Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 02-07-2019, 01:29 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,243
Well, I will certainly concede that there is a significant difference between following your own conscience in the privacy of the voting booth and actively trying to persuade others to follow you in voting for a protest candidate. The first, if you are not in a swing State, is harmless, the second might not be and should be avoided. But I wouldn't consider simply stating your point of view in a forum such as this one to be "active persuasion".

Last edited by Thing Fish; 02-07-2019 at 01:29 PM.
  #202  
Old 02-07-2019, 02:19 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Well, I will certainly concede that there is a significant difference between following your own conscience in the privacy of the voting booth and actively trying to persuade others to follow you in voting for a protest candidate. The first, if you are not in a swing State, is harmless, the second might not be and should be avoided. But I wouldn't consider simply stating your point of view in a forum such as this one to be "active persuasion".
Right here right now as we are meta discussing the election, that discussion is just what it is, a discussion. However, before the election, the way that I knew that someone was voting third party is because they told me, and they told me because they thought I should as well.
  #203  
Old 02-07-2019, 02:45 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Why do you say that Harris is a "rerun of Obama"? Other than their race, I don't see a lot of obvious similarities. They have different professional backgrounds and come from different parts of the country. Harris doesn't seem to be as universally agreed to be a good orator. Obama ran and governed as a moderate, where Harris seems to be staking out a slightly left of center position (endorsing Medicare for All, for instance).
First-term senator, from a left-of-center urban local political background, playing the representation card more than focusing on policy, ostensibly African-American but "not too black," black parent actually from overseas, grew up partly in yet another country, so clever, so pretty, so respectable, and now...seeking out big-money donors whom populists might have reason to regard with suspicion.

It's an echo. She even put out books because Obama was a published author. It's a blatant attempt to get someone kind of like Obama & kind of like Hillary. It is blatantly aping the previous "successful" campaign. And it will work on the well-heeled. But she's not like Bernie, and that's where much of the popular base is. Kamala is already the target of the "left," as in those who have seen actual social-liberal/social-democratic proposals from Bernie & AOC, and won't settle for Clintonism anymore.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 02-07-2019 at 02:46 PM.
  #204  
Old 02-07-2019, 03:45 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,243
Are you kidding? All Presidential candidates write books, and all of them except the most left-wing seek out big money donors. That's only slightly less silly than saying that she's imitating Obama by metabolizing oxygen. And then she also has the nerve to be "clever" and "respectable"? Y'know, until fairly recently, both parties seemed to agree that those were desirable qualities in Presidential candidates.

I disagree that either Obama or Harris based their candidacy on "playing the representation card", and frankly it reminds me of the sort of thing that Fox News viewers would say.

How does that conspiracy theory work, anyway? After Obama was elected, secretive cabals of big money donors started seeking out potential candidates who had one black parent who was born overseas, because clearly that biographical detail was crucial to Obama's success?

I personally agree with you that I'd rather have Bernie, but this line of argument is just foolish.
  #205  
Old 02-07-2019, 10:08 PM
Ronald Raygun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 153
septimus, your questions weren't insensitive in the slightest!

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
But none of that has any relevance to what he's saying. He's saying that not voting against Trump because the Dems put up the wrong candidate doesn't actually accomplish anything. It may make you feel good because you didn't hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, but it accomplishes nothing.

Fortunately, since you're in California, it's very unlikely to help Trump win.
Y'all keep telling me that a third party vote doesn't accomplish anything, and in the next line tell me that, because I live in California, my vote still doesn't accomplish anything. Not true. A Democratic vote from me accomplishes nothing due to the electoral college, whereas a vote for a progressive third party will push them closer to 5% of the popular vote to secure public funding for 2024. Nate Silver's Tipping Point Index has California way on the D side, past such reliably blue states as New York and Washington. Achieving 5% is something within the realm of possibility. The election hinging on California is not. If my vote mattered to the Democrats, it would be wise for Harris to spend plenty of time campaigning in Los Angeles after the primary. We'll see if that happens.

Quote:
But your logic spreads to many places, and is a large part of how Trump won in 2016. People thought Clinton would win and thus refused to hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.
My logic has to be taken in the context of the state in which I live, which is why I keep mentioning California over and over. If you want to apply my logic to every state in the union, it's no longer my logic. When I leave California, I'll need to reconsider how I'll vote. Until that happens, I'm not going to worry about it.

Quote:
I myself am doing my best to point out that this is just what democracy is. You always, always, always vote for the lesser of two evils. When you hear people pushing the idea that the lesser of two evils are bad, those are people trying to suppress the vote, and help the side that benefits most from the vote being suppressed (i.e. the one running the less exciting candidate).
No. Democracy is people voting for whomever they feel like for whatever reason they want to, even if you personally disagree.

Are you implying that Clinton was the more exciting candidate? I mean, she did lose. Trump may be vile and incompetent, but he was historically exciting! Erudite's claim was that Harris might receive support from the far left in a crowded field. I'm saying that I see little excitement for her over here. Among the party establishment and left-center folks, sure, but not among the DSA or the anarchists or the tankies or whomever else falls under "far left".

Quote:
So it's great you do all those other things, but I'm going to join Dale in asking you to vote for the nominee, whoever it is, and to push this idea to others. If all the people who leaned left would do this, Trump would lose by triple digits.
If all the people who leaned left outside of the state of California did this, Trump would lose by the exact same margin.

Quote:
Why get excited? Among other things, he's already tried to make the T of LGBT no longer exist legally in our country. As in, you are legally defined by your birth gender and no state can say otherwise. I can't think of any other time someone has tried to destroy a minority like that. That's more than trans erasure: that's trans destruction.
Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

In all seriousness, please don't try to explain how terrible things are for trans people to me. I have stories.
  #206  
Old 02-07-2019, 10:39 PM
Ronald Raygun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
And voting for a third party is an even more empty useless gesture that is done Convince enough democrats to vote for a third party, and we may just lose California altogether.

Vote how you want, but be aware that when you announce the way that you are voting, you do have an influence on the way others vote.
If the Democratic Party is so out of touch with the electorate that they lose California, they should probably update their platform. Electoral politics is a two-way street.

