Hey, just wanted to share this bit I only learned about myself literally yesterday:
It's the "First Past the Post Voting Problem" that explains why a two-party system is actually a mathematical* inevitability.Just as a FYI, if you like nerd porn. 
Yeah…so you don’t know??
I’ve been spelunking through this whole thread to get a sense* of why I see her in the papers all the time…I mean besides Smollet – she was in the papers all the time before that, too…
I’m thinking she’s just the safe corporate candidate “the powers that be” believe will stick. I hate to sound so conspiratorial but I can’t get any other sense of what the big deal is.
Anyone know, thanks!
No, Dr. Seid, you didn’t post in that thread.
This one: Should taxpayers pay for gender realignment surgery for prisoners? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
Twelve years ago, we were still struggling to communicate to the public that we deserved any human rights at all. I’m very thankful for all the progress since then. I think it’s reasonable to expect that a smart cookie like Kamala Harris is able to change with the times without presuming bad faith on her part.
Well, ignoring anyone who makes a career out of sex work, the fact of the matter is that the discrimination and circumstances that force this aren’t going away any time soon, even if you try your hardest. Sure, I’d love to get rid of the circumstances that force anyone into sex work (an legalize it regardless), but until then we need to have channels available so the people who are forced into it for whatever reason can do it as safely as possible.
Yes, the whole Backpage situation was a mess, and the child trafficking is a huge blow against it. I can honestly see shutting it down, but the legislation in question also prevented any similar site from opening, even a hypothetical one that didn’t participate in child trafficking. Yes, yes, sex work is illegal, but again, it being illegal is incredibly unsafe, and even if you maintain it should be illegal, that’s no reason to put the people who are forced into it (via financial reasons as opposed to trafficking) in even more danger.
As for the trans prisoners and SRS thing, the brief she filed was in 2015. Which isn’t that long ago, granted significant motion can happen in 4 years.
What makes Harris a “corporate” candidate?
The Kremlin, of course. :rolleyes:
She’s all over the media, even before the Smollet hoax unraveled, and when I go looking for stuff on why she’s so popular, I see it’s because she’s a black woman who can argue tough-on-crime to placate whites.
Sounds like the color-by-the-numbers Demoratic Leadership Council playbook.
Then I just found out today that she’s still hasn’t even a policies page up yet!
I’m not sure how the Democrat hysteria over unregistered Russian influence peddling via social media dismisses my remark, but if you’re for her I am curious why you are if she doesn’t even have a policies page up yet despite all the media attention.
It puzzled me too, which is why I immediately went to her campaign page on FB and sent them a message about it.
Calling her “corporate” is just another retread of old attacks on Hillary Clinton. The trolls can’t even think up any new smears that even apply to the woman!
Corporate donations were pouring in for Clinton. It wasn’t a smear.
It remains to be seen whether Mass Incarceration Harris can capture that Suprepredator Clinton money-making magic.
Aint he cute?
People genuinely like her. She excites them. You can think of no explanation for her popularity other than a conspiracy by corporations? If someone is popular, it must be a conspiracy? She refuses to accept donations from corporate PACs. 2016 called; it wants its conspiracy theories back. It’s pathetic how lazy the haters have gotten. At least come up with something that isn’t so laughably outdated. The only Democratic “hysteria” going on here is hysterical laughter at how dumb these attacks are.
It was a conspiracy theory to point out Clinton received huge amounts of corporate money?
What are you responding to, WillFarnaby? We’re talking about Kamala Harris, here.
How would any of that make Harris a “corporate” candidate?
Post 293
An attempt by the poster to undermine criticism of corporate-financed candidates like Harris by associating concerns with conspiracy theories.
But you weren’t talking about Harris; you were talking about Clinton. Maybe it’s true that Clinton was a corporate candidate, but that doesn’t mean that it makes sense to re-use the label for Harris.
The poster tried to delegitimize criticism of Harris by associating the criticism with “conspiracy theories” about Clinton. If you have a problem with the introduction of Clinton to the discussion you have the ability to correct yourself and leave me be.
In the interest of full disclosure, WillFarnaby, I reported that post. It (my reason for reporting it) had nothing to do with the corporate aspect. It was about the term “SuperPredator,” which, in my opinion, was an unnecessary dig in a thread where everyone was being civil to each other.
Of course, I’m not a moderator, so that’s just one person’s opinion.