes a dirty phrase and kryptonite to them, when it really isn't, and only is to people who live in an ideal world of theory and ideas instead of the real world where your car gets broken into a couple times a month and you get mugged on your way home from work on a yearly basis.
I think most leftists who criticize Harris's time as DA are critical of specific policies she advocated for or helped implement while in that role, not just the idea of her having served as a...
I think most leftists who criticize Harris's time as DA are critical of specific policies she advocated for or helped implement while in that role, not just the idea of her having served as a prosecutor. For example, her treatment of trans people (particularly trans women) while in that role is a particular scar on her record -- she advocated for denying transition-related healthcare (including both HRT and surgery) to inmates and referred to sexual reassignment surgery as "an unnecessary procedure". Are her positions still the same? Eh, probably not. Definitely not that she'd admit. But as trans people in the US struggle to survive an assault on their rights by Republicans, it's not remotely unreasonable to worry that she won't exactly be the champion we need if she becomes President.
I'll definitely vote for her in November if she's the one on the ballot. A candidate has to be a lot worse for me to abstain when they're facing Trump. But this strawman leftist who opposes her solely for having been a DA without knowing or caring about her positions and policies in that role is just not the reality. You can disagree with leftists that certain things she did while DA were wrong and harmful, or disagree that they're relevant in this election, but at least engage with the idea that they're criticizing those specific things rather than just the concept of someone being a DA.
I do think I'm seeing more clarity on her attempts to change the process under her leadership. I had an article linked but I'm not a Medium member so I cannot read the whole thing. Medium article...
I do think I'm seeing more clarity on her attempts to change the process under her leadership.
I had an article linked but I'm not a Medium member so I cannot read the whole thing. Medium article
As AG, she went on to lead efforts to abolish gay and transgender “panic” defenses in criminal trials. She received some criticism for a position she took as AG, backing the state of California when it sought to deny gender-affirmation surgery to a trans prisoner. But Harris has pointed out that when she was attorney general, the state’s Department of Corrections was a client of hers, and she had to represent its interests — but she worked behind the scenes to get the policy changed so that any inmate requiring such procedures could receive them
I mean, yeah, I'm absolutely fine with people pointing out ways in which those policies don't reflect her opinions and goals as president or even her opinions and goals back then. I'm just annoyed...
I mean, yeah, I'm absolutely fine with people pointing out ways in which those policies don't reflect her opinions and goals as president or even her opinions and goals back then. I'm just annoyed by people ignoring the existence of those bad policies and claiming that leftists are criticizing her past exclusively out of some fantasy dream that DAs never exist.
I fully understand that, I just wanted to highlight my new understanding of her past and present. Most of what I've seen from leftists I follow has been accusations of this being a "fix" and a...
I fully understand that, I just wanted to highlight my new understanding of her past and present. Most of what I've seen from leftists I follow has been accusations of this being a "fix" and a lack of a fair primary. I've seen more people accusing the progressive wing of the party and leftists more broadly of being behind Biden resigning and I don't think that's the case. I think on social media it's easy to just throw ACAB at her and not discuss the policies/positions/etc. I don't think anyone besides someone maybe quite uninformed would only say she's a DA and thus bad. But sometimes people shorthand their opinions because they're used to their audience not needing the specifics.
I do think it's important to see where she's gone since her time as a DA and AG while still acknowledging the harm done and I'm sure she's not going to be where leftists would like her to be on a number of issues. She's not where I am, and I'd put myself on the edge of leftist in my opinions but probably not nearly far enough to where I should be. Idk labels are hard. But I'm also pragmatic that the time to successfully pull the party further left would ultimately be during her administration.
Anyway, wasn't trying to shut you down, I feel what you're saying.
The text of the Medium article Kamala Harris’s Record on Trans Rights Isn’t “Mixed”. Published Aug 24, 2020. Written by Courtney Swanson Kamala Harris’s public record on trans rights began the...
The text of the Medium article
Kamala Harris’s Record on Trans Rights Isn’t “Mixed”. Published Aug 24, 2020. Written by Courtney Swanson
Kamala Harris’s public record on trans rights began the moment she stepped into elected office in 2003 as San Francisco’s District Attorney. One of her first acts as DA was to establish an LGBTQ taskforce, establishing a hate crimes unit to fund the investigations and prosecution of anti-LGBTQ violence. Her office also set up a victim assistance program, creating a two-part approach of prosecution for the offenders and relief for the victims.
In 2006, transgender teen Gwen Araujo was tragically murdered by a man in Newark, who cited the reveal of her gender identity as his motive for murder. Though the man was successfully convicted of second degree murder, DA Kamala Harris was appalled by the defense for using such an argument. She convened a conference for law enforcement officers and prosecutors across the nation to discuss options to counter the “gay panic” and“transgender panic” defenses used in courtrooms to gain acquittals or reduced punishments for violent crimes. This seminar was the first of its kind in national history.
The groundwork District Attorney Kamala Harris laid out to abolish the trans panic defense came to fruition in 2014, when as Attorney General, she co-sponsored a bill in the California House with Assemblymember Susan Bonilla to abolish it statewide, making California the first state to ban it. To date, it is still one of the only states to do so.
Just as she did from DA to AG, Kamala Harris continued the fight to abolish the trans panic defense after she was elected the junior Senator of California. She introduced the Gay and Trans Panic Defense Prohibition Act of 2018 with Senator Markey to ban the practice nationwide.
In fact, since joining the Senate in 2016, Kamala Harris has used her new role as a legislator to be either the author or a cosponsor of virtually every proposal to further trans rights, including, but not limited to: (image)
In addition to the above laws specifically referencing trans rights, her Justice in Policing Act was endorsed by the National LGBTQ Task Force, Action Fund. In their endorsement, they cited data stating that “58% of transgender people who contacted the police reported some form of mistreatment, such as harassment, misgendering and assault. This number increases to 61% when looking specifically at the experience of Black transgender respondents.”
Her work on trans rights as a District Attorney and Attorney General was not limited to ending the trans panic defense, however.
In June 2012, AG Harris received the George Moscone Ally Award for LGBT Advocacy for all of her aforementioned work on trans rights, in addition to her countless other achievements for the LGB portion of the community. The creation of her LGBT Victim Advocacy Unit and an LGBT Sexual Assault Awareness Program was also highlighted at LA’s Pride Parade.
In December 2016, before nonprofit healthcare industry BlueMountain could acquire a nonprofit religious organization, AG Harris required a series of strict conditions, including that “all facilities and the medical office buildings’ policies and procedures shall explicitly prohibit discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender individuals.”
In July of 2016, one of Kamala Harris’s last acts as Attorney General was to join California’s AG office with two cases supporting trans rights with briefs challenging the controversial “bathroom bill” and to expand Title IX protections to include gender identity.
The record established so far is above and beyond any other political leader in American politics today. 17 years of consistent allyship and using an increasingly more powerful platform to push the envelope beyond blue bubbles and into the mainstream. Which brings us to the question — why on Earth are some people disparaging Kamala Harris’s record on trans rights as “mixed”?
Kamala Harris’s record in general has been grossly misinterpreted by people that either don’t understand how an Attorney General’s office works, or intentionally wish to disparage her record in favor of their preferred 2020 candidate. But this particular conclusion is based on two cases involving two trans inmates petitioning for gender reassignment surgery.
One of the primary roles of a state’s Attorney General office is to defend other state agencies during a lawsuit, regardless of the personal opinions of the Assistant Attorney Generals or the Attorney General herself. Similar to an assigned defense counsel, they are obligated to represent their client to the best of their ability. These two cases were against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which clearly had a policy against gender reassignment surgery funded by the state.
Kamala Harris’s name may be present on the letterhead of the briefing to deny one of the inmates gender reassignment surgery and to instead proceed with hormone therapy, but that merely means it originated from the California Attorney General’s office, which employs thousands of Assistant Attorney Generals to handle caseloads across California ranging from custody battles to murder cases. There is no evidence to suggest that Kamala Harris wrote the brief, and she would have had no reason to, any more than she would have personally filed a petition for review of child support.
Kamala Harris has stated multiple times that she was not involved in the case until much later in the process, which is supported by both her office and outside lawyers familiar with the case.
Peter Renn, a senior attorney in the Western Regional Office of Lambda Legal who works on transgender cases, said the situation changed in the lawsuits as Harris became more involved in the litigation.
“The California AG’s office shifted its handling of these cases significantly after now-Sen. Harris took over. Initially there was language in briefing for the state that glaringly misunderstood the medical necessity of transition-related medical care and was patently offensive. But then, there was a dramatic change, which seems to have gone along with important policy shifts.” -Peter Renn
Those important policy shifts included a settlement to the trans inmates and forcing the review and reversal of California Department of Corrections’s policy!
“Members of the LGBT community, especially those who are transgender, are too often subjected to discrimination and forced to live on the margins of our society. In a groundbreaking settlement, the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation has agreed to evaluate and provide sex-reassignment surgery if recommended to Shiloh Quine, a transgender inmate. This is an important step forward in the ongoing effort to protect transgender rights in California.” -Attorney General Kamala Harris
Despite Kamala Harris’s clear delight in the case resolving in such a fashion, some circles are conflating her involvement in earlier stages of the case and using them as ammunition to berate her as out of touch — and even transphobic. The case certainly warrants criticism, and her involvement or lack thereof is still subject to scrutiny since she was still in charge of the actions of her subordinates. And Kamala Harris agrees!
The bottom line is the buck stops with me and I take full responsibility for what my office did. -AG Kamala Harris
The degradation of her record is the result of an explosive cocktail of wanting to take her down to prop up other political figures, the desire to eliminate nuance in the pursuit of political purity and, of course and as always, racism.
On the subject of trans rights, Kamala Harris doesn’t just have the rhetoric. She also has results.
Have definitely heard just, "she's a cop" as a derogatory comment about her. I don't think Well There's Your Problem is necessarily representative, but they have one of the biggest Patreon...
Have definitely heard just, "she's a cop" as a derogatory comment about her. I don't think Well There's Your Problem is necessarily representative, but they have one of the biggest Patreon memberships so they're not small either.
Maybe there's underlying reasoning, said but the knee jerk reaction papasquat is referencing at least the surface expression that gets circulation.
I don't think it's sensible to take comments from what is obviously a comedy podcast (and one for which discussing current news is not even the main focus of the podcast) as laying out the...
I don't think it's sensible to take comments from what is obviously a comedy podcast (and one for which discussing current news is not even the main focus of the podcast) as laying out the entirety of anyone's reasoning for disapproving of her. Someone offhandedly saying "she's just a cop" in contexts that consist almost entirely of other leftists doesn't mean that the only reason most leftists oppose her is solely because she's a DA and not because of the things she did while she was in that position. If you're going to criticize leftists for being "unrealistic", you can't just criticize surface expressions and ignore the substantive things that are worth criticizing that lie behind them.
I definitely feel safer living in Berlin than I did in urban areas in the US, but even when I was in the US that wasn't my experience either. I assume it must be either hyperbole or something...
I definitely feel safer living in Berlin than I did in urban areas in the US, but even when I was in the US that wasn't my experience either. I assume it must be either hyperbole or something that's highly variable throughout the country.
Absolutely highly variable throughout the country. I made the comment in another post that life in the US is very different depending on how much wealth you have. It can be either a virtual utopia...
