Kamala Harris 2020

[UncleSonny 6790]

25 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, this is a tough one.  You can be reasonably sure that her dropping out wouldn't affect the R/D balance in the Senate.

But until the D's get a majority, she's going to be somewhat minimized in the Senate.

I have to think the Dem seat would be pretty safe for a special election in Mass, especially if we see any kind of blue wave in November. Would maybe be a little risky considering their Republican governor though. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

12 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Why not just hold the seat?  Maybe position her for majority leader.  There are lots of other people who would be great at AG.  Off hand, Sally Yates, Preet Bharara, or Adam Schiff.  

No, Liz would be a better AG than all those.  AG oversees so much more than people think. Yates and Preet would make good DAGs maybe.  Attorney General is over immigration, anti-trust, FBI, DEA, Interpol, prisons, tax division, civil rights division, US Marshals, ATF, national security.  It’s not a job for your career prosecutors.

Edited August 13, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[lemonlime 5503]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

No, Liz would be a better AG than all those.  AG oversees so much more than people think. Yates and Preet would make good DAGs maybe.  Attorney General is over immigration, anti-trust, FBI, DEA, Interpol, prisons, tax division, civil rights division, US Marshals, ATF, national security.  It’s not a job for your average attorneys.

Yates was already Deputy Attorney General, the second highest position in the AG's office, and briefly acting AG.  And Bharara was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.  I'm not sure why you think they're "average attorneys."

[washparkhorn 9967]

Liz to the Supreme Court. Put an advocate for consumers on there to beat back the Chamber of Commerce coalition running the Court. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, lemonlime said:

Yates was already Deputy Attorney General, the second highest position in the AG's office, and briefly acting AG.  And Bharara was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.  I'm not sure why you think they're "average attorneys."

They’re not average attorneys, I misspoke. They were career prosecutors. Point is, we need major reform in law enforcement and Liz could do a lot more in that area than most IMO. 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

No, Liz would be a better AG than all those.  AG oversees so much more than people think. Yates and Preet would make good DAGs maybe.  Attorney General is over immigration, anti-trust, FBI, DEA, Interpol, prisons, tax division, civil rights division, US Marshals, ATF, national security.  It’s not a job for your career prosecutors.

She could be really scrong on CJ reform, but I'd like to see what she did with the civil aspects.

[immortal13 4059]

8 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Liz to the Supreme Court. Put an advocate for consumers on there to beat back the Chamber of Commerce coalition running the Court. 

Or the Tribal Council at least

[TwiceHorn 31987]

12 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Yates was already Deputy Attorney General, the second highest position in the AG's office, and briefly acting AG.  And Bharara was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.  I'm not sure why you think they're "average attorneys."

Schiff has a whopping about six years of experience practicing law as an AUSA.  I'm not sure Bharara has broad enough experience to be super effective.  Yates could be alright.

But I'd really enjoy seeing a policy maverick as AG.  Too many senior legal positions in our government are held by career DOJ'ers.

Edited August 13, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[lemonlime 5503]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Schiff has a whopping about six years of experience practicing law as an AUSA.  I'm not sure Bharara has broad enough experience to be super effective.  Yates could be alright.

But I'd really enjoy seeing a policy maverick as AG.  Too many senior legal positions in our government are held by career DOJ'ers.

Fair enough.  I could see Warren as someone who could make some bold policy changes.  I still think someone like Yates or Bharara, known for integrity, would send a good signal about cleaning house from the politicization of the DOJ.

[Blotto 23974]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Wait, didn't he die? Are folks still posting on his profile? 

 

1 hour ago, Grade of D as in David said:

How does an account still actively posting for a dead guy have a blue check mark?

You could easily convince me that Trump plans on wheeling out Cain's lifeless corpse during his Gettysburg GOP address and administering hydroxychloroquine  on the spot, thereby immediately curing Cain of the 'rona. If things go according to plan, word of this miracle will spread like wildfire ensuring a Trump landslide in November.