Quote:
I'd say it is more like someone in Wisconsin, being used to the cold, wearing shorts in the winter, inspiring a Californian to do the same thing in a rare winter snap who ends up getting frostbite.
A winter snap that sends California to frostbite temperatures but leaves Wisconsin relatively warm is analogous to California being more red than Wisconsin. If that's the case, the political environment is so radically different than what we're talking about that this whole conversation is meaningless.
  #207  
Old 02-07-2019, 11:45 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Raygun View Post
Y'all keep telling me that a third party vote doesn't accomplish anything, and in the next line tell me that, because I live in California, my vote still doesn't accomplish anything. Not true. A Democratic vote from me accomplishes nothing due to the electoral college, whereas a vote for a progressive third party will push them closer to 5% of the popular vote to secure public funding for 2024.
A actual, funded Progressive party would do nothing but ensure the GOp wins the Oval office and the Senate for decades.
  #208  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:22 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Raygun View Post

Y'all keep telling me that a third party vote doesn't accomplish anything, and in the next line tell me that, because I live in California, my vote still doesn't accomplish anything. Not true. A Democratic vote from me accomplishes nothing due to the electoral college, whereas a vote for a progressive third party will push them closer to 5% of the popular vote to secure public funding for 2024. Nate Silver's Tipping Point Index has California way on the D side, past such reliably blue states as New York and Washington. Achieving 5% is something within the realm of possibility.
How close was the closest they have gotten?
Quote:

The election hinging on California is not. If my vote mattered to the Democrats, it would be wise for Harris to spend plenty of time campaigning in Los Angeles after the primary. We'll see if that happens.
One of the criticisms that I still hear about Hillary is that she campaigned in California. She was even mocked for it right in this very thread just a few posts ago.
Quote:


My logic has to be taken in the context of the state in which I live, which is why I keep mentioning California over and over. If you want to apply my logic to every state in the union, it's no longer my logic. When I leave California, I'll need to reconsider how I'll vote. Until that happens, I'm not going to worry about it.
As I mentioned, how you vote is one thing. How you advocate to vote is another. third party took enough votes in some key states to put Trump over the top. People were inspired to vote third party by listening to people advocating they vote third party. Many of those advocates were in safe states, but they helped to influence the battle states.
Quote:


No. Democracy is people voting for whomever they feel like for whatever reason they want to, even if you personally disagree.
No, democracy requires responsibility on the part of the voters. You are free to use your vote irresponsibly, and use it for whatever reason they want to, but that philosophy causes democracy to fail.
Quote:
Are you implying that Clinton was the more exciting candidate? I mean, she did lose. Trump may be vile and incompetent, but he was historically exciting! Erudite's claim was that Harris might receive support from the far left in a crowded field. I'm saying that I see little excitement for her over here. Among the party establishment and left-center folks, sure, but not among the DSA or the anarchists or the tankies or whomever else falls under "far left".
I don't want an exciting candidate. Trump is "exciting". When it comes to government, I actually want boring.

A significant failure of democracy comes when the ability to govern takes a far second place to the ability to campaign.
Quote:


If all the people who leaned left outside of the state of California did this, Trump would lose by the exact same margin.
So stop giving them an example to follow.
Quote:
Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

In all seriousness, please don't try to explain how terrible things are for trans people to me. I have stories.
And one of the reasons things are terrible is because enough people voted third party to allow Trump to be elected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Raygun View Post
If the Democratic Party is so out of touch with the electorate that they lose California, they should probably update their platform. Electoral politics is a two-way street.
If california goes red because the majority of california cannot decide between left and far left, leaving the right as the majority loser, but the popular winner, it is not the mainstream party that needs to update its platform.
Quote:

A winter snap that sends California to frostbite temperatures but leaves Wisconsin relatively warm is analogous to California being more red than Wisconsin. If that's the case, the political environment is so radically different than what we're talking about that this whole conversation is meaningless.
But people in Wisconsin are not necessarily as aware of the nuance that you are when you vote third party. They just see people supporting the "real progressive", and badmouthing the mainstream candidate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
A actual, funded Progressive party would do nothing but ensure the GOp wins the Oval office and the Senate for decades.
I don't know that I am as pessimistic as that, but for several election cycles, certainly.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 02-08-2019 at 08:23 AM.
  #209  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:14 AM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,037
The problem with third parties in the USA is that they only attract loons at the national level. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson were even less qualified to be President than Donald Trump. How about Joe Manchik, the spoiler in the special congressional election in Ohio who claimed to be descended from space aliens? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...ohio-election/


3rd party candidates need to be mocked, taunted and derided. That’s probably treating them too kindly.

But, it must feel good to sit upon a cloud and look down at the unwashed masses who sheepishly vote for Republicans or Democrats.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #210  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:26 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,259
In what way is Gary Johnson less qualified than Trump? He was a two term governor and built a multimillion dollar construction company from the ground up.
  #211  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:30 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,024
3rd parties do OK in Europe , the British PM now is only there because she had to join up with a smaller party to get majority.
  #212  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:46 AM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,037
In a parliamentary system, there can be a reason to vote for a 3rd party. Although, in the UK with the first past the post system and no proportional representation, it is often better to vote strategically.

There’s only one MP from the Green Party in the UK House of Commons. I will say she’s excellent, even if I don’t always agree with here. Here’s her current campaign to reach out to those who voted to leave the European Union.
https://twitter.com/dearleavers/stat...961709058?s=21
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #213  
Old 02-08-2019, 11:24 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
And voting for a third party is an even more empty useless gesture that is done in order to gain one's own personal certificate of moral purity.

Every vote is useless.
Wrong. The poster you're responding to may not be a Green Party supporter, but let's use that as a specific example.

Suppose 147,800 votes in California's 2016 result switched from Clinton to Stein. Which of the following do you thing would be the headline news story? -:

With 426,500 votes the Green Party won 3% of the California electorate! — Unprecedented!