Absolutely highly variable throughout the country. I made the comment in another post that life in the US is very different depending on how much wealth you have.
It can be either a virtual utopia that bends to your whim, or a miserable hell hole, depending on your bank account. Part of what makes it a miserable hell hole is that the places where many people can afford to live have terrible crime problems that you wouldn't expect in a first world country.
I'm a 5'2" woman, I moved from South Florida to Sweden last year, I get into the city centers all the time (Stockholm, Göteborg, and Jönköping most often) and I'm happy to tell you that it really...
I'm a 5'2" woman, I moved from South Florida to Sweden last year, I get into the city centers all the time (Stockholm, Göteborg, and Jönköping most often) and I'm happy to tell you that it really is just much better in Sweden than it is in Florida. I feel immensely safer here. I didn't go into the city centers much in Florida because of the danger and honestly the terrible drive, but here those problems don't exist. I'm happy to give more details if you're curious. Better things are possible.
Very curious! I'm also a woman, same size, and I used to live in a bad Toronto suburb but didn't feel unsafe there. I used to live near Vancouver and its infamous downtown Eastside, circa 2015,...
Very curious!
I'm also a woman, same size, and I used to live in a bad Toronto suburb but didn't feel unsafe there. I used to live near Vancouver and its infamous downtown Eastside, circa 2015, wasn't bad at all either. I am most curious to hear when a place crosses over from merely "poor people exist" to "unsafe". I have friends who won't go near where I live because, gasp, you can see people pushing shopping trolleys with their lives in them. Discarded needles I can understand more: don't want them on the grass where one can't see them. But that's more of a passive danger that exists everywhere downtown, or heck slightly out of sight in suburbia now, right? Or have I truly not lived where drugs aren't a problem?
I've asked myself the same question for a long while now without an adequate answer.
In my experience there was an overlap between poverty and a lack of safety, not a complete correlation. My neighborhood as a whole was a bad neighborhood. A woman was raped and murdered two blocks...
In my experience there was an overlap between poverty and a lack of safety, not a complete correlation. My neighborhood as a whole was a bad neighborhood. A woman was raped and murdered two blocks from our apartment six months after we moved in. There were no streetlights on that block and it wasn't in direct view of any houses. It was definitely a poor neighborhood. Not a lot of the visibly unhoused because there wasn't really anyplace for them to be aside from someone's lawn, but definitely a lot of people couch surfing and staying with people who didn't have a lot of extra space. A lot of drugs in the neighborhood, too. Our dead-end half-block was just as poor as the surrounding blocks, and almost as non-white (me being the exception), but I felt safe there. I knew my car was rifled through without anything being missing because my neighbors told me. They offered us food when they were having a cookout and knew the noise would be high. I took their teen son to school a few times when he missed the bus, and he liked to watch my cats play in our front window. We looked out for each other. I knew if I screamed, someone would definitely come. Only in that small area, though.
There's a street called Sistrunk near downtown Fort Lauderdale that's know for high crime rates. That's what I think of when I think of the intersection of poverty and danger. I've never been mugged there, but I know more than one person who has. Not yearly, but still. But I felt safer there than I did in Boca Raton.
Boca Raton is the wealthy city where I went to college. I paid way too much for an apartment within walking distance to the college, but I never walked*, because when I did men would say vile shit to me. I vividly remember "I'm gonna fuck you in the ass" on a weekday afternoon when I was walking home for lunch. I stopped buying cucumbers there because three different men on three different occasions asked me if I was going to use them to masturbate. The parking lot of that grocery store was always full of BMWs and Audis.
The biggest factor in how safe I feel someplace isn't if there are unhoused people around or graffiti or anything. You will occasionally see unhoused people in Sweden, though not nearly as often as in Florida. It's how the men look at me and talk to me. In Sweden they pretty much just don't do either of those things and that rules.
*I also never biked because when I did that I got hit by a car.
Oh my goodness how terrifying..... I guess it's like.....it's not necessarily dangerous when one is surrounded by wildlife but, when the wildlife starts getting into my space and nibbling at...
Oh my goodness how terrifying.....
I guess it's like.....it's not necessarily dangerous when one is surrounded by wildlife but, when the wildlife starts getting into my space and nibbling at clothing/bags and otherwise appear like they're interested in taking what I have, that's dangerous. When moose walk away or sharks swim away, their existence in the vicinity is safer than tiny yippie dogs snarling and snapping their jaws.
On the contrary, Europeans are more likely to be out in the city center than their North American counterparts given how much more walkable European cities are. In America, when someone stops me...
On the contrary, Europeans are more likely to be out in the city center than their North American counterparts given how much more walkable European cities are. In America, when someone stops me on the street, they're usually asking for money; in Germany, they're usually asking for directions.
If you’re explicitly disallowing feedback from people in the spaces you’re spending time/online forums and you don’t seem to have much experience yourself with life on the ground in Europe then...
If you’re explicitly disallowing feedback from people in the spaces you’re spending time/online forums and you don’t seem to have much experience yourself with life on the ground in Europe then that seems to just create a space where your vague assumption never gets challenged in a way you have to listen to.
For what it’s worth there is a very noticeable difference in my personal experience having lived multiple places in the US both moderate and low income, urban and rural and having lived in and spent time in multiple cities and countries in Europe. This is also true of the experiences of other people I’ve talked to and spent time with, both women and men and pulling from a wide range of lifestyles and incomes.
While Europe is hardly a utopia and obviously experiences can differ greatly even within countries much less between them. So for example the experience of being out in Marseille is quite different from Copenhagen.
However, on the whole and in general, public spaces and being out in public at all hours of the day tends to feel safer. There also tends to be less homelessness and the likelihood of having an unpleasant encounter with someone experiencing a mental health crisis is lower. Also, the crime that one is likely to encounter is much more likely to be petty theft or property crime instead of violent crime.
I'm a woman, 100lbs soaking wet and live in the dead centre of Paris. I've been all over the city. I take public transport almost every day unless I'm cycling to work. I've walked around on my own...
Maybe Europe really is the utopia it's made out to be but I suspect the reality is that the average European on tildes/Reddit isn't actually getting out into their city centers/transit systems as much as they say or, even more likely, the demographics of those posters skew, much like myself, masculine, and thus they can afford a certain level of obliviousness towards safety. If you never leave your home it's very easy to avoid seeing the cost of living/mental health/drug crisis unfold.
I'm a woman, 100lbs soaking wet and live in the dead centre of Paris. I've been all over the city. I take public transport almost every day unless I'm cycling to work. I've walked around on my own in so-called "No Go Zones" day and night. I have walked past areas with concentrations of unhoused people and have seen the mental health/drug crisis unfold, as you say. It's not a utopia, but I've rarely felt unsafe in this city. I'm not the exception, a huge number of people live in the city centre and barely anyone uses a vehicle to get around. They have to walk or take public transport to go to work, get their groceries, walk their kids to school, go to the doctor, see friends, etc. I've lived in other European cities too and the experience wasn't very different.
This is so condescending. Equating transit systems with city centers is already completely detached from reality in most European cities -- Berlin's public transit goes well beyond what would even...
Maybe Europe really is the utopia it's made out to be but I suspect the reality is that the average European on tildes/Reddit isn't actually getting out into their city centers/transit systems as much as they say or, even more likely, the demographics of those posters skew, much like myself, masculine, and thus they can afford a certain level of obliviousness towards safety. If you never leave your home it's very easy to avoid seeing the cost of living/mental health/drug crisis unfold.
This is so condescending. Equating transit systems with city centers is already completely detached from reality in most European cities -- Berlin's public transit goes well beyond what would even be considered "urban", for instance -- and the idea that those of us here who live in Europe are somehow more oblivious to our cities' crises than Tildes users in US cities is insulting.
When I lived in Cleveland and Columbus we almost never had to enter the "bad neighborhoods" and there was very clear segregation by wealth. Here in Berlin there are some areas that are richer or poorer than others, but there's much more admixture. The degree of "drug crisis" between the two areas isn't remotely comparable. There are homeless people in both places, but the degree is very different.
And, for the record, I'm 5'4" and trans non-binary (but still usually perceived as a woman on the street), and my wife is a trans woman. We'd notice.
Oh yeah I definitely don't wanna downplay the way wealth inequality affects neighborhoods in America. It's a huge deal. But I think there's probably quite a lot of variation between regions even...
Oh yeah I definitely don't wanna downplay the way wealth inequality affects neighborhoods in America. It's a huge deal. But I think there's probably quite a lot of variation between regions even in poorer parts of cities.
I can't speak for the original commenter. But in eg. Oakland, CA having your car broken into regularly (not monthly, but regularly) is typical. Mugging is something most people never experience,...
I can't speak for the original commenter. But in eg. Oakland, CA having your car broken into regularly (not monthly, but regularly) is typical. Mugging is something most people never experience, but it's highly neighborhood dependent and I can imagine for people in some areas it happens more often.
It's not my experience in the US either. I did keep my car less desirable of a target when I lived in a major city, but I still think I've only had my car broken into once and technically It was...
It's not my experience in the US either. I did keep my car less desirable of a target when I lived in a major city, but I still think I've only had my car broken into once and technically It was unlocked.
My car did get rifled through a few times a month, but I lived in a really bad neighborhood and left it unlocked so they wouldn't break a window. There was never anything in it to take. I've never...
My car did get rifled through a few times a month, but I lived in a really bad neighborhood and left it unlocked so they wouldn't break a window. There was never anything in it to take. I've never been mugged.
I live in San Francisco, supposedly a crime filled wasteland. It’s honestly far less bad than any other US coastal city I’ve visited in the last few years. I’ve never known of someone who got...
I live in San Francisco, supposedly a crime filled wasteland. It’s honestly far less bad than any other US coastal city I’ve visited in the last few years. I’ve never known of someone who got mugged. Car break ins are rampant if you have stuff visible in your car and park on the street.
The world we live in, earth. It's not my experience in the US currently, but it was at one point, and it's one that many people here still experience. That's a little besides my point though,...
The world we live in, earth.
It's not my experience in the US currently, but it was at one point, and it's one that many people here still experience.
That's a little besides my point though, which is that even in countries where crime is lower than it is here, there's a need for a criminal justice system. Murders, rapes, theft, assaults happen in every country on earth. There's a need for people to prosecute these cases, and being the person that did that job doesn't mean you're not a progressive
Yeah, but like other folks have mentioned there are different ways to approach those issues and under her leadership policy was overly harsh and minimally impactful. I think it's ok to talk about...
There's a need for people to prosecute these cases, and being the person that did that job doesn't mean you're not a progressive
Yeah, but like other folks have mentioned there are different ways to approach those issues and under her leadership policy was overly harsh and minimally impactful. I think it's ok to talk about those issues in hopes that her want to overcome being seen "as a cop" pusher her towards more progressive policy and legislation in the future. Everyone can grow but a push in the right direction is helpful.
The US has plenty of rough neighborhoods, but they're also a very small part of the larger country. Most of the country, by square mileage or by population, doesn't generally have to worry about...
The US has plenty of rough neighborhoods, but they're also a very small part of the larger country. Most of the country, by square mileage or by population, doesn't generally have to worry about this in all but the worst areas. Just about anybody will probably suffer some random event at some point, and they're more often in poorer areas, but it's not typically an every day thing or even a regular thing, even in rough/sketchy neighborhoods.