But here's the deal.....Cain's not really dead, see. He faked it all in a sign of fealty to Hair Führer. So between now and November he has to lay low like a dead person, and bored out of his mind he spends most of his time tweeting out shit like this

Yeah, I know how fucktarded that sounds.......but its 2020, I'm just sayin.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, washparkhorn said:

Liz to the Supreme Court. Put an advocate for consumers on there to beat back the Chamber of Commerce coalition running the Court. 

Putting a 71 year old on the court is a terrible idea. So I guess that is what will happen.

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

About the author of that horrible opinion piece questioning if Harris is a citizen -

[Bama Chick 28596]

Whew. We’ve gotten -

-Birtherism
-Racism
-Sexism
-Slut shaming

All within the first 24 hours.

The next three months are gonna be something.

[Mole 4338]

4 hours ago, Grade of D as in David said:

How does an account still actively posting for a dead guy have a blue check mark?

 

I’m telling you, COVID really isn’t a big deal. Even the deaths are temporary.

[safe sex 11913]

2 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Whew. We’ve gotten -

-Birtherism
-Racism
-Sexism
-Slut shaming

All within the first 24 hours.

The next three months are gonna be something.

Already out of can'ts to even with.

[Sawbonz 28081]

12 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Kamala has the hype machine behind her which hopefully benefits Biden in his effort to beat Trump.  My only beef with Harris is I still don’t know who she is other than a savvy career politician that is super flexible on issues big and small, depending on which way the wind ($$) is blowing. Some might see that as an advantage because it makes her a moving target impossible to pin down but it doesn’t help her in the credibility department, most people no longer give a shit about that sadly in the Trump Era. 

You can’t exactly call her a tough on crime cop and a progressive movement leader at the same time. There were plenty of VP choices worse and less strategic than Harris. The last minute Susan Rice head fake made this point well. I also see the value of picking a Black woman at this moment in history. It sends a good public message to bring diversity to the ticket. I can appreciate this and also believe KH wasn’t a good pick if we’re talking about Harris being the future of the Democratic Party leadership down the road or a good faith governing partner in the Biden Administration, I hope to be proven wrong on this.

Biden wasn’t a great pick for Obama in this department either, but here we are counting on him to dethrone Mango Mussolini. I hope Kamala Harris serves Biden and the country well because there is no other path forward.

Yesterday was the first time I felt like Trump was going to win again and maybe that sense of urgency is needed. I expect the media coverage of this race to be handled as poorly as imaginable from here on out.  It will not be about pushing hard AF for a healthcare public option or eliminating student loan debt. The needed big ideas have left the building. It’s going to be about hollow platitudes, sound bytes, gotcha moments, and gaffes, just how our overlords want it. So yeehaw and yaaas kween, let’s get this job done so maybe the kids have a piece of democracy left worth fight for. 

So you’re ready to accept my bet?

[Asithappens 978]

Good choice, imo.

Siap, but we've come a long way when the selection of a black female VP is considered a "safe choice".

I think she's competent, politically astute, and can hold her own. 

Let's get out and vote the current pos out of office.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

4 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Whew. We’ve gotten -

-Birtherism
-Racism
-Sexism
-Slut shaming

All within the first 24 hours.

The next three months are gonna be something.

I'm thrilled at the level of discourse Trump has brought to the highest level of government and politics in the United States.

God have mercy on us all.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Curious! 

[Nivek 17330]

5 hours ago, Mole said:

I’m telling you, COVID really isn’t a big deal. Even the deaths are temporary.

too blave

[bad_teammate 13479]

16 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Curious! 

Biden/Harris 2020: Nothing Is Going To Fundamentally Change

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Biden/Harris 2020: Nothing Is Going To Fundamentally Change

The in-your-face way they went about it is a good reminder how far the democrats have to go before credibly claiming to be good faith stewards of democracy.  Yes, the GOP is another level of corruption but that doesn’t make the democrats angels.

Kamala Harris is the “safe pick” because she wouldn’t upset the oligarchs that got us into this disaster and continue to profit from it. Expect more of the same is the message being sent.  You can be happy about Biden bringing diversity to the ticket but also see this for what it was.

[bad_teammate 13479]

The oligarchs are pretty openly holding a gun to our heads and the liberal response is to clap like seals when they get donation money from those same oligarchs.