Hillary's margin of victory in California was only 4.12 million! Pundits had expected a 4.27 million margin.
  #214  
Old 02-08-2019, 01:04 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
If california goes red because the majority of california cannot decide between left and far left, leaving the right as the majority loser, but the popular winner, it is not the mainstream party that needs to update its platform.
That does not logically follow. If the mainstream are "moderates" without strong ideological hard lines of their own, they can usefully moderate themselves in the direction of the ideologues. If, alternatively, "mainstream liberals" are themselves ideologically opposed to whatever the left is doing, then they can't expect ideological leftists to vote for them; at that point they are just different parties.

That goes for the relationship of center-right parties to neo-fascists & minarchists, and it goes for the relationship of center-left parties to socialists & Green New Dealers. You have to choose whether to embrace a fringe to get votes, or to deplore them as a threat to civil society.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 02-08-2019 at 01:07 PM.
  #215  
Old 02-08-2019, 01:53 PM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 7,103
The funny thing is Kamala Harris has endorsed both Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. There's not going to be much daylight between her and other progressives. Highlighting small distinctions makes sense in the primary, but if she gets the nomination, nitpickery helps only the right.

The right are going to attack her for being a radical leftist in any case. There is going to be a very clear difference between the Republican and Democrat in the general election. Anyone saying otherwise is either suppressing the vote or deluding themselves.
  #216  
Old 02-08-2019, 02:21 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
...


I don't know that I am as pessimistic as that, but for several election cycles, certainly.
Ok- you are optimistic, I am pessimistic on this.
  #217  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:59 PM
Ronald Raygun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
The problem with third parties in the USA is that they only attract loons at the national level. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson were even less qualified to be President than Donald Trump. How about Joe Manchik, the spoiler in the special congressional election in Ohio who claimed to be descended from space aliens? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...ohio-election/


3rd party candidates need to be mocked, taunted and derided. That’s probably treating them too kindly.

But, it must feel good to sit upon a cloud and look down at the unwashed masses who sheepishly vote for Republicans or Democrats.
Given that it's impossible for a third party candidate to win, I'm far less concerned about their actual qualifications. No one denies that Stein is a loon, but a vote for a third party is a vote for a platform. In contrast, I think Marianne Williamson's platform is amazing, and as it stands now, I would vote for her in the primary if she can convince me that she's not absolutely bonkers. (I'm aware that she likely is.) To bring this back to Harris, she doesn't even have a issues section on her website, which makes me think she's a fairweather progressive.

Johnson was a two-term governor. I'm not a libertarian, but he's much more qualified than Trump was. Nothing I've said should make you think I would support Manchik in Ohio.

I don't know why you think I'm disdainful of Republican and Democratic voters. Many of the candidates, sure, but the voters are people who have their own personal interests and who are just trying to live their lives, much like me. There are plenty of Democrats and Republicans in my life whom I love dearly, a few of whom worked on the Harris Senate campaign. You're free to stan Harris all you want, but you're the only poster who's snidely painting me as some sort of snob.
  #218  
Old 02-08-2019, 05:05 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
That does not logically follow. If the mainstream are "moderates" without strong ideological hard lines of their own, they can usefully moderate themselves in the direction of the ideologues. If, alternatively, "mainstream liberals" are themselves ideologically opposed to whatever the left is doing, then they can't expect ideological leftists to vote for them; at that point they are just different parties.
The problem is, is that a candidate needs to campaign to the entire country, not just a third of california.

I do expect ideological leftists to support the candidates that represent the left, as to do otherwise, is to assist the opposing party.
Quote:
That goes for the relationship of center-right parties to neo-fascists & minarchists, and it goes for the relationship of center-left parties to socialists & Green New Dealers. You have to choose whether to embrace a fringe to get votes, or to deplore them as a threat to civil society.
And those fringe groups need to decide whether they are going to support the party that more closely approximates their desired policies, or they can choose to allow the party that is diametrically opposed to their desired policies win.

I say we should absolutely listen to anyone on the left side of the line. We all have the same basic goals, and we can only achieve them by working together. But listen to does not mean follow. Take advice does not mean take orders.
  #219  
Old 02-08-2019, 05:36 PM
Ronald Raygun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
How close was the closest they have gotten?
Stein is 1%. Johnson is 3%. I expect Johnson's to be even higher in 2020. You should be elated.

Quote:
One of the criticisms that I still hear about Hillary is that she campaigned in California. She was even mocked for it right in this very thread just a few posts ago.
Yeah, that was a huge error on Clinton's part. (Funnily enough, I voted for her.) My point is that the Democrats shouldn't care about my vote if they want to win, because California will not be a tipping point state.

Quote:
As I mentioned, how you vote is one thing. How you advocate to vote is another. third party took enough votes in some key states to put Trump over the top. People were inspired to vote third party by listening to people advocating they vote third party. Many of those advocates were in safe states, but they helped to influence the battle states.
This is a thread about Harris. It's not a pro-Harris or anti-Harris thread. I mentioned that we don't care for Harris. People asked me why, and then asked how I would vote, which I answered. I'm not telling other people how to vote. You mentioned that what I say will influence how other people vote. Of course it will. Everything anyone says has the potential to influence other people. That's the point of communication. I presume that people come to The Kamala Harris Thread to have a potentially influential discussion about Kamala Harris. I also have faith that people who read this thread can make their own decisions. Isn't this The Straight Dope? Would you have preferred that I simply not say anything? Or simply lie? If yes to either, does that apply to every Doper on the right who also doesn't like Harris?

Quote:
No, democracy requires responsibility on the part of the voters. You are free to use your vote irresponsibly, and use it for whatever reason they want to, but that philosophy causes democracy to fail.
Hey, you're the one telling me that I have to vote for the lesser of two evils. It's funny that democracy works, but only when voters vote like you want them to.

Quote:
I don't want an exciting candidate. Trump is "exciting". When it comes to government, I actually want boring.
You mentioned that voter suppression harms the less exciting candidate. Now I'm confused.

Quote:
A significant failure of democracy comes when the ability to govern takes a far second place to the ability to campaign.
You seem really down on democracy.

Quote:
So stop giving them an example to follow.
Again, would you rather I simply not speak?

Quote:
And one of the reasons things are terrible is because enough people voted third party to allow Trump to be elected.
Please don't explain my life to me.