I'm not sure how to explain it in a way that doesn't sound defensive or downplaying anything there might be one or two areas in our biggest cities, and some smaller towns dealing with major drug/poverty issues where this might happen as an expected thing.
Shapiro, Beshear, and Kelly are the three big ones I hear as optimal "Assuage the middle class midwestern White vote" VP choices. Personally, I'd like to see Kelly just because he brings so much...
Shapiro, Beshear, and Kelly are the three big ones I hear as optimal "Assuage the middle class midwestern White vote" VP choices. Personally, I'd like to see Kelly just because he brings so much in the way of personal story.
This kind of optimization nonsense is how you lose. The consequences of a second trump term far out weigh these seats. I don’t think it matters because Harris is the pick for other reasons, but...
This kind of optimization nonsense is how you lose.
The consequences of a second trump term far out weigh these seats. I don’t think it matters because Harris is the pick for other reasons, but too much is on the line to worry about downstream
Hard disagree there. While the presidency is important, Republicans having the Senate means they might as well have the presidency, as they have a willingness to shut down the government in order...
Hard disagree there. While the presidency is important, Republicans having the Senate means they might as well have the presidency, as they have a willingness to shut down the government in order to get their way. Republicans having the Senate is why Obama couldn't fill a supreme court seat in 2016 and we got Neil Gorsuch instead.
It'd be much safer to take them from the House. Taking from the Senate should definitely not be done from any swingy state.
Republican dominance in the Senate is how you get liberal Federal and Supreme Court Justice candidates shut down and reactionaries appointed, just for starters. With Robert Menendez' conviction,...
Republican dominance in the Senate is how you get liberal Federal and Supreme Court Justice candidates shut down and reactionaries appointed, just for starters. With Robert Menendez' conviction, there's already a numerical disadvantage pending. It's completely appropriate to take that kind of strategic calculation into account.
That is the downside, yeah. I think he'd be the best choice for VP in isolation, but that's a huge risk. Between the other two - Shapiro would help a lot with PA which is vital but I don't think...
That is the downside, yeah. I think he'd be the best choice for VP in isolation, but that's a huge risk. Between the other two - Shapiro would help a lot with PA which is vital but I don't think he has as much national recognition as Beshear, which makes it a tough call.
A lot of the concerns laid out in this article could be completely taken care of with a charismatic running mate. If she can effectively champion her policy in prepared speeches and debates, then...
A lot of the concerns laid out in this article could be completely taken care of with a charismatic running mate. If she can effectively champion her policy in prepared speeches and debates, then a charming VP pick can make the ticket feel likable and relatable.
I have some pretty serious issues with her (and Biden's) policy, but it's still the significantly better option.
I think the handling of the train derailment in East Palestine is too big of a scar on his record, and it doesn't look like the families are going to be reasonably made whole, so expect that to be...
I am not a person who says this lightly, and when other people have brought up his name for political nomination in the past I've rolled my eyes, but I actually think this is a moment when the involvement of Jon Stewart would be perfect. I think it's kind of stupid to involve celebrities and entertainers in politics in this way, but we're well past that point, and he's at least fairly knowledgeable about current events. He's got the charisma and energy people want to see, and he would bring the excitement and frankly spectacle that might combat Trump. There's no one in the democratic bullpen right now that carries that potential. I would prefer that he not end up being the actual president, and I know that VPs are more than just Presidential Understudies and Campaign Darlings, but I think the chances of Kamala needing to pass the baton are slim and with the cabinet already in place, it wouldn't be that hard for Stewart to handle what needs doing.
I think it would make the votes happen in a critical time, and wouldn't do the same level of damage to our institutions that caving to celebrity and spectacle would have under other circumstances. I'm not suggesting this because I think it's not stupid - rather, I think it's stupid in a way that would benefit the Democratic party right now. For that reason I know they absolutely won't do it, and I know he's stated that he doesn't want to be president, but has anyone asked him about VP?
I don't follow politics closely but I would for sure vote for Harris alongside VP Stephen or Jon Stewart. Edit: correction, I would vote for Stephen Colbert the person who is Late Show host, not...
I don't follow politics closely but I would for sure vote for Harris alongside VP Stephen Colbert (col-bert) or Jon Stewart.
Edit: correction, I would vote for Stephen Colbert the person who is Late Show host, not the character from The Report
The reverse, sorry, I had my facts wrong. I meant I would vote for Colbert the person and not the character. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-why-steven-colbert-pronounces-183400963.html...
The reverse, sorry, I had my facts wrong. I meant I would vote for Colbert the person and not the character.
Apparently Colbert changed his own pronunciation to "cole-bear" as a young man, so both his character and in real life, he's "cole-bear".
Whereas his father and his sister are still Col-burts, as mentioned when his sister Lulu ran for Congress 11 years ago - clip, name pronounced near 0:30. So I had wrongly assumed that "cole-bear" was a stage name for the character that he continued on as Late Show host.
I can't actually find anything corroborating that right now, so mayhaps I fell into the same assumption, but I somehow thought I recalled that his character on the Colbert Report did go by...
I can't actually find anything corroborating that right now, so mayhaps I fell into the same assumption, but I somehow thought I recalled that his character on the Colbert Report did go by Colbert.
For reasons of good irishhood and not yucky frenchyness or something along those lines.
Oh! Perhaps you can help me out a bit then. I saw her name thrown into the mix so frequently, but I think she's not at all a politician? And also that she has not expressed interest? Are you...
Oh! Perhaps you can help me out a bit then. I saw her name thrown into the mix so frequently, but I think she's not at all a politician? And also that she has not expressed interest? Are you thinking Michelle because she's charismatic and seems like a good person?
I think she is more qualified than most of our legislature. She is a lawyer, so already has a leg up on understanding legal briefs and the associated mess of legalese. She has held public...
I think she is more qualified than most of our legislature. She is a lawyer, so already has a leg up on understanding legal briefs and the associated mess of legalese. She has held public positions and leadership roles at large NGOs. She has already spent time in the whitehouse and built a considerable political network both domestically and internationally.
Following law school, Obama became an associate at the Chicago office of the law firm Sidley & Austin, where she met her future husband Barack. At the firm, she worked on marketing and intellectual property law. She continues to hold her law license, but as she no longer needs it for her work, she has kept it on a voluntary inactive status since 1993.
In 1991, she held public sector positions in the Chicago city government as an Assistant to the Mayor, and as Assistant Commissioner of Planning and Development. In 1993, she became executive director for the Chicago office of Public Allies, a non-profit organization encouraging young people to work on social issues in nonprofit groups and government agencies. She worked there nearly four years and set fundraising records for the organization that still stood twelve years after she had left. Obama later said she had never been happier in her life prior to working "to build Public Allies".
In 1996, Obama served as the Associate Dean of Student Services at the University of Chicago, where she developed the university's Community Service Center. In 2002, she began working for the University of Chicago Hospitals, first as executive director for community affairs and, beginning May 2005, as vice president for Community and External Affairs.
Most of all I think she is hugely electable. Both of my parent's love her, including my sometimes sexist dad. They see the Obama years as a period of stability and largely accredit that to the Obama family. Michelle spearheaded really popular campaigns around health and access to education/healthcare. Overall she has a sparkling record and is just incredibly well liked. I think she would be a shoe in if she ran.
Damn. Why not fight fire with fire when the GOP is relying on a celebrity candidate? Jon is smart, caring, thoughtful, and, hilariously, much younger than Donald or Biden.
Damn. Why not fight fire with fire when the GOP is relying on a celebrity candidate? Jon is smart, caring, thoughtful, and, hilariously, much younger than Donald or Biden.
John Stewart, at a bare minimum, has at least testified before congress. He has an awareness for what people need and that puts him way ahead of many other celebrity picks. He would be a fantastic VP.
John Stewart, at a bare minimum, has at least testified before congress. He has an awareness for what people need and that puts him way ahead of many other celebrity picks.
As a helpful note, Jon Stewart is the comedian commentator and John Stewart is a Green lantern in the DC universe. I disagree that he would be an excellent VP, because I do want somebody who is...
As a helpful note, Jon Stewart is the comedian commentator and John Stewart is a Green lantern in the DC universe.
I disagree that he would be an excellent VP, because I do want somebody who is actually prepared to run a country. Which usually involves increased leadership and political experience. My state had a governor who was an accomplished businessman allegedly but he was very bad at running a government. I don't anticipate a comedian being better, even if I might agree with his views more.
To both you and @GenuinelyCrooked, I answer with: Al Franken He didn't exactly have domain knowledge, but he got things done. I suspect there's more overlap between being a successful comedian and...
He didn't exactly have domain knowledge, but he got things done. I suspect there's more overlap between being a successful comedian and being a politician than most politicians would be willing to admit.
The most important skill of a politician is being charismatic and well-spoken. #2 is being able to vet staff and delegate effectively. Everything else will follow from there. I would be utterly shocked if JS wouldn't be able to pull together an absolute dynamite support staff inside a month with some assistance from the DNC.
The real reason he's not a great pick is because he probably doesn't want the job.
Al Gore lost in 2000 not because he wouldn't have been an effective president, but because he had the persona of a robot on TV. George W seemed far more relatable as a human being, especially outside of the liberal strongholds.
And if you wanted to go broader than the U.S. for examples, there's always Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a comedian who played a fictional Ukrainian comedian who became a fictional Ukrainian President, who...
And if you wanted to go broader than the U.S. for examples, there's always Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a comedian who played a fictional Ukrainian comedian who became a fictional Ukrainian President, who then became a real Ukrainian President. Funny how that turned out.
I'd counter with the fact that a Senator is different than a VP. Being a legislator is inherently being one of a very large team, where you get increasing responsibility based on your time there...
I'd counter with the fact that a Senator is different than a VP. Being a legislator is inherently being one of a very large team, where you get increasing responsibility based on your time there and what you do with it. Your VP is supposed to be prepped to take over if you die, while also addressing policy and being the face, not just in a snarky debate way, but in a "I'm so sorry for your loss" and "we care deeply about your concerns" way for things slightly below Presidential attention.
Also, Franken's past - overblown though I think it was - wasn't vetted as a presidential candidate, and that showed when it blew up. I'm not making claims about intelligence, but about experience. And while Stewart might be the one, how will he manage the actual politics of being #2 in an administration and pushing that agenda through? I don't have any evidence he's actually got that skill set.
I think I'm smart and capable and I'm great at managing a bunch of conflicting feelings about different topics. I'd be eaten alive, personally, by DC politics. Being elected to the house or Senate is just so different than executive branch leadership in my mind.
Re: your addition about Gore, he lost because of the electoral college and the Supreme Court making a decision in Florida. He was bland, sure, but bland can have its appeal in contrast with a Trump. Competence matters. I don't want to follow in Trumpian footsteps.
I suspect all presidents are eaten alive by DC politics, otherwise they wouldn't look like they age 20 years in 4. There isn't a single president that comes out looking better than they did...
I suspect all presidents are eaten alive by DC politics, otherwise they wouldn't look like they age 20 years in 4. There isn't a single president that comes out looking better than they did before.
The only reason Trump looks more or less the same before and after is because he was already a ghoul.
All presidents have the strain of the presidency on their face, sure. Also just aging 4-8 years at the typical President's age is noticeable. But since I wasn't clear, the average person would...
