I’m not saying Kamala is severely flawed or corrupt - not at all. But one of the biggest boons for the Ds is that Trump’s sheer odiousness means that the Ds now have far more leeway and wiggle room than before. Whereas before, a Democratic presidential candidate might have gotten in trouble for even a minor scandal, now the (D) candidate can - hypothetically - get away with large-scale corruption, scandal or unethical conduct (at least vote-wise, that is - not in the legal system) because Trump is always worse. Trump is always much worse. So even if the (D) candidate is bad, the D voter base will still have to turn out for him or her anyway because of how much worse Trump is.
Agree. I was musing about what Harris could possible do that would cause her to lose my vote. Nothing that was plausible came to mind. Just for fun, I considered the following:
Cut off a Whale’s head. Disturbing, but still has my vote.
Found liable for sexual assault. Nope, lost my vote
Found liable for civil fraud. Lost my vote
Refused to support Ukraine. Tough one. I would hate that, but maybe keeps my vote.
No tax on tips. I don’t agree, but not a deal breaker.
(bolding mine)
I would disagree. It might depend on what we both consider large-scale unethical conduct.
Trump is, somehow and inexplicably, unique in his ability to get away with it. This is what drives me insane and I’ve yet to figure it out and not sure anyone else has.
Others, doing far less, do not get away with it. I don’t think Harris would. The same conduct would cost her votes but it would not cost Trump votes. This is honestly a good thing, in a way. We don’t want it to be normal for one person, much less for everyone. I would agree it has eroded some smaller scale norms for everyone and that’s not good.
Late: If you’re right, it’s pretty sad. Both sides can put up shitty candidates and we just have to trudge along and vote for one (“Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos!”)
Harris’s plan to tax unrealized capital gains is stupid and unworkable to boot. No, I’m not a 100 millionaire, but you can bet dollars to donuts that the wealth threshold is coming down to encompass everyone eventually if that passes. And if it does so, one of the best ways for people to save for the future (the magic of compound interest) is severely denuded.
I dunno if “first they came for the billionaires” is going to get traction.
Why?
Even the current theoretical tax rate for millionaires hasn’t come down to encompass everyone. You’re claiming a slippery slope that doesn’t exist.
Not to mention that “everyone” includes people who effectively have no wealth at all.
hah! fair point. It wouldn’t effect me as proposed, but that doesn’t make it any less stupid. And the fact is that I am a saver, and have been for a long time. I have a modest amount of unrealized capital gains, and there is no reason to think that, once enacted, the threshold on which this tax is exacted won’t come down.
Agree. And it’s still not clear to me how it would work. What about unrealized losses? One could make a 30% loss during an economic crisis, one year after being taxed on a 10% gain. Does he get his money back?
The real way to address the inequalities in how the wealthy are taxed is to eliminate Buy Borrow Die. And that could be fixed by either making sure that the assets bought with the borrowed money are somehow taxed, or by eliminating the reset of the basis at death.
Oh yeah, and Carried Interest is Bullshit. I’d love to get paid in company stock and only face a 15% tax rate, no matter how much I make.
Democrats have managed to get away with corruption in lower offices. Ex-New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez and Ex-Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich being prime examples. Both had long histories of corruption before finally being put away. New York Mayor Eric Adams recent indictment may be another example.
But none of them were running for President. All recent candidates have been squeaky clean. I’m probably missing something, but I can’t remember an incident knocking off a top contender since Gary Hart was caught doing and on Monkey Business in 1987.
Different rules and standards evolved for Trump and his MAGA followers that are still, I believe, not applicable to Democrats. And I don’t want them to be. I want the Republicans’ standards to change, not the Democrats’.
Don’t forget John Edwards’ extramarital affair in 2008 resulting in a child while his wife was dying from cancer.
I sure hope so.
I never meant to imply I’m hesitant about Harris. I’m all in. The alternative is so abysmally bad there is no policy position I can think of that would cause me to change my vote.
I like being reminded that Harris isn’t speaking to me, she’s trying to reach the out-of-touch through a medium that obliterates nuance.
I like being reminded that she can promise anything, but in the end she can only deliver what she can get Congress to back.
I like that she’s sane, and makes rational decisions, and changes her position through reasoning when she learns something new.
I love her energy and the bulk of her campaign choices in how to reach people.
Somebody smart has learned some lessons in how to herd cats. The Harris/Walz campaign has sidestepped some pitfalls that plague the Dems.
It is only on incomes over 100 million. And it has been booted about for some time. Bernie Sanders had a similar plan.
I really do not give a fuck about stuff like that.
I wouldn’t say (Bill) Clinton was exactly clean; setting aside the sexual hijinks (and the real possibility that he was actually a serial sexual predator) there was the Lincoln Bedroom Controversy and other, more minor scandals (e.g. the White House Travel Office ‘Scandal’). But all of that together is less than the least of the actual scandals of the Trump Administration starting from Day 1 and his insistence that the Park Service lie about the objective size of the crowds at the Inauguration.
There are a number of criticisms I have of Harris, but integrity is not one of them. As for the things that irk the o.p., they’re basic candidate waffling to appeal to the broadest possible audience. And thankfully, they are in service of what appears to be an actual policy plan instead of what passed for ‘policy’ in her previous run for the primary in 2020.
Stranger
Thank you for the exemplary response to this thread.
And no reason to think that it will. Especially no reason to think that it’ll come down low enough to affect people with a “modest amount” of unrealized capital gains.
There may well be problems with such proposals. But that isn’t one of them; that’s just a slippery slope argument with no evidence for it.