Quote:
If california goes red because the majority of california cannot decide between left and far left, leaving the right as the majority loser, but the popular winner, it is not the mainstream party that needs to update its platform.
It seems to be working so far. The Democrats are drifting leftwards.

Quote:
But people in Wisconsin are not necessarily as aware of the nuance that you are when you vote third party. They just see people supporting the "real progressive", and badmouthing the mainstream candidate.
The people of Wisconsin are real dumdums. Got it.
  #220  
Old 02-08-2019, 06:11 PM
Ronald Raygun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 153
Someone mentioned that SESTA/FOSTA passed in the Senate 97-2. I want to clarify that, while I think that's terrible, Harris in particular should be judged far more harshly for her anti-sexwork stance. Most politicians are anti-sexwork as a knee-jerk response. It's really not a priority for them, and they likely don't give it much thought. Harris is different. She led the crusade against Backpage despite law enforcement telling her that it would increase trafficking. Again, she views this as a major accomplishment. Many sex workers, a significant portion of whom are POC and trans, have been forced back onto the street where their incomes -- not to mention their lives -- are at risk. This is a personal issue for me.

If you don't think you know any sex workers, trust me, you do. You just don't know it.
  #221  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:54 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,340
Well, maybe it needs a different thread on the subject, but I don't see how anyone can complain about Harris enforcing the law on prostitution. She was Attorney General, not a lawmaker, and definitely not sole lawmaker of the state of California. Her job was to enforce the state's laws, and prostitution, pimping, and selling ads for prostitution are illegal in California. She would have been violating her oath and failing to perform her job duties if she did not enforce the laws regarding prostitution. For those making this argument, it would have to be asked, do you think Attorney Generals should just go rogue and stop enforcing any law that you happen to disagree with?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Raygun
If you don't think you know any sex workers, trust me, you do.
Actually I'm pretty sure I don't.
  #222  
Old 02-08-2019, 11:18 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
The funny thing is Kamala Harris has endorsed both Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. There's not going to be much daylight between her and other progressives. Highlighting small distinctions makes sense in the primary, but if she gets the nomination, nitpickery helps only the right.

The right are going to attack her for being a radical leftist in any case. There is going to be a very clear difference between the Republican and Democrat in the general election. Anyone saying otherwise is either suppressing the vote or deluding themselves.
Any Democrat is going to be preferable to the incumbent in November 2020. At this point the job is to get the best party to win, to do constructive work, and hold power in 2022, 2024, & 2026.

Clinton & Obama both lost Congressional majorities very quickly. When you have a Democratic President the right wing call "far left" (because that's the leader of the Democratic Party, so "the left" by one definition), that's normal. If the popular left see that President as too conservative, too much part of the war machine, or just "part of the problem," then you start getting some demoralization, & talk about how Nader was right. If the President turns out to be some kind of a jerk personally, never mind ideology, that loses support.

One lesson from previous administrations: If the President builds up his own cult of personality, then doesn't really work at organizing a majority party movement and just tries to muddle through while figuring out how to execute the office, then that can be an opportunity lost at the legislative level. I think that was Obama's failure; "Organizing for America" seems in hindsight like more a campaign slogan than a program.

Is Harris really on board with the Green New Deal? It's not a bill. It's a paradigm shift, and it's a necessary one.

Is Harris an unsympathetic person who despises the poor? That's the image being built, and if that image sticks, her ideology will not matter; she'll be polling-place poison, same as Hillary.

Is Harris ready to lead a party to growing congressional majorities? I don't know. If not, don't be President.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 02-08-2019 at 11:20 PM.
  #223  
Old 02-09-2019, 07:03 AM
Ronald Raygun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
Well, maybe it needs a different thread on the subject, but I don't see how anyone can complain about Harris enforcing the law on prostitution. She was Attorney General, not a lawmaker, and definitely not sole lawmaker of the state of California. Her job was to enforce the state's laws, and prostitution, pimping, and selling ads for prostitution are illegal in California. She would have been violating her oath and failing to perform her job duties if she did not enforce the laws regarding prostitution. For those making this argument, it would have to be asked, do you think Attorney Generals should just go rogue and stop enforcing any law that you happen to disagree with?


Actually I'm pretty sure I don't.
I need to state this. I haven't kept up with Backpage news since early 2017, when it was shut down. At that point, my concerns were primarily for my friends who essentially lost an income stream. My understanding until recently was Backpage was merely a platform for third-party content, and was thus protected by CDA 230. Indeed, the CDA protection is why Harris's case against Backpage was thrown out in late 2016. I also recall hearing from several anti-trafficking organizations that Backpage was instrumental in stopping child trafficking because they worked closely with law enforcement.

That being said, I'm reading what's happened over the past couple of years, and it turns out that Backpage was often scrubbing ads to remove language indicative of underage prostitution. That makes them complicit (and removes the CDA 230 protection, but that's beside the point). I'm horrified, not merely in an abstract sense, but for deeply personal reasons. Given that I've received several pointed comments on other matters in this thread, please do not gloat or ask me to elaborate.

I'm not certain how I feel now. Backpage's shutdown led directly to SESTA/FOSTA, which precludes the creation of any such platform being run with cooperation with law enforcement. I recently found an article that claims trafficking in SF has increased by 170% since, and again, some of my friends' lives have been made far more difficult since.

I have more to say about Harris in general, but I'm not really able to do so right now.
  #224  
Old 02-09-2019, 12:01 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Raygun View Post
Stein is 1%. Johnson is 3%. I expect Johnson's to be even higher in 2020. You should be elated.
Not really, and that's a pretty tough climb to get to your 5% that will then mean that the third party gets to dip into taxpayer money for campaign financing.
Quote:
Yeah, that was a huge error on Clinton's part. (Funnily enough, I voted for her.) My point is that the Democrats shouldn't care about my vote if they want to win, because California will not be a tipping point state.
I don't like taking things for granted.
Quote:


This is a thread about Harris. It's not a pro-Harris or anti-Harris thread. I mentioned that we don't care for Harris. People asked me why, and then asked how I would vote, which I answered. I'm not telling other people how to vote. You mentioned that what I say will influence how other people vote. Of course it will. Everything anyone says has the potential to influence other people. That's the point of communication. I presume that people come to The Kamala Harris Thread to have a potentially influential discussion about Kamala Harris. I also have faith that people who read this thread can make their own decisions. Isn't this The Straight Dope? Would you have preferred that I simply not say anything? Or simply lie? If yes to either, does that apply to every Doper on the right who also doesn't like Harris?
I said none of that, I am just saying that you should be aware that what you say can influence people. Prior to 2016, I was hearing, not just on here, but all over the media, social media, and in person, how terrible Clinton was and that we should vote third party.