I suspect all presidents are eaten alive by DC politics, otherwise they wouldn't look like they age 20 years in 4.
All presidents have the strain of the presidency on their face, sure. Also just aging 4-8 years at the typical President's age is noticeable.
But since I wasn't clear, the average person would absolutely be manipulated, mocked, taken advantage of, and be blindsided by DC politics on the regular, whether from politicians, media or lobbyists to an extent much greater than that of an experienced politician. Stewart has never expressed interest in being in politics, so he's absolutely unrealistic. And he's got some experience with some of those people in different contexts. But I would not want him even if he was, at his current political experience level. And I suspect his lack of desire to have a serious political pivot, the way Franken did, is rather proof of his lack of preparedness (as his lack of preparedness is proof of his lack of desire.)
To be honest, he doesn't have to be very good at it for me to support him for the position. He just has to not be an unmitigated disaster, and I think it would be worth the trade-off for the boost...
To be honest, he doesn't have to be very good at it for me to support him for the position. He just has to not be an unmitigated disaster, and I think it would be worth the trade-off for the boost in the election. To change my mind, no one needs to convince me that he wouldn't be a good VP, they just need to suggest another person that makes the ticket that appealing (or anywhere close) without jeopardizing Democrat numbers elsewhere.
Or they can ignore me completely, since I highly doubt anyone in the DNC would take my opinion seriously. :)
Al Franken is who my husband thinks would be the ideal presidential candidate. Basically cause he knows politics but he also was a comedian and he thinks to combat trump’s charisma we need some...
Al Franken is who my husband thinks would be the ideal presidential candidate. Basically cause he knows politics but he also was a comedian and he thinks to combat trump’s charisma we need some one who can poke at people’s flaws.
But when a woman does it, she's obviously just a bitch who should get back in the kitchen. /s A lot of professional commentators gonna be saying more polite versions of the above, without the sarcasm.
But when a woman does it, she's obviously just a bitch who should get back in the kitchen. /s
A lot of professional commentators gonna be saying more polite versions of the above, without the sarcasm.
I don't actually think he'd be good at the job, or at least, he doesn't have the experience to be. I just think he has what it takes to get the job, which is something the Dems are sorely lacking....
I don't actually think he'd be good at the job, or at least, he doesn't have the experience to be. I just think he has what it takes to get the job, which is something the Dems are sorely lacking. Unfortunately they haven't been grooming someone young and charismatic for the past four years, which would have been really handy right about now.
I think that would be an extremely bad move. No one would ever trust a ballot again. They wouldn't ever feel like they knew who they were voting for. Baiting and switching the populace is not...
I think that would be an extremely bad move. No one would ever trust a ballot again. They wouldn't ever feel like they knew who they were voting for. Baiting and switching the populace is not something we should stoop to. I think Stewart only doing the absolute bare minimum required of him to personally do as VP and leaving the rest to cabinet members would be fine, though. And I think it would be fine if he stepped down in the event that Kamala did have to leave the presidency for whatever reason. Not as a planned thing, though.
So I know almost nothing about Kamala Harris, but the sentiment the Economist declared here is something I keep on hearing. Why do people dislike her? Are there actual concerns that she would be...
So I know almost nothing about Kamala Harris, but the sentiment the Economist declared here is something I keep on hearing.
Why do people dislike her? Are there actual concerns that she would be unable to fulfill her duties or is it purely about personality?
Eh, I think she's fine. I'm also not holding her 2020 primary campaign against her because a lot can change in four years. Journos gotta get clicks somehow.
Eh, I think she's fine. I'm also not holding her 2020 primary campaign against her because a lot can change in four years. Journos gotta get clicks somehow.
There’s an easy answer in that she is a woman. A woman of color, no less. So a large portion of people instinctually will try to take her down and prevent her from gaining power. The fact that she...
There’s an easy answer in that she is a woman. A woman of color, no less. So a large portion of people instinctually will try to take her down and prevent her from gaining power. The fact that she is progressive amplifies that audience drammatically, both in terms of numbers and fervor. Just look at how people treat Occasio-Cortez.
And then there are a few other things going against her. For one, she hasn’t really managed to pick up much positive press during her term as VP. I swear, most articles I have seen that cover her since she first ran as VP have the sentiment that nobody has any enthusiasm for her. And for progressives, she has some policies she enacted before then which were not well liked - DAs are not well liked by a subset of progressives, so it was already an uphill battle to get that audience from the start.
I don't think you meant it this way, but just so you know, using "colored" to refer to someone's race is not considered appropriate in the modern US. You might be confusing it with the much more...
A colored woman, no less.
I don't think you meant it this way, but just so you know, using "colored" to refer to someone's race is not considered appropriate in the modern US. You might be confusing it with the much more PC term "person/woman of color", but the two terms are very much not equivalent. Calling Harris a woman of color (or abbreviating to WoC) is perfectly fine (as is just calling her black or multiracial), but calling her "colored" carries a lot of historical racist baggage that I can tell from your comment you don't intend.
No worries, I think the content of the comment made it clear what you meant! I just figured I'd go into detail in case you were a Tildes user from outside North America who genuinely didn't know.
No worries, I think the content of the comment made it clear what you meant! I just figured I'd go into detail in case you were a Tildes user from outside North America who genuinely didn't know.
u/Akir I agree the term carries a lot of historical significance, but I don't think it's inherently offensive or derogatory. The NAACP says, "It's outdated and antiquated but not offensive."...
u/Akir I agree the term carries a lot of historical significance, but I don't think it's inherently offensive or derogatory. The NAACP says, "It's outdated and antiquated but not offensive." Certainly wouldn't default to it still since it's so old-fashioned. Some people will take offence, but it's not inherently pejorative.
They don't like her because she's a woman, because she's a powerful woman. They don't like her because she's Californian. There are so many reasons, but the number one is democrats are bad for...
They don't like her because she's a woman, because she's a powerful woman. They don't like her because she's Californian. There are so many reasons, but the number one is democrats are bad for business (they're boring) and they want to be able to write these articles that are rage bait about what the republicans are doing to do next or what they're doing. Notice there is no more discussion about age now that Biden's done?
I think this is a popular opinion but one that misses why the more progressive base is wary. I love AOC and would go door to door for her, Elizabeth Warren, or Michelle Obama. I lived in SF while...
I think this is a popular opinion but one that misses why the more progressive base is wary. I love AOC and would go door to door for her, Elizabeth Warren, or Michelle Obama. I lived in SF while Kamala was DA and her "tough on crime" policies at the time really, really rubbed me the wrong way. If we look at impacts from her time in office, or groups she drew support from, they run counter to the outcomes I was looking for and found popularity with the groups I don't trust. I'm hoping she has grown overtime, but I get the same feeling from her that I do from Gavin Newsom - she will parrot talking points without actually believing them as long as it forwards her career. I think it's why folks say she come off as not genuine. I don't feel that way about any of the women mentioned above and to be honest I'm sick of having to hear the defense of politically unpalatable candidates that the reason for their dislike is gender or race. It's like when folks call out that criticism of Israel is antisemitic. In both cases it can absolutely be a problem but it shouldn't be used as a catch all to shout down valid criticism.
I really don't like her pro-police stances, but she is the best chance we have at the moment. She's currently already VP, literally, she has the experience necessary. Michelle Obama wants...
I really don't like her pro-police stances, but she is the best chance we have at the moment. She's currently already VP, literally, she has the experience necessary. Michelle Obama wants absolutely nothing to do with the White House and has said as much before. Warren is too old, even though I love her. AOC is just as divisive as Harris, but I would campaign for her 100%. I would campaign for any democratic nominee, regardless, but this election cycle is just proving we need to change how we handle politicians. We need sweeping change, first pas the post has got to go.
Absolutely, because she's "young" (compared to congress), a woman of color, outspoken, beautiful, and progressive. We need more voices like hers in congress so I really hope others like her aren't...
Absolutely, because she's "young" (compared to congress), a woman of color, outspoken, beautiful, and progressive.
We need more voices like hers in congress so I really hope others like her aren't afraid to run based on her treatment.
This episode of the Ezra Klein Show on Kamala Harris, "Is Kamala Harris Underrated?" (also on YouTube here) discusses both what people aren't keen on, why she got the VP pick, and what her...
This episode of the Ezra Klein Show on Kamala Harris, "Is Kamala Harris Underrated?" (also on YouTube here) discusses both what people aren't keen on, why she got the VP pick, and what her strengths are while considering whether or not she'd be a good pick to replace Biden as the Democratic nominee. The host is generally amenable to the idea of her in that position.
I dislike Kamala Harris for the same reason I dislike Eric Swalwell. I've never liked either of them, and neither of them have done anything to sway my opinion. And while I am always open to...
I dislike Kamala Harris for the same reason I dislike Eric Swalwell.
I've never liked either of them, and neither of them have done anything to sway my opinion.
And while I am always open to changing my mind, I have followed them both since they started in politics.
I think this could be a good opportunity for the democrats if they could get past this idea that there "isnt enough time". Kamala Harris should just back off a bit, spend a month or so really...
I think this could be a good opportunity for the democrats if they could get past this idea that there "isnt enough time".
Kamala Harris should just back off a bit, spend a month or so really nailing down a platform and campaign strategy, and then do a strong month or 2 month long campaign blitz.
Weve been in like a 4 year election cycle after finishing the last 4 year election cycle, and it really just kills everyone's genuine enthusiasm to engage with the political system. And replaces it with an overarching feeling of dread and obligation.
It favors candidates like Trump who can continue to dominate news cycles by pushing the envelope to new and bigger levels of depravity, and when genuine politicans try to go head to head with him, they lose and look like fools.
So candidates should just stop trying to fight this way. Stop trying to hold the countries attention for a year at a time.
If Harris just did like 3 or 4 big campaign events, 3 or 4 big speeches, and thats it? People would probably be interested enough to tune in to at least one of those 3 or 4 events. And then thats it, thats the only big impression you make on people, and you just focus as hard as you can on making that one impression a good one.
Just My Opinion As far as I can tell, many of Ms Harris’ public values align with mine, maybe more than any candidate in recent history except maybe Cornel West. Being elected senator is of course...
Just My Opinion
As far as I can tell, many of Ms Harris’ public values align with mine, maybe more than any candidate in recent history except maybe Cornel West.
Being elected senator is of course no small political feat.
That said, I’m doubtful she can be elected in this environment. I’m also doubtful Biden could be elected. This is largely based on instinct, but also on reason. While not a majority in terms of gross populution, a conservative impulse remains ascendant across a majority of swing states. And they are not susceptible to claims of hypocrisy it seems, and will vote for whatever it seems will advance a well-ordered and “god-fearing” society. I use quotes because their god is not mine, but is an 18th century presbyterian one probably. And Trump is the best candidate for that.
I think she has a real shot. She has a 'fan base' already, mostly made up of younger voters disatisfied with Biden. She's a firecracker, she's meme worthy in the awkward way the internet loves....
I think she has a real shot. She has a 'fan base' already, mostly made up of younger voters disatisfied with Biden. She's a firecracker, she's meme worthy in the awkward way the internet loves. Yet she's also a serious, smart individual. She seeks justice and fairness, upholds democratic beliefs. She can be empathetic and strong. She'a dealt with the media and internet haters, so she has the backbone to deal with what's worthy to spend time to deflect, then ignore the rest. The GOP might have a serious fight on their hands.
