+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+--- Thread: It's Kamala! (/Thread-It-s-Kamala)
RE: It's Kamala! - hollodero - 08-12-2020
(08-12-2020, 12:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wow, we must be watching two different clips.
I feel like I saw that kind of bickering all the time in the debates and seldomly have I regarded something as "destroying". What Warren did with Bloomberg, that was destroying. Aside from that, I feel the debate format alone does not really allow for meaningful discourse in the first place, and also not for determining who has the upper hand and "won" the exchange. Big part of that is Tapper interrupting everyone mid-sentence with his "thank you". What meaningful points can you even start to bring up if you got 1,5 sentences long to do so? Just letting it be instead of trying to make a finer point while being talked over already makes more sense, probably.
Gabbard had her sound bite, I did not find her attack line too persuasive and it's not like Harris got demasked there with big revelations. But that's just me, it's up to everyone to judge that really, also I do not want defend Harris too much for I am not really a fan to begin with.
(08-12-2020, 12:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, just like Obama. In this regard I'm apparently the perfect liberal, as I've been for same sex marriage my entire adult life (ask bfine, we used to argue about it all the time in the early 2000's). I didn't have to "evolve" or a have a talk about it with my daughter. Except now, to many, I'm a racist right winger, maybe other people "evolved"?
I don't attack Gabbard on that too much, everyone can evolve, and so can Kamala Harris on the topic of marijuana legislation. She is for it now, imho that's that then. Her position changed, Biden's position changed, Gabbard's position changed, Obama's position changed, I think good for all of them. I don't find it effective to try to "destroy" anyone about such a shift in opinion.
As for the latter, I don't see many people calling you racist in any way, for the record I of course do not think that. But I do see you as kind of sympathetic to more right leaning policies, but there's zero harm in that and I also might be wrong. I never meant to bring your stance into the same sex marriage example, guess I always assumed you had no issue with that, you don't seem the type to have one.
(08-12-2020, 12:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Like is a relative term. She's by far more preferable than the other Dem candidates. No, I don't like her stance on firearms, but I do like that she is pragmatic and not married to party orthodoxy. It's similar to why I really like 2000 era John McCain, although his stances were much more in line with my own, he spoke his mind and wasn't afraid to go his own way if he felt strongly enough about something. That character trait alone, being so rare in a US politician, is worthy of admiration.
She did not bend on some controversial stances, I give her that.
In a sense, Trump also is not afraid to go his own way, but I do not admire him for his rather original stances.
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-12-2020
(08-12-2020, 11:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: My mistake, I got the actual debate number wrong. Seeing as how you knew that, I'm curious as to why you didn't address the actual point I made instead of focusing on the error. Why is that?
Thought your "actual point" was that I "don't have [my] finger on the pulse of actual events." And I'd just read in your previous post that Gabbard had "annihilated" Harris.
Quips/impressions are not "actual points," and a list of links is an appropriate response to one.
RE: It's Kamala! - Belsnickel - 08-12-2020
(08-12-2020, 12:42 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Yeah, but it's just so damn efficient.
Indeed, which is why it is in our human nature to do it so often and we have to work hard to break ourselves of the habit.
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 08-12-2020
(08-12-2020, 12:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think you are conflating the opinion of a small minority of individuals with the position of a political party. Even if some of the politicians feel that way, it's not the literal position of the party.
Of course it isn't. No political party is going to openly proclaim a disdain for a large segment of the population. I think it's a larger minority than you think but let's go with your point and continue.
Quote:This type of broad brush attitude is part of the problem we are seeing with politics, today, where people readily ascribe certain positions or values to entire groups of people based on the actions of a few that they share some identifiable trait with.
Let us simply use the standard that is frequently applied to Trump. If someone says something objectionable then you should counter it, no? How often do we hear about white supremacist patriarchy? How often do we hear attacks on law enforcement? You have members of Congress comparing law enforcement to terrorist organizations. I don't hear a lot of push back for any of these assertions. If I'm missing it please let me know, I'd prefer to be wrong about this. As it stands I see a Democratic party that is catering to the absolutely worst aspects of the current zeitgeist and I want zero part of it.
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 08-12-2020
(08-12-2020, 01:01 PM)Dill Wrote: Thought your "actual point" was that I "don't have [my] finger on the pulse of actual events." And I'd just read in your previous post that Gabbard had "annihilated" Harris.
Quips/impressions are not "actual points," and a list of links is an appropriate response to one.
No, it wasn't. As to your last sentence, when you point a finger at someone you have three fingers pointing back at you.