[HenryJames 67116]

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

LMAO

[Hank Kingsley 21598]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Biden/Harris 2020: Nothing Is Going To Fundamentally Change

Definitely poor wording on Joe's part, but he was telling his rich donors that he's gonna get rid of the Trump tax cut, and that raising taxes on the wealthy would not fundamentally change their style of living. Which is true. 

Understandable to weaponize that "gaffe" or poor phrasing against him in the D primary. But Biden is going to tax the rich unlike Trump. 

Here is an analysis of his plan, where he'd increase federal reserve revenues by $4 trillion over the next decade: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-former-vice-president-bidens-tax-proposals/full

 

[bad_teammate 13479]

That's not a gaffe or misstatement or poor phrasing, it's the reality. Even if he got the fullness of his tax proposal, nothing would fundamentally change. A "fundamental change" is not raising more federal revenue by slightly increasing the tax burden on the mega-wealthy. It's a softer glove over the iron fist of inequality.

[Sawbonz 28081]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The in-your-face way they went about it is a good reminder how far the democrats have to go before credibly claiming to be good faith stewards of democracy.  Yes, the GOP is another level of corruption but that doesn’t make the democrats angels.

Kamala Harris is the “safe pick” because she wouldn’t upset the oligarchs that got us into this disaster and continue to profit from it. Expect more of the same is the message being sent.  You can be happy about Biden bringing diversity to the ticket but also see this for what it was.

Already starting with the Democrats are almost bad as republicans. I see you

[horn4life 3829]

You just have to get a nice laugh thinking of Kamala wiping the floor with poor scapegoat Mike Pence.  Would you really want to be in a debate as the  Captain of the Titanic?  Or in this case the head of the coronavirus task force.  Pence is going to lie, and lie pretending "I did a great job" and she will say why did you lie about the number of available tests as your first act as the Coronavirus Czar.

She is going to be a lot sharper knife in pointing our Trump's constant lying and exaggerations of "success" as the designer and builder of the Titanic.  SHe's gonna be the bulldog with a bite.  Simply as she is far, far smarter than either Trump or Pence.  

Trump will do his usual male insecurity that is so very deep seeded in him, so sexist, and racist tinged (or more direct) will be his "stable genius" methodology of attacking Harris.  The failed loser who lost all of Daddy's money and is ashamed of his taxes.  She will point out Trump's and Pences obvious endless stupidity in handling the virus and the FACT that Obama handed Trump an economy that PRODUCED MORE JOBS than the "TRUMP economy" ever did.  It's something that most Trump supporters don't know is FACTUALLY correct.  Because they would prefer to lie to themselves about how great Trump is.  

She's a great pick to attack the horrifically weak Chinese Virus avoidance of responsibility and leadership.

 

 

[Biff Tannen 46061]

37 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Definitely poor wording on Joe's part, but he was telling his rich donors that he's gonna get rid of the Trump tax cut, and that raising taxes on the wealthy would not fundamentally change their style of living. Which is true. 

Understandable to weaponize that "gaffe" or poor phrasing against him in the D primary. But Biden is going to tax the rich unlike Trump. 

Here is an analysis of his plan, where he'd increase federal reserve revenues by $4 trillion over the next decade: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-former-vice-president-bidens-tax-proposals/full

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Cool if Biden follows through with his campaign agenda but consider me skeptical. Our current situation demands an FDR style response and Biden is the same guy he’s always been. I’m not going to bash the man because Trump/GOP are the immediate threat but I’m not going to pretend Biden is more that an extra strength Tylenol for a gunshot wound. 

Edited August 13, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[jimmyjazz 46976]

This birther angle on Harris is so absurd.  I know, I know, put it on the list with all the other absurdities.

I've done quite a bit of reading about this in the last 24 hours, seeking out papers out of Cornell, Penn, Harvard, etc., and if one thing is clear, being born on US soil renders one a "natural born citizen".  This angle being promulgated that one or both parents need to be citizens, or even more absurdly, natural born citizens (Donald Trump, anyone?) has been made up out of whole cloth.  Smells like Rush, could be Tucker, but somebody planted the seed and it is completely not true.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

This birther angle on Harris is so absurd.  I know, I know, put it on the list with all the other absurdities.