I think she has a significantly better shot than Biden. My paranoia about a Trump win causes me to prefer putting Kelly at the top of the ticket where he can out macho Trump with his combat record...
I think she has a significantly better shot than Biden. My paranoia about a Trump win causes me to prefer putting Kelly at the top of the ticket where he can out macho Trump with his combat record and his career as an astronaut.
We are not choosing in a vacuum however and it isn't up to me. If Kamala loses it will be purely because of racism and sexism.
You've got that right. I like your thinking on VP. She has to get the nom first, but looking at the news today, it certainly looks like she has support.
You've got that right. I like your thinking on VP. She has to get the nom first, but looking at the news today, it certainly looks like she has support.
This should probably have been posted in the megathread.
This should probably have been posted in the megathread.
This thread is posted weekly - please try to post all relevant US political content in here, such as news, updates, opinion articles, etc. Extremely significant events may warrant a separate topic, but almost all should be posted in here.
I’m not a fan of the article’s title, but I thought a detailed discussion of Kamala Harris would be good at this point. There’s not a lot of time to get to know the candidate. The response...
I’m not a fan of the article’s title, but I thought a detailed discussion of Kamala Harris would be good at this point. There’s not a lot of time to get to know the candidate.
Could you explain why your opinion of the younger, less powerful person in the situation dropped? How did your opinion of the older, more powerful person fare?
Could you explain why your opinion of the younger, less powerful person in the situation dropped? How did your opinion of the older, more powerful person fare?
It's hard to read it as anything other than misogyny to me, personally. The implication being that she somehow "slept her way to the top"... 🙄 You would never see comments like that about a male...
It's hard to read it as anything other than misogyny to me, personally. The implication being that she somehow "slept her way to the top"... 🙄 You would never see comments like that about a male candidate. Harris has plenty of legitimate things to criticize, we don't need to stoop to investigating her romantic or sexual history for things we don't consider sufficiently perfect.
You're absolutely right, but I remember some skepticism about Macron's relationship with a woman several years his senior. Of course then they were also focused on her, considering she was his...
You're absolutely right, but I remember some skepticism about Macron's relationship with a woman several years his senior. Of course then they were also focused on her, considering she was his teacher.
The biggest difference is that Macron was 15 and she was 39, as student and teacher. When Harris dated Brown they were already 30 and 60. Aside, neither was okay under the playground rule of "half...
The biggest difference is that Macron was 15 and she was 39, as student and teacher.
When Harris dated Brown they were already 30 and 60.
Aside, neither was okay under the playground rule of "half your age plus 7", but being 30 years old is a fully adult decision.
Plus, scrutiny of the relationship with the focus on the adult involved makes some sense. Scrutiny of or "I lost respect for" Macron for that wouldn't make much sense. Similarly if someone felt...
Plus, scrutiny of the relationship with the focus on the adult involved makes some sense. Scrutiny of or "I lost respect for" Macron for that wouldn't make much sense. Similarly if someone felt Harris's relationship was questionable, being mad at her for that or losing respect for her isn't a logical response IMO.
I'm scared to respond as I have a history of saying things that are misunderstood, then punishing myself for how people react (i.e calling me a misogynist, incel, what have you). I have a...
I'm scared to respond as I have a history of saying things that are misunderstood, then punishing myself for how people react (i.e calling me a misogynist, incel, what have you). I have a suspicion there are going to be people angrily defending Kamala as well.
I don't doubt her ability as a political leader, and I doubt she slept her way to the top. However, it is my opinion that no one gets in a relation with someone who is basically twice their age for normal reasons. Going off the "kingmaker" description (I have very little knowledge about these people, and am not American), I would assume she was in the relationship because she is attracted to power. It's possible she has matured a lot as she aged, but it's also possible that she has been power hungry her entire life - which I would argue is not a great trait for a president.
Obviously anyone who dates someone half their age has some issues, and I would assume they are interested in the relationship for mainly physical reasons, or possibly to show off to their peers. Aka they are greasy bastards...
I get where you're coming from now. Thanks for sharing your opinion. It's probably worth keeping an open mind. I don't think anyone knows all the details of their relationship except them, and I'm...
I get where you're coming from now. Thanks for sharing your opinion.
It's probably worth keeping an open mind. I don't think anyone knows all the details of their relationship except them, and I'm not sure it's worth focusing too much on what happens between two consenting adults. Love can blossom in unexpected places! :)
Do you think that there are any people in US politics who made it this far who are not / were not power hungry? Without knowing much about the system over there, my own country is a lot more...
it's also possible that she has been power hungry her entire life
Do you think that there are any people in US politics who made it this far who are not / were not power hungry?
Without knowing much about the system over there, my own country is a lot more relaxed in terms of funding needed to run for a political position and the hustling required to be considered a serious candidate, among other things. And yet, even here, you absolutely have to be more hungry for power than the average person in order to get elected (or otherwise given a chance to work within the political system).
This is like losing respect for Usain Bolt upon finding out that he likes running.
What an empty, unresearched, ahistorical [archive link], vapid yet typical punditocracy hit piece. We're talking about someone who, as a state prosecutor had sufficient anti-death penalty convictions to go against the wishes of both California U.S. Senators and alienate the California police unions, which refused to endorse her for a decade.
In the essay I linked, the writer had the opportunity to interview with Harris during her first Presidential run in 2020. This quote is revealing about how holistically she arrived at her criminal justice strategy:
I'm content that she's someone who can embrace complexity, works with the world as it exists, has a vision for improving intolerable situations, and can hold both empathy and a sense of justice. I'm concerned that her brief hasn't involved enough military, foreign policy, and economic management experience, but reporting on her Vice Presidential role is atrocious. Kamala Harris has, by virtue of sitting in the same briefings as the President for 3+ years, certainly been exposed to the expectations, responsibilities, and knowledge required.
Much of the "dislike" of Harris is being manufactured for the same reasons progressives (particularly women) have always been denigrated. She's in favor of Medicaid for All policies, labor rights, fair taxation, environmental protection including climate change mitigation, attacking the root causes of crime, public housing support, gay rights, global human rights... I'm not going to give the whole Wikipedia laundry list. Of course she's an object of hatred for the billionaire class, the fossil fuel barons, the racists and sexists, the small-town and Southern feudalists. Personally, I think we could do a lot worse; she's charming enough, articulate in a way Biden has never been, quick on her feet, and deserves better press coverage than she's been given.
If I was stacking the deck, I'd give her a running mate like Andy Beshear or Mark Kelly - moderate white guys with good narratives who've managed to get elected in swing or conservative states.
I'm tired of criticism, often times from the left, that the mere fact that she was a prosecutor means she cannot be progressive.
Leftists often live in a fantasy world that works perfectly in their heads that if just we provided healthcare, education, reformed drug laws, and social safety nets, there wouldn't be a need for the criminal justice system and people like DAs and state attorneys are what's keeping us back from that utopia.
There's a semblance of truth there, in that those things would obviously reduce crime, but there has always been, and will always be crime. A justice system will always be necessary, and in an adversarial criminal justice system, there will always need to be an offense to persue justice, just as there will always need to be an defense to guard personal freedoms.
Furthermore, that utopia that leftists often talk about does not exist, anywhere in the world. It's certainly not likely to exist any time soon in the US, because we live in a democratic system with people who don't agree with us, a political establishment, and monied interests. A dose of realpolitik is needed when examining this stuff, especially in the case of Harris.
Sometimes, the political left is so eager to distance themselves from both conservatives and liberals that they throw the baby out with the bathwater, and law and order becomes a dirty phrase and kryptonite to them, when it really isn't, and only is to people who live in an ideal world of theory and ideas instead of the real world where your car gets broken into a couple times a month and you get mugged on your way home from work on a yearly basis.
I think most leftists who criticize Harris's time as DA are critical of specific policies she advocated for or helped implement while in that role, not just the idea of her having served as a prosecutor. For example, her treatment of trans people (particularly trans women) while in that role is a particular scar on her record -- she advocated for denying transition-related healthcare (including both HRT and surgery) to inmates and referred to sexual reassignment surgery as "an unnecessary procedure". Are her positions still the same? Eh, probably not. Definitely not that she'd admit. But as trans people in the US struggle to survive an assault on their rights by Republicans, it's not remotely unreasonable to worry that she won't exactly be the champion we need if she becomes President.
I'll definitely vote for her in November if she's the one on the ballot. A candidate has to be a lot worse for me to abstain when they're facing Trump. But this strawman leftist who opposes her solely for having been a DA without knowing or caring about her positions and policies in that role is just not the reality. You can disagree with leftists that certain things she did while DA were wrong and harmful, or disagree that they're relevant in this election, but at least engage with the idea that they're criticizing those specific things rather than just the concept of someone being a DA.
I do think I'm seeing more clarity on her attempts to change the process under her leadership.
I had an article linked but I'm not a Medium member so I cannot read the whole thing.
Medium article
Advocate article
I mean, yeah, I'm absolutely fine with people pointing out ways in which those policies don't reflect her opinions and goals as president or even her opinions and goals back then. I'm just annoyed by people ignoring the existence of those bad policies and claiming that leftists are criticizing her past exclusively out of some fantasy dream that DAs never exist.
I fully understand that, I just wanted to highlight my new understanding of her past and present. Most of what I've seen from leftists I follow has been accusations of this being a "fix" and a lack of a fair primary. I've seen more people accusing the progressive wing of the party and leftists more broadly of being behind Biden resigning and I don't think that's the case. I think on social media it's easy to just throw ACAB at her and not discuss the policies/positions/etc. I don't think anyone besides someone maybe quite uninformed would only say she's a DA and thus bad. But sometimes people shorthand their opinions because they're used to their audience not needing the specifics.
I do think it's important to see where she's gone since her time as a DA and AG while still acknowledging the harm done and I'm sure she's not going to be where leftists would like her to be on a number of issues. She's not where I am, and I'd put myself on the edge of leftist in my opinions but probably not nearly far enough to where I should be. Idk labels are hard. But I'm also pragmatic that the time to successfully pull the party further left would ultimately be during her administration.
Anyway, wasn't trying to shut you down, I feel what you're saying.
Oh yeah no I think your position is sensible and I like the way you laid it out here! I didn't feel like you were shutting me down, no worries.
The text of the Medium article
Kamala Harris’s Record on Trans Rights Isn’t “Mixed”. Published Aug 24, 2020. Written by Courtney Swanson
Kamala Harris’s public record on trans rights began the moment she stepped into elected office in 2003 as San Francisco’s District Attorney. One of her first acts as DA was to establish an LGBTQ taskforce, establishing a hate crimes unit to fund the investigations and prosecution of anti-LGBTQ violence. Her office also set up a victim assistance program, creating a two-part approach of prosecution for the offenders and relief for the victims.
In 2006, transgender teen Gwen Araujo was tragically murdered by a man in Newark, who cited the reveal of her gender identity as his motive for murder. Though the man was successfully convicted of second degree murder, DA Kamala Harris was appalled by the defense for using such an argument. She convened a conference for law enforcement officers and prosecutors across the nation to discuss options to counter the “gay panic” and“transgender panic” defenses used in courtrooms to gain acquittals or reduced punishments for violent crimes. This seminar was the first of its kind in national history.