RE: It's Kamala! - Belsnickel - 08-12-2020
(08-12-2020, 01:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let us simply use the standard that is frequently applied to Trump. If someone says something objectionable then you should counter it, no?
Well, Trump is typically the one saying objectionable things or actively embracing the ones that do. I think that is more the problem than him not countering it.
(08-12-2020, 01:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How often do we hear about white supremacist patriarchy?
White supremacist patriarchy? Never. I've heard about white privilege and the patriarchy, both of them being real things and not about hating on straight white men.
(08-12-2020, 01:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How often do we hear attacks on law enforcement?
Frequently.
(08-12-2020, 01:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You have members of Congress comparing law enforcement to terrorist organizations.
I truthfully am unaware of this incident. Could you provide more information?
(08-12-2020, 01:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't hear a lot of push back for any of these assertions. If I'm missing it please let me know, I'd prefer to be wrong about this. As it stands I see a Democratic party that is catering to the absolutely worst aspects of the current zeitgeist and I want zero part of it.
I mean, I've seen commentary from top Democrats shutting down the "defund the police" movement, meaning they aren't catering to it. And is their lack of addressing attacks on police from individuals, even including other elected officials, any worse (or as bad, really?) than top Republicans refusing or hesitating to call out blatant and explicit bigotry by individuals or members of their party? I understand that this hits closer for you, but the same criticisms you level at Democrats can be leveled in the other direction but instead of cops it is people of color, GSMs, etc.
I know that in both cases it is a matter of the people in positions of power being concerned with losing it by alienating their constituency, but policy is where it really matters. Other than a few moronic examples, the party has not gotten behind policy that indicates any catering to these groups and their platform waters down a lot of it to make it more palatable.
RE: It's Kamala! - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 08-12-2020
(08-12-2020, 01:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Of course it isn't. No political party is going to openly proclaim a disdain for a large segment of the population. I think it's a larger minority than you think but let's go with your point and continue.
Let us simply use the standard that is frequently applied to Trump. If someone says something objectionable then you should counter it, no? How often do we hear about white supremacist patriarchy? How often do we hear attacks on law enforcement? You have members of Congress comparing law enforcement to terrorist organizations. I don't hear a lot of push back for any of these assertions. If I'm missing it please let me know, I'd prefer to be wrong about this. As it stands I see a Democratic party that is catering to the absolutely worst aspects of the current zeitgeist and I want zero part of it.
I’ve seen a 70-something y/o man get a skull fracture in Buffalo and a Navy veteran in Portland require surgery for protesting. I’ve seen reporters body checked for no reason. I’ve seen home owners shot with non-lethal munitions just for being on their front porch. I’ve seen protesters tear gassed for a photo op.
And I don’t even watch the news. And I don’t want to have anything to do with a president who will misuse military troops against US citizens due to stupidity and ego.
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 08-12-2020
(08-12-2020, 01:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, Trump is typically the one saying objectionable things or actively embracing the ones that do. I think that is more the problem than him not countering it.
Not relevant to the point I made.
Quote:White supremacist patriarchy? Never. I've heard about white privilege and the patriarchy, both of them being real things and not about hating on straight white men.
I honestly wonder how that's possible. They literally had a Congressional hearing on the topic;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/21/candace-owens-clashes-with-fellow-witness-congressional-hearing-white-supremacy/
How you haven't heard the term "white supremacy" from a politician ever, is mind boggling to me.
Quote:Frequently.
Well, we agree on this at least.
Quote:I truthfully am unaware of this incident. Could you provide more information?
My apologies. While I can find examples of this they are not by members of Congress. I misremembered AOC's comparison of ICE to fascists running "concentration camps". I was certain she had compared them to terrorists as well, but I can't find it, so point retracted.
Quote:I mean, I've seen commentary from top Democrats shutting down the "defund the police" movement, meaning they aren't catering to it. And is their lack of addressing attacks on police from individuals, even including other elected officials, any worse (or as bad, really?) than top Republicans refusing or hesitating to call out blatant and explicit bigotry by individuals or members of their party? I understand that this hits closer for you, but the same criticisms you level at Democrats can be leveled in the other direction but instead of cops it is people of color, GSMs, etc.
Any worse is subjective, but using your example how many black people vote Republican and can you understand why that number is what that number is? When you answer that question you understand my position.
Quote:I know that in both cases it is a matter of the people in positions of power being concerned with losing it by alienating their constituency, but policy is where it really matters. Other than a few moronic examples, the party has not gotten behind policy that indicates any catering to these groups and their platform waters down a lot of it to make it more palatable.
