Harris’s two most replayed speech points: are they inconsistent or a nuanced view of reality?

[BradStevens]

I’ve seen two clips of hers played a lot. Here’s the one her supporters are rallying around:

https://www.npr.org/2024/07/21/g-s1-12556/kamala-harris-coconut-tree-meme-context-unburdened

I read the nut of her comment as a realistic and essentially conservative one: human beings don’t get to invent themselves out of whole cloth, we are all shaped and exist in context of our world as it is now and as it was before us (that led to where we are now).

Then there is this one:



She can imagine being what can be, unburdened by what has been.

So here, I read her as saying the ideal state of affairs is to throw away the burden of the past and history and strive for the possible.

These two statements aren’t necessarily inconsistent, but I wonder if she links them together at any point ? Is her view that we are born into a circumstances and can change them with imagination (why the first quote then and its emphasis of the inescapability of the past)? How much deference does she want to give the past? How much humility to what has gone before? How much of a burden is tradition?

 

[mcmurtry66]

I’ve seen two clips of hers played a lot. Here’s the one her supporters are rallying around:

https://www.npr.org/2024/07/21/g-s1-12556/kamala-harris-coconut-tree-meme-context-unburdened

I read the nut of her comment as a realistic and essentially conservative one: human beings don’t get to invent themselves out of whole cloth, we are all shaped and exist in context of our world as it is now and as it was before us (that led to where we are now).

Then there is this one:

Where she lost her train of thought? Probably what did her in on the bar

 

[BradStevens]

By the way, politically, I’m not sure she’s a good enough communicator to speak in these kind of abstract terms and still be able to connect with an audience that is not already predisposed to like her. Nor do I think they should substitute for concrete policy positions that are very important right now.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I’ve seen two clips of hers played a lot. Here’s the one her supporters are rallying around:

https://www.npr.org/2024/07/21/g-s1-12556/kamala-harris-coconut-tree-meme-context-unburdened

I read the nut of her comment as a realistic and essentially conservative one: human beings don’t get to invent themselves out of whole cloth, we are all shaped and exist in context of our world as it is now and as it was before us (that led to where we are now).

Then there is this one:

View embedded media

She can imagine being what can be, unburdened by what has been.

So here, I read her as saying the ideal state of affairs is to throw away the burden of the past and history and strive for the possible.

These two statements aren’t necessarily inconsistent, but I wonder if she links them together at any point ? Is her view that we are born into a circumstances and can change them with imagination (why the first quote then and its emphasis of the inescapability of the past)? How much deference does she want to give the past? How much humility to what has gone before? How much of a burden is tradition?

The problem, as I see it, is that her saying "we don't get to invent ourselves out of whole cloth" is standing in for "we're all condemned to the circumstances of our birth...but for the beneficence of a welfare state."

The truth is that we're all a combination of our circumstances and our choices/actions/beliefs/habits, etc. How much of our outcomes is defined by one or the other is (a) up for discussion, and (b) likely unique to each individual. However, whatever percentage of our outcomes are cooked in the books versus up to our own influence, this doesn't get any of us off the hook for playing the hand we've been dealt, the best way we can play it.

If we're truly interested in improving peoples' lives, we need to be looking less at governments to do that -- and more at the unique individuals whose lives need to be improved. Because nobody will ever have a greater impact on how we fare in life than the man staring back at us in the mirror.

 

[outside shooter]

Trumpers don't understand big words like "unburdened". But maybe some undecideds do.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Trumpers don't understand big words like "unburdened". But maybe some undecideds do.

Period goes inside the mark.

- Trumper

 

[BradStevens]

the man staring back at us in the mirror.

😀

 

[stollcpa]

Trumpers don't understand big words like "unburdened". But maybe some undecideds do.

Everyone understands what she’s saying. Maybe she should be more creative and not repeat the same slogan over and over.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Everyone understands what she’s saying. Maybe she should be more creative and not repeat the same slogan over and over.

I get the impression from that clip that she's trying (too hard) to sound all grand and visionary and statesmanlike. Like it's something you'd hear from the likes of legendary orators like Churchill, Roosevelt, Cicero, MLK, Gandhi, etal.