The groundwork District Attorney Kamala Harris laid out to abolish the trans panic defense came to fruition in 2014, when as Attorney General, she co-sponsored a bill in the California House with Assemblymember Susan Bonilla to abolish it statewide, making California the first state to ban it. To date, it is still one of the only states to do so.
Just as she did from DA to AG, Kamala Harris continued the fight to abolish the trans panic defense after she was elected the junior Senator of California. She introduced the Gay and Trans Panic Defense Prohibition Act of 2018 with Senator Markey to ban the practice nationwide.
In fact, since joining the Senate in 2016, Kamala Harris has used her new role as a legislator to be either the author or a cosponsor of virtually every proposal to further trans rights, including, but not limited to: (image)
In addition to the above laws specifically referencing trans rights, her Justice in Policing Act was endorsed by the National LGBTQ Task Force, Action Fund. In their endorsement, they cited data stating that “58% of transgender people who contacted the police reported some form of mistreatment, such as harassment, misgendering and assault. This number increases to 61% when looking specifically at the experience of Black transgender respondents.”
Her work on trans rights as a District Attorney and Attorney General was not limited to ending the trans panic defense, however.
In June 2012, AG Harris received the George Moscone Ally Award for LGBT Advocacy for all of her aforementioned work on trans rights, in addition to her countless other achievements for the LGB portion of the community. The creation of her LGBT Victim Advocacy Unit and an LGBT Sexual Assault Awareness Program was also highlighted at LA’s Pride Parade.
In December 2016, before nonprofit healthcare industry BlueMountain could acquire a nonprofit religious organization, AG Harris required a series of strict conditions, including that “all facilities and the medical office buildings’ policies and procedures shall explicitly prohibit discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender individuals.”
In July of 2016, one of Kamala Harris’s last acts as Attorney General was to join California’s AG office with two cases supporting trans rights with briefs challenging the controversial “bathroom bill” and to expand Title IX protections to include gender identity.
The record established so far is above and beyond any other political leader in American politics today. 17 years of consistent allyship and using an increasingly more powerful platform to push the envelope beyond blue bubbles and into the mainstream. Which brings us to the question — why on Earth are some people disparaging Kamala Harris’s record on trans rights as “mixed”?
Kamala Harris’s record in general has been grossly misinterpreted by people that either don’t understand how an Attorney General’s office works, or intentionally wish to disparage her record in favor of their preferred 2020 candidate. But this particular conclusion is based on two cases involving two trans inmates petitioning for gender reassignment surgery.
One of the primary roles of a state’s Attorney General office is to defend other state agencies during a lawsuit, regardless of the personal opinions of the Assistant Attorney Generals or the Attorney General herself. Similar to an assigned defense counsel, they are obligated to represent their client to the best of their ability. These two cases were against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which clearly had a policy against gender reassignment surgery funded by the state.
Kamala Harris’s name may be present on the letterhead of the briefing to deny one of the inmates gender reassignment surgery and to instead proceed with hormone therapy, but that merely means it originated from the California Attorney General’s office, which employs thousands of Assistant Attorney Generals to handle caseloads across California ranging from custody battles to murder cases. There is no evidence to suggest that Kamala Harris wrote the brief, and she would have had no reason to, any more than she would have personally filed a petition for review of child support.
Kamala Harris has stated multiple times that she was not involved in the case until much later in the process, which is supported by both her office and outside lawyers familiar with the case.
Peter Renn, a senior attorney in the Western Regional Office of Lambda Legal who works on transgender cases, said the situation changed in the lawsuits as Harris became more involved in the litigation.
Those important policy shifts included a settlement to the trans inmates and forcing the review and reversal of California Department of Corrections’s policy!
Despite Kamala Harris’s clear delight in the case resolving in such a fashion, some circles are conflating her involvement in earlier stages of the case and using them as ammunition to berate her as out of touch — and even transphobic. The case certainly warrants criticism, and her involvement or lack thereof is still subject to scrutiny since she was still in charge of the actions of her subordinates. And Kamala Harris agrees!
The degradation of her record is the result of an explosive cocktail of wanting to take her down to prop up other political figures, the desire to eliminate nuance in the pursuit of political purity and, of course and as always, racism.
On the subject of trans rights, Kamala Harris doesn’t just have the rhetoric. She also has results.
link to the Tumblr post with transcription, with images and links intact
A Bluesky thread highlighting her trans rights history.
Viewable to logged in folks only.
Advocates for Trans Equality endorses Kamala Harris
FYI they're several previous trans advocacy groups combined.
I had no idea of this. Thank you for sharing.
Have definitely heard just, "she's a cop" as a derogatory comment about her. I don't think Well There's Your Problem is necessarily representative, but they have one of the biggest Patreon memberships so they're not small either.
Maybe there's underlying reasoning, said but the knee jerk reaction papasquat is referencing at least the surface expression that gets circulation.
I don't think it's sensible to take comments from what is obviously a comedy podcast (and one for which discussing current news is not even the main focus of the podcast) as laying out the entirety of anyone's reasoning for disapproving of her. Someone offhandedly saying "she's just a cop" in contexts that consist almost entirely of other leftists doesn't mean that the only reason most leftists oppose her is solely because she's a DA and not because of the things she did while she was in that position. If you're going to criticize leftists for being "unrealistic", you can't just criticize surface expressions and ignore the substantive things that are worth criticizing that lie behind them.
(my other reply reiterates your point of audience and shorthand, so apologies for not catching this response while replying to the other. )
I'm all for people reiterating me, no worries.
What kind of real world is that? Is that really your experience in the US? I live in Switzerland so this is really foreign to me...
I definitely feel safer living in Berlin than I did in urban areas in the US, but even when I was in the US that wasn't my experience either. I assume it must be either hyperbole or something that's highly variable throughout the country.
Absolutely highly variable throughout the country. I made the comment in another post that life in the US is very different depending on how much wealth you have.
It can be either a virtual utopia that bends to your whim, or a miserable hell hole, depending on your bank account. Part of what makes it a miserable hell hole is that the places where many people can afford to live have terrible crime problems that you wouldn't expect in a first world country.
I'm a 5'2" woman, I moved from South Florida to Sweden last year, I get into the city centers all the time (Stockholm, Göteborg, and Jönköping most often) and I'm happy to tell you that it really is just much better in Sweden than it is in Florida. I feel immensely safer here. I didn't go into the city centers much in Florida because of the danger and honestly the terrible drive, but here those problems don't exist. I'm happy to give more details if you're curious. Better things are possible.
Very curious!
I'm also a woman, same size, and I used to live in a bad Toronto suburb but didn't feel unsafe there. I used to live near Vancouver and its infamous downtown Eastside, circa 2015, wasn't bad at all either. I am most curious to hear when a place crosses over from merely "poor people exist" to "unsafe". I have friends who won't go near where I live because, gasp, you can see people pushing shopping trolleys with their lives in them. Discarded needles I can understand more: don't want them on the grass where one can't see them. But that's more of a passive danger that exists everywhere downtown, or heck slightly out of sight in suburbia now, right? Or have I truly not lived where drugs aren't a problem?
I've asked myself the same question for a long while now without an adequate answer.
In my experience there was an overlap between poverty and a lack of safety, not a complete correlation. My neighborhood as a whole was a bad neighborhood. A woman was raped and murdered two blocks from our apartment six months after we moved in. There were no streetlights on that block and it wasn't in direct view of any houses. It was definitely a poor neighborhood. Not a lot of the visibly unhoused because there wasn't really anyplace for them to be aside from someone's lawn, but definitely a lot of people couch surfing and staying with people who didn't have a lot of extra space. A lot of drugs in the neighborhood, too. Our dead-end half-block was just as poor as the surrounding blocks, and almost as non-white (me being the exception), but I felt safe there. I knew my car was rifled through without anything being missing because my neighbors told me. They offered us food when they were having a cookout and knew the noise would be high. I took their teen son to school a few times when he missed the bus, and he liked to watch my cats play in our front window. We looked out for each other. I knew if I screamed, someone would definitely come. Only in that small area, though.
There's a street called Sistrunk near downtown Fort Lauderdale that's know for high crime rates. That's what I think of when I think of the intersection of poverty and danger. I've never been mugged there, but I know more than one person who has. Not yearly, but still. But I felt safer there than I did in Boca Raton.
Boca Raton is the wealthy city where I went to college. I paid way too much for an apartment within walking distance to the college, but I never walked*, because when I did men would say vile shit to me. I vividly remember "I'm gonna fuck you in the ass" on a weekday afternoon when I was walking home for lunch. I stopped buying cucumbers there because three different men on three different occasions asked me if I was going to use them to masturbate. The parking lot of that grocery store was always full of BMWs and Audis.
The biggest factor in how safe I feel someplace isn't if there are unhoused people around or graffiti or anything. You will occasionally see unhoused people in Sweden, though not nearly as often as in Florida. It's how the men look at me and talk to me. In Sweden they pretty much just don't do either of those things and that rules.
*I also never biked because when I did that I got hit by a car.
Oh my goodness how terrifying.....
I guess it's like.....it's not necessarily dangerous when one is surrounded by wildlife but, when the wildlife starts getting into my space and nibbling at clothing/bags and otherwise appear like they're interested in taking what I have, that's dangerous. When moose walk away or sharks swim away, their existence in the vicinity is safer than tiny yippie dogs snarling and snapping their jaws.
On the contrary, Europeans are more likely to be out in the city center than their North American counterparts given how much more walkable European cities are. In America, when someone stops me on the street, they're usually asking for money; in Germany, they're usually asking for directions.
If you’re explicitly disallowing feedback from people in the spaces you’re spending time/online forums and you don’t seem to have much experience yourself with life on the ground in Europe then that seems to just create a space where your vague assumption never gets challenged in a way you have to listen to.
For what it’s worth there is a very noticeable difference in my personal experience having lived multiple places in the US both moderate and low income, urban and rural and having lived in and spent time in multiple cities and countries in Europe. This is also true of the experiences of other people I’ve talked to and spent time with, both women and men and pulling from a wide range of lifestyles and incomes.
While Europe is hardly a utopia and obviously experiences can differ greatly even within countries much less between them. So for example the experience of being out in Marseille is quite different from Copenhagen.
However, on the whole and in general, public spaces and being out in public at all hours of the day tends to feel safer. There also tends to be less homelessness and the likelihood of having an unpleasant encounter with someone experiencing a mental health crisis is lower. Also, the crime that one is likely to encounter is much more likely to be petty theft or property crime instead of violent crime.
I'm a woman, 100lbs soaking wet and live in the dead centre of Paris. I've been all over the city. I take public transport almost every day unless I'm cycling to work. I've walked around on my own in so-called "No Go Zones" day and night. I have walked past areas with concentrations of unhoused people and have seen the mental health/drug crisis unfold, as you say. It's not a utopia, but I've rarely felt unsafe in this city. I'm not the exception, a huge number of people live in the city centre and barely anyone uses a vehicle to get around. They have to walk or take public transport to go to work, get their groceries, walk their kids to school, go to the doctor, see friends, etc. I've lived in other European cities too and the experience wasn't very different.
This is so condescending. Equating transit systems with city centers is already completely detached from reality in most European cities -- Berlin's public transit goes well beyond what would even be considered "urban", for instance -- and the idea that those of us here who live in Europe are somehow more oblivious to our cities' crises than Tildes users in US cities is insulting.