We are having a discussion right now, and I am not saying what you should or not say in this discussion.
Quote:


Hey, you're the one telling me that I have to vote for the lesser of two evils. It's funny that democracy works, but only when voters vote like you want them to.
I'm not telling you how to vote at all. I am just saying that if people do not use their vote responsibly, then democracy fails. Telling you the consequences of an action is not the same thing as prohibiting you from that act.
Quote:
You mentioned that voter suppression harms the less exciting candidate. Now I'm confused.
I didn't mention voter suppression at all. It is possible that you are confused.
Quote:
You seem really down on democracy.
That is an extremely poor and unfounded observation on your part. I love democracy, it is people who would rather play games with their vote than to work to elect people who will actually implement the policies that they desire that don't seem to have much respect for the idea of self governance.

Democracy is fragile, and does need to be respected by the voters in order to function. That's not being down on democracy, any more than asking you to be careful with that box marked fragile is being down on dishware.
Quote:
Again, would you rather I simply not speak?
No, never said anything like that.
Quote:
Please don't explain my life to me.
I'm not explaining your life. I'm explaining how Trump got elected. You are the one who said that Trump was bad for you and your peers. If you meant that Trump was good for your life, then that's fine too. Either way, didn't say anything at all about your life.
Quote:
It seems to be working so far. The Democrats are drifting leftwards.
Not really. I do not see any movement to the left. In fact, after the left wing voters let down the democrats in 2010, 2014, and in 2016, I see the democrats regrouping around an even more centrist right position, as catering to the far left doesn't actually get them any votes. They never go far enough, so you guys go third party anyway. They cost themselves politically to reach out to the far left, and then they lose the election because you don't show up to support them. That's how you get conservatives in power.

It is that exact mentality making the perfect the enemy of the good that got Trump elected, and will ensure his re-election in 2020.

If you will not support the democrats, they will not represent you.
Quote:

The people of Wisconsin are real dumdums. Got it.
Why would you choose to say something insulting about the good people of Wisconsin like that?

Last edited by k9bfriender; 02-09-2019 at 12:03 PM.
  #225  
Old 02-09-2019, 12:29 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
...

Clinton & Obama both lost Congressional majorities very quickly. When you have a Democratic President the right wing call "far left" (because that's the leader of the Democratic Party, so "the left" by one definition), that's normal. I..
No, it is pretty normal for any president. Trump did that same.
  #226  
Old 02-09-2019, 03:41 PM
MortSahlFan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: US
Posts: 321
What she did as Attorney General disqualifies her... Very right-winged. I'm not fooled by speeches. There is no left-wing in the US, but I think almost everyone running is better, and she isn't worth my gas money.

The media has gone after Bernie Sanders and he isn't even running. Because a couple of dudes whistled at a woman (or something less), those who WORKED for him. And Tulsi Gabbard. It's really cheap. If you pay attention long enough, you an see how so many do these 180s based on political expediency, including political parties trading -- war, trade, etc.

I think the media wants Trump to win to make more $$$.... They want exactly what he has - money, power, beautiful wife.... The Democratic Party has to start talking about real issues, and not whatever got 51% of a poll. I'm tired of the self-righteousness, knowing you can't legislate understandings, so they'll talk about issues that can't be changed.
  #227  
Old 02-09-2019, 05:37 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Not really. I do not see any movement to the left. In fact, after the left wing voters let down the democrats in 2010, 2014, and in 2016, I see the democrats regrouping around an even more centrist right position, as catering to the far left doesn't actually get them any votes. They never go far enough, so you guys go third party anyway. They cost themselves politically to reach out to the far left, and then they lose the election because you don't show up to support them. That's how you get conservatives in power.
Who do you mean by "the far left," & in what way were they catered to prior to the elections of 2010, 2014, & 2016?
  #228  
Old 02-09-2019, 05:46 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,710
I'm going to get into how I think Dem pols have failed to cater to Dem voters:

I think the 2010 loss had a lot to do with the disillusionment of anti-war voters. We were not "catered to."

The Congressional losses through 2016 were partly due to the 2011 redistricting following that 2010 loss. Maybe Dems should have "catered to" voters who wanted Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, John Yoo, etc., tried for high crimes, & the USA PATRIOT ACT undone. And we weren't all "far left."

I think Democrat pols tried to look sympathetic to Occupy, but then, so did Jon Huntsman. And little has even been started on their concerns. Black Lives Matter activists haven't gotten anything, policy-wise, from the Clinton Democrats.

(Is the "far left" being "catered to" Howard Schultz & Mike Bloomberg? In that case, yes, ambiguously gay-tolerant, healthy-eating advocate, billionaire "coastal elites" have been overly catered to. I guess. )

The presidential campaign of 2016 basically involved Bernie proposing populist solutions and HRC rolling her eyes at them. Bernie had, what, over a third of the party? And there were presumably still a lot of ABC's (Anyone But Clinton) on the moderate side & among independents. Remember that in the 1990's, lots of independents & Democrats voted for an independent political amateur against her husband. I don't see how her going "further to the right," while disrespecting the populists in the central states who were so excited by Bernie, was going to win her anything.
  #229  
Old 02-09-2019, 06:16 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Clinton & Obama both lost Congressional majorities very quickly. When you have a Democratic President the right wing call "far left" (because that's the leader of the Democratic Party, so "the left" by one definition), that's normal. If the popular left see that President as too conservative, too much part of the war machine, or just "part of the problem," then you start getting some demoralization, & talk about how Nader was right. If the President turns out to be some kind of a jerk personally, never mind ideology, that loses support.
Apparently I was unclear.