And yet it continues to shift in that direction. You keep seeing what happens on the west coast as isolated to that region. It isn't, it only starts there. If you don't condemn it you are at least tacitly approving of it. I haven't seen much, if anything, in the way of condemnation.
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 08-12-2020
(08-12-2020, 01:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I’ve seen a 70-something y/o man get a skull fracture in Buffalo and a Navy veteran in Portland require surgery for protesting. I’ve seen reporters body checked for no reason. I’ve seen home owners shot with non-lethal munitions just for being on their front porch. I’ve seen protesters tear gassed for a photo op.
And I don’t even watch the news. And I don’t want to have anything to do with a president who will misuse military troops against US citizens due to stupidity and ego.
Here's the difference, I understand why you, or anyone else, doesn't like Trump. Yet people here seem mystified as to why I loathe the current iteration of the Democratic party. It's honestly a little baffling.
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-12-2020
(08-12-2020, 12:56 PM)hollodero Wrote: I feel like I saw that kind of bickering all the time in the debates and seldomly have I regarded something as "destroying". What Warren did with Bloomberg, that was destroying. Aside from that, I feel the debate format alone does not really allow for meaningful discourse in the first place, and also not for determining who has the upper hand and "won" the exchange. Big part of that is Tapper interrupting everyone mid-sentence with his "thank you". What meaningful points can you even start to bring up if you got 1,5 sentences long to do so? Just letting it be instead of trying to make a finer point while being talked over already makes more sense, probably.
Debates between two people are generally good, and certainly are if the candidates are knowledgeable and civil. But when you've got 20 people on stage the incentive is to get that viral soundbite for the coming news cycle.
One good thing does follow from that incentive, though: you've got all those staffers out there looking for dirt on the other contestants, something I don't really have time for. If the dirt is really out there, they'll usually find it, and the sooner the better.
Attacks like Gabbard's alert us to possible problems in others' records, and so they are valuable. Most, like Gabbard's, ultimately have little effect as they often turn out to be selective exaggeration and reasonable voters will situate them (in Mike Tomlin's words) in the candidate's "total body of work." Thus we all hear how candidates have "evolved" or "apologized."
In this case, e.g., the "innocent man from death row" has not yet been exonerated by DNA evidence, and Harris reversed her initial position on DNA testing and supported a review of the case--long before she was a candidate for Pres. Anyway, Politifact reviewed Gabbard's accusations, finding not much there. https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/aug/01/were-tulsi-gabbards-attacks-kamala-harris-record-c/
What I get from looking at Harris' record so far is that she is both competent and about as progressive as a prosecutor can be.
What remains to be seen is how attacks on her are sorted out over the next few months. Will Fox accusations of "racism" and the like really get any traction among swing voters? Will Kamala be unable to generate "enthusiasm" among black voters, most of whom were likely to vote for Biden anyway? Finally, what kind of help can we expect from Trump? How will his attacks on her resonate with people who identify with her gender or color? We can't know that yet, but I am thinking that she is a very attractive choice for the voting majority tired of Trump.
RE: It's Kamala! - Nately120 - 08-12-2020
(08-12-2020, 01:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it wasn't. As to your last sentence, when you point a finger at someone you have three fingers pointing back at you.
That's why I only point at people with my wiener.
RE: It's Kamala! - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 08-12-2020
(08-12-2020, 02:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's the difference, I understand why you, or anyone else, doesn't like Trump. Yet people here seem mystified as to why I loathe the current iteration of the Democratic party. It's honestly a little baffling.
I feel the Democratic Party here in Georgia is different than what you experience in California. Plus you have many beliefs that don’t gel with the current iteration of the Republican Party.
RE: It's Kamala! - Belsnickel - 08-12-2020
(08-12-2020, 02:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not relevant to the point I made.
That was more me just pointing out that the "Trump standard" is a little different than what we are talking about, here.
(08-12-2020, 02:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I honestly wonder how that's possible. They literally had a Congressional hearing on the topic;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/21/candace-owens-clashes-with-fellow-witness-congressional-hearing-white-supremacy/
How you haven't heard the term "white supremacy" from a politician ever, is mind boggling to me.
I stated white privilege because that is the more universal discussion of white people having more power/authority than others. White supremacy specifically refers to the ideology of some groups of people that see the "white race" as superior, which is a real thing occurring in this nation. I was assuming you would not feel attacked by those denigrating white supremacists as I do not see you as someone that would adhere to such an ideology.
(08-12-2020, 02:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, we agree on this at least.
Well, yeah, and you also know I tend to look at those incidents with a little more nuance than many others of my political bent.