When I lived in Cleveland and Columbus we almost never had to enter the "bad neighborhoods" and there was very clear segregation by wealth. Here in Berlin there are some areas that are richer or poorer than others, but there's much more admixture. The degree of "drug crisis" between the two areas isn't remotely comparable. There are homeless people in both places, but the degree is very different.
And, for the record, I'm 5'4" and trans non-binary (but still usually perceived as a woman on the street), and my wife is a trans woman. We'd notice.
Oh yeah I definitely don't wanna downplay the way wealth inequality affects neighborhoods in America. It's a huge deal. But I think there's probably quite a lot of variation between regions even in poorer parts of cities.
I can't speak for the original commenter. But in eg. Oakland, CA having your car broken into regularly (not monthly, but regularly) is typical. Mugging is something most people never experience, but it's highly neighborhood dependent and I can imagine for people in some areas it happens more often.
It's not my experience in the US either. I did keep my car less desirable of a target when I lived in a major city, but I still think I've only had my car broken into once and technically It was unlocked.
My car did get rifled through a few times a month, but I lived in a really bad neighborhood and left it unlocked so they wouldn't break a window. There was never anything in it to take. I've never been mugged.
I live in San Francisco, supposedly a crime filled wasteland. It’s honestly far less bad than any other US coastal city I’ve visited in the last few years. I’ve never known of someone who got mugged. Car break ins are rampant if you have stuff visible in your car and park on the street.
The world we live in, earth.
It's not my experience in the US currently, but it was at one point, and it's one that many people here still experience.
That's a little besides my point though, which is that even in countries where crime is lower than it is here, there's a need for a criminal justice system. Murders, rapes, theft, assaults happen in every country on earth. There's a need for people to prosecute these cases, and being the person that did that job doesn't mean you're not a progressive
Yeah, but like other folks have mentioned there are different ways to approach those issues and under her leadership policy was overly harsh and minimally impactful. I think it's ok to talk about those issues in hopes that her want to overcome being seen "as a cop" pusher her towards more progressive policy and legislation in the future. Everyone can grow but a push in the right direction is helpful.
The US has plenty of rough neighborhoods, but they're also a very small part of the larger country. Most of the country, by square mileage or by population, doesn't generally have to worry about this in all but the worst areas. Just about anybody will probably suffer some random event at some point, and they're more often in poorer areas, but it's not typically an every day thing or even a regular thing, even in rough/sketchy neighborhoods.
I'm not sure how to explain it in a way that doesn't sound defensive or downplaying anything there might be one or two areas in our biggest cities, and some smaller towns dealing with major drug/poverty issues where this might happen as an expected thing.
Shapiro, Beshear, and Kelly are the three big ones I hear as optimal "Assuage the middle class midwestern White vote" VP choices. Personally, I'd like to see Kelly just because he brings so much in the way of personal story.
For strategic reasons, I’d rather not see a Senator pulled out of any state that isn’t solidly Democratic.
This kind of optimization nonsense is how you lose.
The consequences of a second trump term far out weigh these seats. I don’t think it matters because Harris is the pick for other reasons, but too much is on the line to worry about downstream
Hard disagree there. While the presidency is important, Republicans having the Senate means they might as well have the presidency, as they have a willingness to shut down the government in order to get their way. Republicans having the Senate is why Obama couldn't fill a supreme court seat in 2016 and we got Neil Gorsuch instead.
It'd be much safer to take them from the House. Taking from the Senate should definitely not be done from any swingy state.
Kelly's replacement would be a democrat automatically
But could they easily win re-election would be the question.
Republican dominance in the Senate is how you get liberal Federal and Supreme Court Justice candidates shut down and reactionaries appointed, just for starters. With Robert Menendez' conviction, there's already a numerical disadvantage pending. It's completely appropriate to take that kind of strategic calculation into account.
That is the downside, yeah. I think he'd be the best choice for VP in isolation, but that's a huge risk. Between the other two - Shapiro would help a lot with PA which is vital but I don't think he has as much national recognition as Beshear, which makes it a tough call.
A lot of the concerns laid out in this article could be completely taken care of with a charismatic running mate. If she can effectively champion her policy in prepared speeches and debates, then a charming VP pick can make the ticket feel likable and relatable.
I have some pretty serious issues with her (and Biden's) policy, but it's still the significantly better option.
I’m hoping for Buttigieg as the VP pick. He’s the first secretary of transportation that I hear so much good news about.
I think the handling of the train derailment in East Palestine is too big of a scar on his record, and it doesn't look like the families are going to be reasonably made whole, so expect that to be back in the news and easy fodder to shade him with.
I am not a person who says this lightly, and when other people have brought up his name for political nomination in the past I've rolled my eyes, but I actually think this is a moment when the involvement of Jon Stewart would be perfect. I think it's kind of stupid to involve celebrities and entertainers in politics in this way, but we're well past that point, and he's at least fairly knowledgeable about current events. He's got the charisma and energy people want to see, and he would bring the excitement and frankly spectacle that might combat Trump. There's no one in the democratic bullpen right now that carries that potential. I would prefer that he not end up being the actual president, and I know that VPs are more than just Presidential Understudies and Campaign Darlings, but I think the chances of Kamala needing to pass the baton are slim and with the cabinet already in place, it wouldn't be that hard for Stewart to handle what needs doing.
I think it would make the votes happen in a critical time, and wouldn't do the same level of damage to our institutions that caving to celebrity and spectacle would have under other circumstances. I'm not suggesting this because I think it's not stupid - rather, I think it's stupid in a way that would benefit the Democratic party right now. For that reason I know they absolutely won't do it, and I know he's stated that he doesn't want to be president, but has anyone asked him about VP?
I don't follow politics closely but I would for sure vote for Harris alongside VP Stephen
Colbert (col-bert)or Jon Stewart.Edit: correction, I would vote for Stephen Colbert the person who is Late Show host, not the character from The Report
"Col-bert", meaning in-character?
The reverse, sorry, I had my facts wrong. I meant I would vote for Colbert the person and not the character.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-why-steven-colbert-pronounces-183400963.html
Apparently Colbert changed his own pronunciation to "cole-bear" as a young man, so both his character and in real life, he's "cole-bear".
Whereas his father and his sister are still Col-burts, as mentioned when his sister Lulu ran for Congress 11 years ago - clip, name pronounced near 0:30. So I had wrongly assumed that "cole-bear" was a stage name for the character that he continued on as Late Show host.
I can't actually find anything corroborating that right now, so mayhaps I fell into the same assumption, but I somehow thought I recalled that his character on the Colbert Report did go by Colbert.
For reasons of good irishhood and not yucky frenchyness or something along those lines.
But, it's been a while and I'm at work.
If we're throwing out dream running mates, I'm here for Michelle Obama.
The problem is Michelle Obama hates politics, and she wants nothing to do with the White House.
Oh! Perhaps you can help me out a bit then. I saw her name thrown into the mix so frequently, but I think she's not at all a politician? And also that she has not expressed interest? Are you thinking Michelle because she's charismatic and seems like a good person?
I think she is more qualified than most of our legislature. She is a lawyer, so already has a leg up on understanding legal briefs and the associated mess of legalese. She has held public positions and leadership roles at large NGOs. She has already spent time in the whitehouse and built a considerable political network both domestically and internationally.
Most of all I think she is hugely electable. Both of my parent's love her, including my sometimes sexist dad. They see the Obama years as a period of stability and largely accredit that to the Obama family. Michelle spearheaded really popular campaigns around health and access to education/healthcare. Overall she has a sparkling record and is just incredibly well liked. I think she would be a shoe in if she ran.
Damn. Why not fight fire with fire when the GOP is relying on a celebrity candidate? Jon is smart, caring, thoughtful, and, hilariously, much younger than Donald or Biden.
John Stewart, at a bare minimum, has at least testified before congress. He has an awareness for what people need and that puts him way ahead of many other celebrity picks.
He would be a fantastic VP.
As a helpful note, Jon Stewart is the comedian commentator and John Stewart is a Green lantern in the DC universe.
I disagree that he would be an excellent VP, because I do want somebody who is actually prepared to run a country. Which usually involves increased leadership and political experience. My state had a governor who was an accomplished businessman allegedly but he was very bad at running a government. I don't anticipate a comedian being better, even if I might agree with his views more.
To both you and @GenuinelyCrooked, I answer with: Al Franken
He didn't exactly have domain knowledge, but he got things done. I suspect there's more overlap between being a successful comedian and being a politician than most politicians would be willing to admit.
The most important skill of a politician is being charismatic and well-spoken. #2 is being able to vet staff and delegate effectively. Everything else will follow from there. I would be utterly shocked if JS wouldn't be able to pull together an absolute dynamite support staff inside a month with some assistance from the DNC.
The real reason he's not a great pick is because he probably doesn't want the job.
Al Gore lost in 2000 not because he wouldn't have been an effective president, but because he had the persona of a robot on TV. George W seemed far more relatable as a human being, especially outside of the liberal strongholds.
And if you wanted to go broader than the U.S. for examples, there's always Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a comedian who played a fictional Ukrainian comedian who became a fictional Ukrainian President, who then became a real Ukrainian President. Funny how that turned out.
I'd counter with the fact that a Senator is different than a VP. Being a legislator is inherently being one of a very large team, where you get increasing responsibility based on your time there and what you do with it. Your VP is supposed to be prepped to take over if you die, while also addressing policy and being the face, not just in a snarky debate way, but in a "I'm so sorry for your loss" and "we care deeply about your concerns" way for things slightly below Presidential attention.
Also, Franken's past - overblown though I think it was - wasn't vetted as a presidential candidate, and that showed when it blew up. I'm not making claims about intelligence, but about experience. And while Stewart might be the one, how will he manage the actual politics of being #2 in an administration and pushing that agenda through? I don't have any evidence he's actually got that skill set.
I think I'm smart and capable and I'm great at managing a bunch of conflicting feelings about different topics. I'd be eaten alive, personally, by DC politics. Being elected to the house or Senate is just so different than executive branch leadership in my mind.
Re: your addition about Gore, he lost because of the electoral college and the Supreme Court making a decision in Florida. He was bland, sure, but bland can have its appeal in contrast with a Trump. Competence matters. I don't want to follow in Trumpian footsteps.
I suspect all presidents are eaten alive by DC politics, otherwise they wouldn't look like they age 20 years in 4. There isn't a single president that comes out looking better than they did before.
The only reason Trump looks more or less the same before and after is because he was already a ghoul.
All presidents have the strain of the presidency on their face, sure. Also just aging 4-8 years at the typical President's age is noticeable.
But since I wasn't clear, the average person would absolutely be manipulated, mocked, taken advantage of, and be blindsided by DC politics on the regular, whether from politicians, media or lobbyists to an extent much greater than that of an experienced politician. Stewart has never expressed interest in being in politics, so he's absolutely unrealistic. And he's got some experience with some of those people in different contexts. But I would not want him even if he was, at his current political experience level. And I suspect his lack of desire to have a serious political pivot, the way Franken did, is rather proof of his lack of preparedness (as his lack of preparedness is proof of his lack of desire.)