But it comes across as kind of pathetic -- especially given that she felt the need to repeat it over and over again.

 

[dbmhoosier]

She's probably the worst single candidate the Dems could nominate. It's almost like they know the election is over so they're throwing her to the wolves so they don't have to deal with her and Clyburn in 2028.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I’ve seen two clips of hers played a lot. Here’s the one her supporters are rallying around:

https://www.npr.org/2024/07/21/g-s1-12556/kamala-harris-coconut-tree-meme-context-unburdened

I read the nut of her comment as a realistic and essentially conservative one: human beings don’t get to invent themselves out of whole cloth, we are all shaped and exist in context of our world as it is now and as it was before us (that led to where we are now).

Then there is this one:

View embedded media

She can imagine being what can be, unburdened by what has been.

So here, I read her as saying the ideal state of affairs is to throw away the burden of the past and history and strive for the possible.

These two statements aren’t necessarily inconsistent, but I wonder if she links them together at any point ? Is her view that we are born into a circumstances and can change them with imagination (why the first quote then and its emphasis of the inescapability of the past)? How much deference does she want to give the past? How much humility to what has gone before? How much of a burden is tradition?

I don’t see much of an inconsistency. I think in first case she is talking about personal characteristics and in the second she is talking about personal accomplishments. Even a severely disabled person and be led to accomplish more.

I have never related to that unburdened by the past schtick. I mostly don’t see the past as a burden (even though I know it wasn’t perfect). We stand on the shoulders of many people who did great things. I guess that’s why I see nothing wrong with MAGA

 

[mushroomgod_1]

I’ve seen two clips of hers played a lot. Here’s the one her supporters are rallying around:

https://www.npr.org/2024/07/21/g-s1-12556/kamala-harris-coconut-tree-meme-context-unburdened

I read the nut of her comment as a realistic and essentially conservative one: human beings don’t get to invent themselves out of whole cloth, we are all shaped and exist in context of our world as it is now and as it was before us (that led to where we are now).

Then there is this one:

View embedded media

She can imagine being what can be, unburdened by what has been.

So here, I read her as saying the ideal state of affairs is to throw away the burden of the past and history and strive for the possible.

These two statements aren’t necessarily inconsistent, but I wonder if she links them together at any point ? Is her view that we are born into a circumstances and can change them with imagination (why the first quote then and its emphasis of the inescapability of the past)? How much deference does she want to give the past? How much humility to what has gone before? How much of a burden is tradition?

She's an idiot. She doesn't have a "view".

And those 2 are no better than her explanation of Russia v. Ukraine; "I've been to the border"; the passage of time; her commentary on community banks; Venn diagrams; "You can see them with your own eyes"; and "Who doesn't love a yellow school bus?".

EDIT: I forgot her explanation of AI....

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

We stand on the shoulders of many people who did great things. I guess that’s why I see nothing wrong with MAGA

How somebody generally comes down on America's past is probably a pretty good political litmus test. Obviously, it's a mixed bag (what nation's isn't?). But I'm certainly with you that the good outweighs the bad...by a wide margin -- especially considering everything we've done to rectify and remedy our original sins.

Of course, there are many people who think we haven't done enough...although I'd also guess that most of them will never think we could do enough.

 

[snarlcakes]

I’ve seen two clips of hers played a lot. Here’s the one her supporters are rallying around:

https://www.npr.org/2024/07/21/g-s1-12556/kamala-harris-coconut-tree-meme-context-unburdened

I read the nut of her comment as a realistic and essentially conservative one: human beings don’t get to invent themselves out of whole cloth, we are all shaped and exist in context of our world as it is now and as it was before us (that led to where we are now).

Then there is this one:

View embedded media

She can imagine being what can be, unburdened by what has been.

So here, I read her as saying the ideal state of affairs is to throw away the burden of the past and history and strive for the possible.

These two statements aren’t necessarily inconsistent, but I wonder if she links them together at any point ? Is her view that we are born into a circumstances and can change them with imagination (why the first quote then and its emphasis of the inescapability of the past)? How much deference does she want to give the past? How much humility to what has gone before? How much of a burden is tradition?