(08-12-2020, 02:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: My apologies. While I can find examples of this they are not by members of Congress. I misremembered AOC's comparison of ICE to fascists running "concentration camps". I was certain she had compared them to terrorists as well, but I can't find it, so point retracted.
Yeah, that was cringe-worthy, but also more of an attack on the administration than on the LEOs themselves. At least from my POV.
(08-12-2020, 02:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Any worse is subjective, but using your example how many black people vote Republican and can you understand why that number is what that number is? When you answer that question you understand my position.
Ah, but the GOP has coupled their rhetoric with policies that have negatively impacted people of color and GSMs at the national and state levels on a regular basis. It is written into their national platform to oppose the civil rights of GSMs. That is a bit of a different level than what you are seeing from Democrats directed at police.
(08-12-2020, 02:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And yet it continues to shift in that direction. You keep seeing what happens on the west coast as isolated to that region. It isn't, it only starts there. If you don't condemn it you are at least tacitly approving of it. I haven't seen much, if anything, in the way of condemnation.
Which really doesn't counter the point I made.
RE: It's Kamala! - Belsnickel - 08-12-2020
(08-12-2020, 02:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's the difference, I understand why you, or anyone else, doesn't like Trump. Yet people here seem mystified as to why I loathe the current iteration of the Democratic party. It's honestly a little baffling.
I understand why, but I also think it is a bit misinformed. This is why I continue to have these conversations with you.
RE: It's Kamala! - GMDino - 08-12-2020
Thank you for playing. @nytimes: "Hours after calling Ms. Harris the 'most liberal' member of the Senate, the Trump campaign launched a strange follow-up in an email blast: Progressives hate her, it said, because she’s not progressive enough." https://t.co/qvQuA9EfG9
— Andrew Bates (@AndrewBatesNC) August 12, 2020
RE: It's Kamala! - Goalpost - 08-12-2020
I'm not sure the ticket is as strong as it could have been. I mean California was blue anyway. Biden is from a blue state in the north east also. I think a choice in the middle of the country might have made more impact. Or at least the ones from Ga or Fla.
RE: It's Kamala! - jason - 08-12-2020
(08-12-2020, 04:21 PM)GMDino Wrote:Thank you for playing. @nytimes: "Hours after calling Ms. Harris the 'most liberal' member of the Senate, the Trump campaign launched a strange follow-up in an email blast: Progressives hate her, it said, because she’s not progressive enough." https://t.co/qvQuA9EfG9
— Andrew Bates (@AndrewBatesNC) August 12, 2020
I've also seen right-wingers on the internet calling her a cop.
RE: It's Kamala! - GMDino - 08-12-2020
(08-12-2020, 05:47 PM)jason Wrote: I've also seen right-wingers on the internet calling her a cop.
My Bernie Bro 18 year old nephew called her cop too.
RE: It's Kamala! - GMDino - 08-12-2020
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/biden-lays-a-trap-for-trump-in-picking-harris-2020-08-11
Quote:Paul Brandus
Opinion: Biden lays a trap for Trump by picking Harris
Published: Aug. 12, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. ET
By
Paul Brandus
After months of speculation, Kamala Harris, the 55-year-old junior senator from California, is Joe Biden’s pick for vice president.
She’s the first black woman to be on the ticket of a major U.S. political party, and if current polls — notably in key swing states — hold up, she will early next year become the 49th vice president of the United States.
in the 2018 midterms, women voted for Democratic congressional candidates by a stunning margin of 59% to 40%.
This is the moment the Trump campaign has been waiting for. In recent months, it has compiled dossiers on everyone Biden was considering. Now get ready for a ton of opposition research — “oppo” — to be dropped onto the media in an effort to undermine Harris.
Which, in turn, is exactly what the Biden camp has not only been expecting, but hoping for. You know why? Because most American women detest Donald Trump, and most women of color really, really detest him. The more Trump and his minions unload on a woman, and a black one at that, the more it plays into Biden’s hands. In fact, it took only an hour for Trump to do just that, calling Harris “nasty” and “dishonest” during a White House briefing.
Read:Why Biden’s pick of Harris for vice president won’t make or break the 2020 election
In the Nov. 9, 1992, issue of New York magazine, Trump described his views toward women. “You have to treat ’em like shit,” he was quoted as having said. A lifetime of sleazy, condescending behavior proves it.
Why do you think Biden said early on that he would be selecting a woman to be his running mate? The data behind his thinking are mesmerizing. Going back to 1980, men have tended to gravitate toward Republicans, and women toward Democrats.
But there are two key differences: First, there are a lot more women in America. They are 54% of the electorate, an eight-point advantage. Second, in proportional terms, a bigger percentage of that 54% turns out to vote than of the smaller 46% of men. So in both absolute and relative terms, this is a double advantage for Democrats.