To be honest, he doesn't have to be very good at it for me to support him for the position. He just has to not be an unmitigated disaster, and I think it would be worth the trade-off for the boost in the election. To change my mind, no one needs to convince me that he wouldn't be a good VP, they just need to suggest another person that makes the ticket that appealing (or anywhere close) without jeopardizing Democrat numbers elsewhere.
Or they can ignore me completely, since I highly doubt anyone in the DNC would take my opinion seriously. :)
Al Franken is who my husband thinks would be the ideal presidential candidate. Basically cause he knows politics but he also was a comedian and he thinks to combat trump’s charisma we need some one who can poke at people’s flaws.
Kamala is out there throwing shade already.
But when a woman does it, she's obviously just a bitch who should get back in the kitchen. /s
A lot of professional commentators gonna be saying more polite versions of the above, without the sarcasm.
I don't actually think he'd be good at the job, or at least, he doesn't have the experience to be. I just think he has what it takes to get the job, which is something the Dems are sorely lacking. Unfortunately they haven't been grooming someone young and charismatic for the past four years, which would have been really handy right about now.
And that right there is the most important thing. He could step down on Jan 7th, Kamala gets to handpick a new VP. Everybody wins.
I think that would be an extremely bad move. No one would ever trust a ballot again. They wouldn't ever feel like they knew who they were voting for. Baiting and switching the populace is not something we should stoop to. I think Stewart only doing the absolute bare minimum required of him to personally do as VP and leaving the rest to cabinet members would be fine, though. And I think it would be fine if he stepped down in the event that Kamala did have to leave the presidency for whatever reason. Not as a planned thing, though.
So I know almost nothing about Kamala Harris, but the sentiment the Economist declared here is something I keep on hearing.
Why do people dislike her? Are there actual concerns that she would be unable to fulfill her duties or is it purely about personality?
Eh, I think she's fine. I'm also not holding her 2020 primary campaign against her because a lot can change in four years. Journos gotta get clicks somehow.
There’s an easy answer in that she is a woman. A woman of color, no less. So a large portion of people instinctually will try to take her down and prevent her from gaining power. The fact that she is progressive amplifies that audience drammatically, both in terms of numbers and fervor. Just look at how people treat Occasio-Cortez.
And then there are a few other things going against her. For one, she hasn’t really managed to pick up much positive press during her term as VP. I swear, most articles I have seen that cover her since she first ran as VP have the sentiment that nobody has any enthusiasm for her. And for progressives, she has some policies she enacted before then which were not well liked - DAs are not well liked by a subset of progressives, so it was already an uphill battle to get that audience from the start.
I don't think you meant it this way, but just so you know, using "colored" to refer to someone's race is not considered appropriate in the modern US. You might be confusing it with the much more PC term "person/woman of color", but the two terms are very much not equivalent. Calling Harris a woman of color (or abbreviating to WoC) is perfectly fine (as is just calling her black or multiracial), but calling her "colored" carries a lot of historical racist baggage that I can tell from your comment you don't intend.
Oh goodness, I hadn’t meant to write it like that. Serves me right from posting during my morning bath. I’ve edited it.
No worries, I think the content of the comment made it clear what you meant! I just figured I'd go into detail in case you were a Tildes user from outside North America who genuinely didn't know.
Well, I'm a tildean living outside usa, and i learned something. So it was still worthwhile :)
u/Akir I agree the term carries a lot of historical significance, but I don't think it's inherently offensive or derogatory. The NAACP says, "It's outdated and antiquated but not offensive." Certainly wouldn't default to it still since it's so old-fashioned. Some people will take offence, but it's not inherently pejorative.
They don't like her because she's a woman, because she's a powerful woman. They don't like her because she's Californian. There are so many reasons, but the number one is democrats are bad for business (they're boring) and they want to be able to write these articles that are rage bait about what the republicans are doing to do next or what they're doing. Notice there is no more discussion about age now that Biden's done?
I think this is a popular opinion but one that misses why the more progressive base is wary. I love AOC and would go door to door for her, Elizabeth Warren, or Michelle Obama. I lived in SF while Kamala was DA and her "tough on crime" policies at the time really, really rubbed me the wrong way. If we look at impacts from her time in office, or groups she drew support from, they run counter to the outcomes I was looking for and found popularity with the groups I don't trust. I'm hoping she has grown overtime, but I get the same feeling from her that I do from Gavin Newsom - she will parrot talking points without actually believing them as long as it forwards her career. I think it's why folks say she come off as not genuine. I don't feel that way about any of the women mentioned above and to be honest I'm sick of having to hear the defense of politically unpalatable candidates that the reason for their dislike is gender or race. It's like when folks call out that criticism of Israel is antisemitic. In both cases it can absolutely be a problem but it shouldn't be used as a catch all to shout down valid criticism.
I really don't like her pro-police stances, but she is the best chance we have at the moment. She's currently already VP, literally, she has the experience necessary. Michelle Obama wants absolutely nothing to do with the White House and has said as much before. Warren is too old, even though I love her. AOC is just as divisive as Harris, but I would campaign for her 100%. I would campaign for any democratic nominee, regardless, but this election cycle is just proving we need to change how we handle politicians. We need sweeping change, first pas the post has got to go.
Agreed on all fronts! I also think the divisiveness surrounding AOC is largely manufactured and started as soon as she took office.
Absolutely, because she's "young" (compared to congress), a woman of color, outspoken, beautiful, and progressive.
We need more voices like hers in congress so I really hope others like her aren't afraid to run based on her treatment.
This episode of the Ezra Klein Show on Kamala Harris, "Is Kamala Harris Underrated?" (also on YouTube here) discusses both what people aren't keen on, why she got the VP pick, and what her strengths are while considering whether or not she'd be a good pick to replace Biden as the Democratic nominee. The host is generally amenable to the idea of her in that position.
I dislike Kamala Harris for the same reason I dislike Eric Swalwell.
I've never liked either of them, and neither of them have done anything to sway my opinion.
And while I am always open to changing my mind, I have followed them both since they started in politics.
I think this could be a good opportunity for the democrats if they could get past this idea that there "isnt enough time".
Kamala Harris should just back off a bit, spend a month or so really nailing down a platform and campaign strategy, and then do a strong month or 2 month long campaign blitz.
Weve been in like a 4 year election cycle after finishing the last 4 year election cycle, and it really just kills everyone's genuine enthusiasm to engage with the political system. And replaces it with an overarching feeling of dread and obligation.
It favors candidates like Trump who can continue to dominate news cycles by pushing the envelope to new and bigger levels of depravity, and when genuine politicans try to go head to head with him, they lose and look like fools.
So candidates should just stop trying to fight this way. Stop trying to hold the countries attention for a year at a time.
If Harris just did like 3 or 4 big campaign events, 3 or 4 big speeches, and thats it? People would probably be interested enough to tune in to at least one of those 3 or 4 events. And then thats it, thats the only big impression you make on people, and you just focus as hard as you can on making that one impression a good one.
Just My Opinion
As far as I can tell, many of Ms Harris’ public values align with mine, maybe more than any candidate in recent history except maybe Cornel West.
Being elected senator is of course no small political feat.
That said, I’m doubtful she can be elected in this environment. I’m also doubtful Biden could be elected. This is largely based on instinct, but also on reason. While not a majority in terms of gross populution, a conservative impulse remains ascendant across a majority of swing states. And they are not susceptible to claims of hypocrisy it seems, and will vote for whatever it seems will advance a well-ordered and “god-fearing” society. I use quotes because their god is not mine, but is an 18th century presbyterian one probably. And Trump is the best candidate for that.
I think she has a real shot. She has a 'fan base' already, mostly made up of younger voters disatisfied with Biden. She's a firecracker, she's meme worthy in the awkward way the internet loves. Yet she's also a serious, smart individual. She seeks justice and fairness, upholds democratic beliefs. She can be empathetic and strong. She'a dealt with the media and internet haters, so she has the backbone to deal with what's worthy to spend time to deflect, then ignore the rest. The GOP might have a serious fight on their hands.
Edit: Should she earn the nomination.
I think she has a significantly better shot than Biden. My paranoia about a Trump win causes me to prefer putting Kelly at the top of the ticket where he can out macho Trump with his combat record and his career as an astronaut.
We are not choosing in a vacuum however and it isn't up to me. If Kamala loses it will be purely because of racism and sexism.
You've got that right. I like your thinking on VP. She has to get the nom first, but looking at the news today, it certainly looks like she has support.
Mirror here: https://archive.is/Yweyi
This should probably have been posted in the megathread.
I’m not a fan of the article’s title, but I thought a detailed discussion of Kamala Harris would be good at this point. There’s not a lot of time to get to know the candidate.
The response u/patience_limited posted is excellent.
Agreed, but I think the megathread is the right place to have such discussions.
Unfortunately my opinion of Kamala Harris dropped after reading this...
Could you explain why your opinion of the younger, less powerful person in the situation dropped? How did your opinion of the older, more powerful person fare?
It's hard to read it as anything other than misogyny to me, personally. The implication being that she somehow "slept her way to the top"... 🙄 You would never see comments like that about a male candidate. Harris has plenty of legitimate things to criticize, we don't need to stoop to investigating her romantic or sexual history for things we don't consider sufficiently perfect.
You're absolutely right, but I remember some skepticism about Macron's relationship with a woman several years his senior. Of course then they were also focused on her, considering she was his teacher.
The biggest difference is that Macron was 15 and she was 39, as student and teacher.
When Harris dated Brown they were already 30 and 60.
Aside, neither was okay under the playground rule of "half your age plus 7", but being 30 years old is a fully adult decision.
Plus, scrutiny of the relationship with the focus on the adult involved makes some sense. Scrutiny of or "I lost respect for" Macron for that wouldn't make much sense. Similarly if someone felt Harris's relationship was questionable, being mad at her for that or losing respect for her isn't a logical response IMO.
Ah fair enough, I'm not familiar enough with French politics to have heard about that. I should probably have more narrowly specified in the US.
I'm scared to respond as I have a history of saying things that are misunderstood, then punishing myself for how people react (i.e calling me a misogynist, incel, what have you). I have a suspicion there are going to be people angrily defending Kamala as well.
I don't doubt her ability as a political leader, and I doubt she slept her way to the top. However, it is my opinion that no one gets in a relation with someone who is basically twice their age for normal reasons. Going off the "kingmaker" description (I have very little knowledge about these people, and am not American), I would assume she was in the relationship because she is attracted to power. It's possible she has matured a lot as she aged, but it's also possible that she has been power hungry her entire life - which I would argue is not a great trait for a president.
Obviously anyone who dates someone half their age has some issues, and I would assume they are interested in the relationship for mainly physical reasons, or possibly to show off to their peers. Aka they are greasy bastards...
I get where you're coming from now. Thanks for sharing your opinion.
It's probably worth keeping an open mind. I don't think anyone knows all the details of their relationship except them, and I'm not sure it's worth focusing too much on what happens between two consenting adults. Love can blossom in unexpected places! :)
Fair enough!
Do you think that there are any people in US politics who made it this far who are not / were not power hungry?
Without knowing much about the system over there, my own country is a lot more relaxed in terms of funding needed to run for a political position and the hustling required to be considered a serious candidate, among other things. And yet, even here, you absolutely have to be more hungry for power than the average person in order to get elected (or otherwise given a chance to work within the political system).
This is like losing respect for Usain Bolt upon finding out that he likes running.