I've done quite a bit of reading about this in the last 24 hours, seeking out papers out of Cornell, Penn, Harvard, etc., and if one thing is clear, being born on US soil renders one a "natural born citizen".  This angle being promulgated that one or both parents need to be citizens, or even more absurdly, natural born citizens (Donald Trump, anyone?) has been made up out of whole cloth.  Smells like Rush, could be Tucker, but somebody planted the seed and it is completely not true.

It is a stupid argument.  Birthright citizenship is real and she's a citizen.

One can argue that birthright citizenship ought not be the law, but one can't legitimately argue that it is not the law, which is necessary to make the birther argument.

[Sawbonz 28081]

20 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Cool if Biden follows through with his campaign agenda but consider me skeptical. Our current situation demands an FDR style response and Biden is the same guy he’s always been. I’m not going to bash the man because Trump/GOP are the immediate threat but I’m not going to pretend Biden is more that an extra strength Tylenol for a gunshot wound. 

You didn’t say with all due respect

[Rougarou 594]

Biden/Harris is going to win in historical faction and it’s because the essentially centrist position is what the middle and upper middle class crave. Make the electrolyte joke if you think the shoe fits.

[bad_teammate 13479]

Slightly raising taxes on the top doesn't really mean anything with regard to wealth gaps.

Nothing will fundamentally change.

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

This is cute and all, but under a Biden administration we will continue to see the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the sick get sicker. We will see a slowing in that trend vs Trump, but the path is still determined by the richest people either way, Biden just brings in nicer ones.

"Nothing will fundamentally change" is more true and honest than most politicians are willing to be.

(It's kind of funny that you guys think raising federal revenues would represent a "fundamental change" to our economic status quo. Tragic and horrifying, but also funny.)

[bad_teammate 13479]

53 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Biden/Harris is going to win in historical faction and it’s because the essentially centrist position is what the middle and upper middle class crave. Make the electrolyte joke if you think the shoe fits.

Exactly.

What the center wants is Obama back. Nice, uncontroversial, articulate, and a continuation of the blood-letting that drips wealth and resources out of the poor and working classes into the mouths of the rich. Passive incomes, rents, capital gains, all taxed at slightly higher rates but still flowing like a mighty blood river.

[Guest Lobo]

Wait, their argument is that both parents already have to be birthright citizens for the kid born here to count as a Citizen?  There's people saying that?  

Wouldn't that make Barron Trump a non-birthright citizen?  Plus half the Irish and Italians born in this country during a huge chunk of the 19th & 20th centuries?    

That's a piss-poor attempt to connect Kamala Harris, born 55 years ago in Oakland when/where the current DACA/Dreamers/Anchor Babies wasn't exactly a top issue.  

[Rougarou 594]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Exactly.

What the center wants is Obama back. Nice, uncontroversial, articulate, and a continuation of the blood-letting that drips wealth and resources out of the poor and working classes into the mouths of the rich. Passive incomes, rents, capital gains, all taxed at slightly higher rates but still flowing like a mighty blood river.

I'd be curious to see an academic or otherwise as-close-to-unbiased-and-real study commissioned to see the actual data around:

- What class actually produces and provides the value in America. Does the middle/upper-middle class provide 50%? 70%? Do the wealthy provide 50%? 10%? Do the poor and working class provide 50%? 10%?

I ask because I think the assumption is that the poor and working class are toiling in the fields and providing all this amazing production and value that the middle class and rich are exploiting (varying degrees on the slider scale, of course).

My hypothesis would be this isn't true. All the production that the poor and working would provide that is technical or skilled is offshored and grunt/physical labor is pretty lucrative in good economies (O&G, construction, etc.) to qualify as middle class.

The poor and working class would seem to be largely of the most basic and entry levels of the service economy. We can see what happens to the economy looking at COVID-19, with respect to shutting off the services, but at the same time the industry seems to beg the question, meaning it seems that the service economy is something that is needed to feed itself and, further, can be looked at as the way America is laundering it's money in the insane economic framework and gridwork that drives America's day-to-day life, which necessarily has to be growing to survive.

[Huckleberry 34407]

Oh for fuck's sake

Image published in the notoriously anti-corporations Forbes magazine. 