WJC & BHO both lost Congressional majorities very quickly, to well-organized right-wing "populist" Congressional campaigns. Contrast to the Bushes.

Why?

When you have a Democratic President the right wing call "far left" (because that's the leader of the Democratic Party, so "the left" by one definition), is that why? No, because that—that characterization—is normal. That's not the problem. Being "far left" in the mouths of those whose job it is to topple you is never, ever, electorally, the problem, partly because the leader of the left party is always the "far left" to the right. When in the history of the USA have the common people kicked out a President because they thought he was "too far left" on policies that help Americans? Maybe, at a stretch, Jimmy Carter? Or was it just that he was painted as weak?

However, if the popular left see that President as too conservative, too much part of the war machine, or just "part of the problem;" then you start getting some demoralization, & talk about how Nader was right. This hit HRC hard.

And, if the President turns out to be some kind of a jerk personally, never mind ideology, that loses support. There are different kinds of jerks: pathological liars, promise breakers, elites who seem indifferent to the voters, and actual violent persons can all be "jerks."

These last two, but right now the "jerk" characterization, is where Harris is getting hit on social media. She was a prosecutor, so those who want to take her down can hit her from an ostensibly populist-left stance, calling her just another "cop" who locks up poor black folks. That undercuts her "minority appeal," & it is of course designed to do just that. If the characterization sticks, true or not, she will lose support, and possibly even hurt the party over time even if she beats an easy-to-beat clown next November. If the characterization is true, then she'll be a bad President, even if she wins, and do more damage to the party brand over time.

We have to get this right. We are not here to win one election, but to win majorities over time. We should not merely be here to get our team in, but to try to do good. Right now, we have to save this country from (among other things) the twin economic disasters of over-concentration of capital and catastrophic environmental degradation.

Harris may be part of that. But I am sorry to say that, given the stupid way our party system works, she has to be credible enough to keep a whole party together, or she's a substandard President.
  #230  
Old 02-12-2019, 04:54 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,340
This may not please the base:
As district attorney of San Francisco, Kamala Harris supported a city policy that required law enforcement to turn over undocumented juvenile immigrants to federal immigration authorities if they were arrested and suspected of committing a felony, regardless of whether they were actually convicted of a crime.

Harris, who was San Francisco's district attorney from 2004 to 2011, sided with then-Mayor Gavin Newsom in a political fight over San Francisco's status as a sanctuary city that split the city's municipal government, with the mayor's office supporting the policy and the city's elected Board of Supervisors opposing it.
On a more positive note:
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) has smoked marijuana. And yes, she did inhale.

The 2020 Democratic presidential candidate made the admission during an interview on the radio program The Breakfast Club on Monday. After She discussed her support for legalization and outlined some of her remaining concerns, the host asked Harris whether she’s ever used cannabis.

“I have. And I did inhale,” she said, laughing. “It was a long time ago, but yes. I just broke news.”
Maybe she and Mike Bloomberg can pass the bong during one of the primary season debates.
  #231  
Old 02-13-2019, 10:12 AM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 239
Kamala Harris claims she listened to Tupac and Snoop as she smoked a joint in college.
Tupac's first album came out in 1991.
Snoop's first album came out in 1993.

Kamala Harris graduated college in 1986.

She's going to be great... for the GOP.
  #232  
Old 02-13-2019, 10:25 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,024
people can get stuff like what music they listened to at a certain time wrong , it's a very, very minor issue. Remember Obama and the 57 states? (or some number he got wrong) I'm sure there is music I heard around college and I don't know if it was during college or after .

Last edited by Bijou Drains; 02-13-2019 at 10:26 AM.
  #233  
Old 02-13-2019, 12:43 PM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Kamala Harris claims she listened to Tupac and Snoop as she smoked a joint in college.
Tupac's first album came out in 1991.
Snoop's first album came out in 1993.

Kamala Harris graduated college in 1986.

She's going to be great... for the GOP.
Not surprisingly, the knee-jerk FOXNews hot take is long on gotcha and desperately short on context.

LAZ, did you bother to listen to the interview at all? Because I can't understand how someone could have done so and still come to the "conclusion" that you seem to have reached.
  #234  
Old 02-13-2019, 01:12 PM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Kamala Harris claims she listened to Tupac and Snoop as she smoked a joint in college.
Tupac's first album came out in 1991.
Snoop's first album came out in 1993.

Kamala Harris graduated college in 1986.

She's going to be great... for the GOP.
Well, it's already been pointed out that you're (uncritically, sadly) just propagating a right-wing lie. I think the more important point here is that the right wing is so scared of Harris that they're already making up lies about her. Interesting.
__________________
According to the Anti-Defamation League, "In 2018, domestic extremists killed at least 50 people in the US, a sharp increase from the 37 extremist-related murders documented in 2017....every single extremist killing — from Pittsburgh to Parkland — had a link to right-wing extremism."
  #235  
Old 02-13-2019, 02:54 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Who do you mean by "the far left," & in what way were they catered to prior to the elections of 2010, 2014, & 2016?
Sorry, just saw this post, and the subsequent ones.

They bailed our economy out of a recession, they passed the ACA, and then they no longer had a super majority in the senate.

What they needed at that point was more support from the left, in order to improve the ACA, and continue to stimulate the economy.

Then 2010 happened, and the democrats didn't really have the support to do much of anything anymore. they were gasping for breath before 2014 and 2016, just trying to stay alive, and yet they still pushed for many left programs, like SSM, repealing don't ask don't tell, transgender rights, and so on. These things certainly cost them any chance of getting a vote from the right, and alienated some of the moderates as well.

But, that wasn't catering to you enough. The far left refused to support the party that was working its best politically to give you what you wanted, but it wasn't enough.

So, since the democrats didn't cater enough to the far left, we got Trump, along with a pretty decent majority republican congress. Do you expect them to represent your interests? Do you expect them to care about your interests at all? Do you even realize that they will work to reverse what progress *was* made for the benefit of the far left?

What is it that you wanted? What is it that the democrats could have delivered, but refused to? What "perfect" here, become the enemy of the "good"?

Quote:
I think the 2010 loss had a lot to do with the disillusionment of anti-war voters. We were not "catered to."