In 1994, notes Pew Research, more women identified with Democrats than Republicans by a six-point margin (48% to 42%). By 2017, that margin had tripled: 56% to 37%.
Those advantages help explain why Democrats won the popular vote in six of the past seven presidential elections — 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012 and 2016 — while Republicans won just once, in 2004. And even then, the winner, George W. Bush, got 50.7%, not exactly an overwhelming margin.
Much to the detriment of Republicans, this gap is accelerating. Women preferred Barack Obama over Mitt Romney by 11 percentage points (55% to 44%) in 2012. In 2016, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 13 points (54% to 41%), and, in the 2018 midterms, women backed Democratic congressional candidates by a stunning 19 percentage points (59% to 40%). That’s why Nancy Pelosi, and not California Republican Kevin McCarthy, is speaker of the house, and it’s why Trump was impeached earlier this year.
Trump’s name wasn’t on the ballot in the midterms, but they were clearly a referendum on him. Now that his name will be on the ballot, things look even worse. With three months to go, just 38% of registered female voters say (in a Hill-HarrisX survey) that they are likely to support Trump in November. Meanwhile, Trump’s base — which generally skews older, white, male, rural and lesser educated — continues to shrink. Simply put: There probably aren’t enough older white men with only high-school diplomas living in rural America to make up for the flood of women who can’t wait to reject the president.
See:‘This is what these institutions were really built for’: Kamala Harris graduated from a historically black college
Harris has been in the Senate only three years. Before that, she was California’s attorney general and the district attorney for San Francisco. That’s a 16-year track record, and it’s fair game for Trump and Republicans to pick over. But knowing the president, he’ll find some way to cross the line and go too far. That’s what he does. Either a dumb tweet, or some off-the-cuff remark, either from him or someone else. Something that will drive even more women away. Biden, hardly immune to gaffes himself, is counting on this.
Finally, there is this. Being No. 2 on the ticket is not the ultimate glass ceiling that Hillary Clinton was sure — too sure — that she would shatter four years ago. But as the cliché goes, it’s a heartbeat away. This is all the more important given that Biden, if victorious, would become president at age 78, the oldest first-term president in American history. If you believe, as I do, that he would serve just one term in office, the ascension of Kamala Harris puts her in a prime position to be elected the first female president in American history four years from now.
RE: It's Kamala! - masterpanthera_t - 08-12-2020
(08-12-2020, 12:49 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Tucker Carlson had a meltdown last night. A guest corrected his pronunciation of Kamala's name Tucker said "so what?". The guest said that "out of respect of someone on a national ticket, we should be pronouncing their name correctly". Tucker then went on a rant about how you're not allowed to criticize Kamala Harris and then intentionally used two mispronunciations of her name.
Tucker's shtick is practically a troll, or at the minimum abundant in hypocrisy.
Having said that, it's a bit ironic considering Harris doesn't know how to pronounce her own name. Or perhaps simplified it for the American tongue, but I believe that would be giving her unnecessary benefit of doubt. Based on the OP's link and the correction by the guest on Carlson's show, I'm going to infer that Harris herself pronounces it as "Comma la", which is incorrect. It's actually "Kuh muh lAh". Slightly larger picture, never considered her to be seriously conscious of her Indian roots in depth, other than cursory mentions of it, and a sort of "look, I'm not only black, but I also have this totally different ethnicity going for me". Admittedly, I'm neither a big fan of hers nor well versed in her background, but none of her actions scream "Indian" by culture, save for when political points are to be gained. Mentions of growing up eating Indian foods at home on a cooking show with another lady of Indian descent, while I guess is something, isn't that convincing. None of which speaks ill of her, but at the same time, paints her as a panderer claiming a cultural affiliation she doesn't follow, or at best it rings hollow of someone biologically tied to another culture and nothing more, all the while making more of said ties than what's true in conduct. For all intents and purposes, I would classify her as a Black woman socialized deeply into the American Black ethos, and that's perfectly fine by me. I'm just seriously skeptical of any claims of Indian culture other than purely DNA based. But then again, politicians are not exactly new to pandering/ redefining their image according to the situation, so, this is just par for the course. She was a perfectly safe pick as a Black woman with name recognition, albeit with some rough edges from her prosecutorial background.
Honestly, I was hoping for anybody but Harris as a VP pick, but in the larger picture, I don't believe this affects Biden's candidacy too adversely if at all. A safe pick, but not a very inspired one. Having said that, I sure hope Biden sees his full term through.