[Dbeasy 15526]

Nm.

[Rougarou 594]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Oh for fuck's sake

Image published in the notoriously anti-corporations Forbes magazine. 

Great chart; but how do we interpret this data is more the question, right? Maybe you can educate me because my main question would be are the "production/nonsupervisory workers" in this chart considered middle/upper-middle class?

What sorts of "working class and poor" jobs exist in 2020 that add to the net productivity to the economy, I guess is another question. For example, do the last two manual grocery store checkers who ring up the register count? Does the person who swipes your card at McDonald's?

UBI sounds more and more attractive with each passing day...

[henrygandorf 29219]

22 minutes ago, Lobo said:

That's a piss-poor attempt to connect Kamala Harris, born 55 years ago in Oakland when/where the current DACA/Dreamers/Anchor Babies wasn't exactly a top issue.  

every stupid attack i see on kamala is a reminder that they don't have shit.  i hope citizenship is a daily story on fox news.  

this is still the kamala thread, yes?

[wildcat09 29556]

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights."

[F250 29174]

Dan is a National Review writer and it looks like he didn't get the memo. When conservatives and Republicans embraced Trump they lost all their moral authority to criticize Democrats.

The thread is hilarious because he is attempting to criticize Harris and she has things that should be criticized but it's impossible to do that from the GOP perspective.

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

52 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Wait, their argument is that both parents already have to be birthright citizens for the kid born here to count as a Citizen?  There's people saying that?  

Wouldn't that make Barron Trump a non-birthright citizen?  Plus half the Irish and Italians born in this country during a huge chunk of the 19th & 20th centuries?    

That's a piss-poor attempt to connect Kamala Harris, born 55 years ago in Oakland when/where the current DACA/Dreamers/Anchor Babies wasn't exactly a top issue.  

I believe the argument goes that her mother was on a student/researcher visa and her father on a professor visa, so neither was a permanent resident or citizen, so, voila, no citizenship.

[jimmyjazz 46976]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

Wait, their argument is that both parents already have to be birthright citizens for the kid born here to count as a Citizen?  There's people saying that?  

There is a small subset of birthers saying this, yes.  The more common argument just seems to be one (or sometimes both, depending on the idiot) parents must be citizens, but not necessarily birthright citizens.

The more restrictive argument seems particularly rich, given that it would mean Donald Trump is ineligible for POTUS.  (Of course, he is eligible, I'm just pointing out the unintended consequence of lunatics arguing that one must have two birthright citizen parents in order to qualify for the Presidency.)

Edited August 13, 2020 by jimmyjazz

[Fozzz 152]

 

[Fozzz 152]

47 minutes ago, F250 said:

Dan is a National Review writer and it looks like he didn't get the memo. When conservatives and Republicans embraced Trump they lost all their moral authority to criticize Democrats.

The thread is hilarious because he is attempting to criticize Harris and she has things that should be criticized but it's impossible to do that from the GOP perspective.

 

 

There is this weird symbiotic relationship between mainstream pols on each side of the aisle (who agree on 90% of the shit that actually matters) and their conservative/liberal critics.  People like Dan who take seriously what Harris said above (we can't even get unemployment but we're going to expand the SCOTUS lmao) in effect legitimize Harris to liberals who may be skeptical of her track record.  

[horn4life 3829]

Why not look at expanding the court? McConnell did steal a seat.

Why should the Dems try to follow rules or principles when the GOP always discards them every chance they get?  The Dems fucked up by approving judges without the 60 votes.  But the GOP simply blocked nearly ALL potential appointments so the system was abused and broken. And the GOP of course further abused the rules and loaded the courts with the least qualified applicants as a whole in modern history.  So why not put some qualified folks on the court to expand it?

For FUCKS SAKE the GOP controlled Senate and Whitehouse can't even pass a fucking bill THEY support?  Instead the Dems in the House do their job, and the Pubs just twiddle their fingers.  OF course the important thing was the millionaires got their free money with no oversight as the first action they took so fuck the little guys.  WHY CAN'T THE GOP SENATE DO THEIR FUCKING JOB???????

Edited August 13, 2020 by horn4life