The Congressional losses through 2016 were partly due to the 2011 redistricting following that 2010 loss. Maybe Dems should have "catered to" voters who wanted Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, John Yoo, etc., tried for high crimes, & the USA PATRIOT ACT undone. And we weren't all "far left.
It sounds like you are upset that they didn't prosecute the previous administration. Is that what it was all about? You say "High Crimes", but what exactly is it that you are charging them with? If they had gone after Rumsfeld and Cheney and Bush, then you would have shown up in 2010 to prevent the power from transitioning to the party that is diametrically opposed to your values?

Do you really think that would have solved anything at all? What outcome would you expect from such a trial? What benefit do you even get out of it? It would have been a distraction from the economic crisis we were dealing with, as well as from working on healthcare.

Had they gone after the Bush admin, I don't see anyone actually being convicted of anything, and I see much less getting done. The far left probably would have been even more disappointed in a failed prosecution, and still not shown up in 2010.

I can agree with beating up the Patriot Act a bit, but, once again, that's not something that can be done unilaterally, and instead, needed the support of 60 senators, something the democrats had for what, about a month, if you include lieberman and the blue dogs.

You blame Obama and Pelosi and Schumer for the acts of Lieberman and the other right leaning democrats. You held your own representative or senator responsible for the actions of their colleagues (unless you were in a district with a blue dog democrat, in which case, you failed to persuade your own congresscritter of your views).




Quote:
I think Democrat pols tried to look sympathetic to Occupy, but then, so did Jon Huntsman.
OWS didn't exist until after the 2010 election, so I don't see how it would influence that. As far as after, did we ever get a coherent message from them? they complained about college debt and wealth disparity. Two things that democrats have actually been trying to do something about, but have not had the voter support to do so.
Quote:
And little has even been started on their concerns. Black Lives Matter activists haven't gotten anything, policy-wise, from the Clinton Democrats.
Clinton hasn't had any power whatsoever since BLM was a thing, so I'm not sure. If you are talking about democrats in general, then I have seen quite a bit of federal activity that was working on pushing reform. Unfortunately, police are a state and local matter, so anything the fed does is very inderrect. They did what they could, studying and even taking up legal cases against police departments. (Most of which have been dropped by the current administration, so, you know, that's working out well.)

I suppose as far as that goes, I have two questions. What exactly did you want them to do, policy-wise, for BLM, and the second question is, are the republicans, the party that was assisted into getting into power by these types of complaints, doing any better?
Quote:
WJC & BHO both lost Congressional majorities very quickly, to well-organized right-wing "populist" Congressional campaigns. Contrast to the Bushes.

Why?
Because republicans are much more reliable mid term voters than democrats are.



It's called compromise. You don't get *everything* that you want. You have a list of things that you didn't get, well, so do I. No one gets everything that they want, and if you hold out for everything that you want before you are willing to take steps towards actually getting some or most of what you want, then you will never get anything, and neither will anyone else.

If getting nothing that you want is better than only getting some of what you want is your preference, then keep up the current strategy, as it will continue to net you nothing.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 02-13-2019 at 02:58 PM.
  #236  
Old 02-13-2019, 03:44 PM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
Not surprisingly, the knee-jerk FOXNews hot take is long on gotcha and desperately short on context.
From your cite at the New York Times"

"Before Ms. Harris answered the question, Charlamagne tha God interjected, asking her to say what she listened to while she smoked in college. Everyone laughed, before D.J. Envy appeared to return to his original question.

“Was it Snoop?” he asked.

“Oh yeah, definitely Snoop,” Ms. Harris said. “Tupac for sure.”

My bolding. The use of "it" suggests that she was referring to what music she listened to as she smoked pot.

However, I look forward to the Harris campaign issuing a clarification on what Kamala was actually listening to while she smoked pot in college. If it was Huey Lewis and Lionel Ritchie, it's over for her.
  #237  
Old 02-13-2019, 03:55 PM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,498
Oh for fuck's sake.

A) Kamala Harris conflated two questions: "What music do you like?" and "What were you listening that time you smoked weed?" She answered the former and not the latter.

B) More importantly, who the fuck cares? We have a country beset by real problems. Maybe Harris is suited to take them on, maybe she isn't, but why aren't you talking about that instead of this trivial nonsense?
  #238  
Old 02-13-2019, 04:22 PM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
From your cite at the New York Times...
So that was a big ol' "no," then. You haven't actually watched or listened to the interview and are just bagging on Harris for...well, no idea why. But apparently you have decided you don't like her. Good to know, sparky, you do you.
  #239  
Old 02-13-2019, 04:24 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
I am actually surprised- a GOP hit piece that has a possible shred of truth. If you listen , you could interpret it either way, it was a little confusing.

But since it's been clarified, i see no reason to harp on it.
  #240  
Old 02-13-2019, 04:49 PM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
From your cite at the New York Times"

"Before Ms. Harris answered the question, Charlamagne tha God interjected, asking her to say what she listened to while she smoked in college. Everyone laughed, before D.J. Envy appeared to return to his original question.
I think you were probably confused at what happened because the current president has dementia (or brain worms, or something) and therefore lacks the intellectual capacity to handle an interruption and then return to the topic.

Trump would have actually handled the conversation the same way (back before his dementia and Adderall addiction ruined his brain).
__________________
According to the Anti-Defamation League, "In 2018, domestic extremists killed at least 50 people in the US, a sharp increase from the 37 extremist-related murders documented in 2017....every single extremist killing — from Pittsburgh to Parkland — had a link to right-wing extremism."
  #241  
Old 02-13-2019, 07:23 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Borgia View Post
... who the fuck cares? We have a country beset by real problems. Maybe Harris is suited to take them on, maybe she isn't, but why aren't you talking about that instead of this trivial nonsense?
There is something telling somehow that the GOP oppo bits are items like these bits trying to get candidates (and in general the female ones) to defend their characters in the face of charges of no real meaning to how they would lead or the issues. The oppo idea is to try to find (or create if need be) issues that impugn character and force the D to argue over piddly shit (like this music one, or Warren and her past belief in significant NA ancestry, or Klobucher being a jerk of a boss to work for) and off items of importance to this country. The most serious way to spin these bits is as attempts to make people not "like" these candidates as authentic real people. Talk about weak sauce Swiftboating.

It's misdirection from whatever messaging the candidates want to focus on, and just as we of the public follow the newest shiny coins that Trump's latest tweets distract us with (away from items of seriousness) we also gawk at these trivialities.
  #242  
Old 02-14-2019, 12:59 AM
Superdude is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,379
There are also some songs that just SOUND like they're from a certain period in one's life. Let me give an example:

The song "You Get What You Give" by the New Radicals was released in 1998. The first time I heard it, I swore that I'd heard it when I was in high school, and I graduated in 1991. I was adamant that I'd heard it years before.

I distinctly remember driving around my hometown in my first car (1984 Ford Escort - thanks, Dad) with friends, cranking that song.

But I couldn't have done that. It's impossible for me to have done that. But I would have sworn on my life that the memory is real.

It's possible that Harris had a similar experience. I know I'm not the only one that's happened to.
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #243  
Old 02-14-2019, 02:53 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
There are also some songs that just SOUND like they're from a certain period in one's life. Let me give an example:

The song "You Get What You Give" by the New Radicals was released in 1998. The first time I heard it, I swore that I'd heard it when I was in high school, and I graduated in 1991. I was adamant that I'd heard it years before.

I distinctly remember driving around my hometown in my first car (1984 Ford Escort - thanks, Dad) with friends, cranking that song.

But I couldn't have done that. It's impossible for me to have done that. But I would have sworn on my life that the memory is real.

It's possible that Harris had a similar experience. I know I'm not the only one that's happened to.
So it's settled. Neither you nor Harris is fit for the presidency. Album release dates and your pot playlist are surely the most fundamental qualifications for leading the nation.

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-14-2019 at 02:55 AM.
  #244  
Old 02-14-2019, 07:42 AM
Superdude is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,379
I accept that logic
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #245  
Old 02-14-2019, 02:52 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Not really. I do not see any movement to the left. In fact, after the left wing voters let down the democrats in 2010, 2014, and in 2016, I see the democrats regrouping around an even more centrist right position, as catering to the far left doesn't actually get them any votes. They never go far enough, so you guys go third party anyway. They cost themselves politically to reach out to the far left, and then they lose the election because you don't show up to support them. That's how you get conservatives in power.

It is that exact mentality making the perfect the enemy of the good that got Trump elected, and will ensure his re-election in 2020.

If you will not support the democrats, they will not represent you.
You do realize this makes just exactly as much sense as saying:

Quote:
Not really. I do not see any movement to the center. In fact, after the moderate voters let down the democrats in 2010, 2014, and in 2016, I see the democrats regrouping around an even more left-wing position, as catering to the center doesn't actually get them any votes. They never go far enough, so you guys go Republican anyway. They cost themselves politically to reach out to the center, and then they lose the election because you don't show up to support them. That's how you get conservatives in power.

It is that exact mentality making the perfect the enemy of the good that got Trump elected, and will ensure his re-election in 2020.

If you will not support the democrats, they will not represent you.
Well, actually, it doesn't, because anyone paying attention can see that the Democrats are, in reality, moving leftwards. But you see what you want to see.
  #246  
Old 02-22-2019, 09:04 PM
Jragon's Avatar
Jragon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Raygun View Post
We're almost all way left of the general electorate, and it's wild for me to come here to the SDMB and see people claim that Harris is too progressive (and the occasional Pit thread about how the board is a leftist echo chamber! WTF?)
Yeah, I'm entirely baffled by the idea that she appeals to the far left. I guess people just see "woman of color" and perhaps "supports the Green New Deal" and assumes we'd stan her? Almost the universal diagnosis of her on the far left is "don't elect cops" (yes, we know she's not literally a cop, but the meme sticks because of her status as AG/a prosecutor). People stan Sanders, a few Yang, even Warren (with heavy reservations for all of them because, again, far left, most of them are still too far right for us), but I don't think I've met anyone who wants Harris. There are at best those of us who would probably vote for her if she got the nom. The only electoral idea the far left has enthusiasm for is "whatever happens run AOC as soon as eligible" which of course is not 2020, and still not uncritically.

This place is so far from a leftist echo chamber. It is, at best, a capital-L Liberal echo chamber. Funnily enough, we have far more representation for far right viewpoints on this board than we have for far left ones. I think you, me, and one or two others are the only ones I can think of, and IMO you're not as far left as me and at least one of the others (which is honestly hard to do, I'm some soup of weird of undecided post-leftist, post-capitalist, and ancom, the other is an accelerationist).

Though while I don't have an issue with your protest vote, personally, I will note that getting a third party the 5% for funding isn't, in my eyes, a particularly good strategy. The US has an electoral system that's effectively mathematically immune to three parties on the broad national level, and I don't just mean the electoral college, but first past the post in general. IMO there's really no realistic path to a true left party other than trying hard to push electoral reform like proportional rep and/or ranked voting or the like.


Well, I guess if we somehow pulled off a French Revolution that stuck but at least I'm still a bit suspect of that idea.

Last edited by Jragon; 02-22-2019 at 09:06 PM.
  #247  
Old 02-23-2019, 08:39 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,776
Since you used the word twice... what does it mean to "stan" someone?
  #248  
Old 02-23-2019, 08:53 AM
newme is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: In the Woods
Posts: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Since you used the word twice... what does it mean to "stan" someone?

Obsessively follow ( I had to look it up.)


https://theoutline.com/post/2425/whe...-became-a-verb
  #249  
Old 02-23-2019, 11:21 AM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
(Completely irrelevant anecdote: During a teen support group a couple weeks ago the kids and I got to explain to a younger co-worker the definitions and usages of both "stanning" and "shipping," with some sidebar along the way for fanfic. I felt considerably hipper than my 45 years and gray hair typically indicate.)
  #250  
Old 02-23-2019, 08:52 PM
Jragon's Avatar
Jragon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by newme View Post
Obsessively follow ( I had to look it up.)


https://theoutline.com/post/2425/whe...-became-a-verb
Technically true, but you may as well just mentally replace it with "rep".
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017