Not sure on that. What she needs to ASAP is distance herself from Biden and his failures on the Economy. Run as far as she can away from it. Trump is going to tie her to it, but claim she’ll be even worse.

 

[jsig]

I’ve seen two clips of hers played a lot. Here’s the one her supporters are rallying around:

https://www.npr.org/2024/07/21/g-s1-12556/kamala-harris-coconut-tree-meme-context-unburdened

I read the nut of her comment as a realistic and essentially conservative one: human beings don’t get to invent themselves out of whole cloth, we are all shaped and exist in context of our world as it is now and as it was before us (that led to where we are now).

Then there is this one:

View embedded media

She can imagine being what can be, unburdened by what has been.

So here, I read her as saying the ideal state of affairs is to throw away the burden of the past and history and strive for the possible.

These two statements aren’t necessarily inconsistent, but I wonder if she links them together at any point ? Is her view that we are born into a circumstances and can change them with imagination (why the first quote then and its emphasis of the inescapability of the past)? How much deference does she want to give the past? How much humility to what has gone before? How much of a burden is tradition?

She is really sickening. She has been unburdened of the task of running in the primaries. Tulsi put in her in her place when she tried to run before. She has been handed the nomination probably because those with real aspirations in the Dem Party think it better to wait to 2028 at this point. Certainly they took a roll call but who knows. The Democrat is the biggest threat to Democracy in this country. Probably why they have adopted that as their Party platform against Trump . They want to deflect Americans from them being that threat. Had biden dropped before the primaries started, I doubt that she'd win. Trump can lose to anyone because so many hate him and she may look a bit better vs him in the debate than vs Vance who would of destroyed her. Everyone else is blackballed.

 

[outside shooter]

Maybe she should be more creative and not repeat the same slogan over and over.

Yeah, reminds me of somebody parroting "Make America Great Again" over and over and over and over.

Then you ask when it was, seemingly (to him) in the far distant past, that America was great.

Your hear

:crickets:

Some of us believe that America is great RIGHT NOW, and also that it can get better, amazingly.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

But it comes across as kind of pathetic -- especially given that she felt the need to repeat it over and over again.

It shows lack of depth and complexity, which is troubling when you are supposed to be running the most powerful country on earth, which is highly complex and nuanced.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It shows lack of depth and complexity, which is troubling when you are supposed to be running the most powerful country on earth, which is highly complex and nuanced.

Yeah. But I long ago came to the conclusion that most politicians are, in large part, just actors playing a role.

Some have more substance to them than others. I've interacted with Todd Young a number of times -- one of which was for a fairly extended period of time in DC at lunch discussing a proposed tax policy that was being considered.

He not only listened intently to what I had to say to him there, he had one of his policy aides call me twice to continue to the conversation (it had to do with the treatment of K-1 income for purposes of income threshold triggers). The proposed policy never went forward, so it was mooted. However, I was impressed that I got the level of interaction I did.

Young is generally considered by most to be more of a work horse than a show horse. I wouldn't say that's unfair. But there's plenty of show horse to him, too. When I've talked with him at other encounters (ie, fundraisers), I've gotten the familiar feigned listening and interest, the canned and rehearsed talking points, the subtle nodding....before he went on to somebody else to repeat the whole act.

That's not a knock at him, really. It's just to say that they're all, at some level, like this.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

How somebody generally comes down on America's past is probably a pretty good political litmus test. Obviously, it's a mixed bag (what nation's isn't?). But I'm certainly with you that the good outweighs the bad...by a wide margin -- especially considering everything we've done to rectify and remedy our original sins.

Of course, there are many people who think we haven't done enough...although I'd also guess that most of them will never think we could do enough.

America is so much younger than Europe, Asia and yet look where it sits. Quite impressive for an entirely undeveloped land only a few centuries ago. Note, I'm not trying to knock the Native Americans, but trying to draw comparisons to developed areas of the world at that time period.

In my prior life, I was a Dog Solider or Mohawk.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Yeah. But I long ago came to the conclusion that most politicians are, in large part, just actors playing a role.

Some have more substance to them than others. I've interacted with Todd Young a number of times -- one of which was for a fairly extended period of time in DC at lunch discussing a proposed tax policy that was being considered.

He not only listened intently to what I had to say to him there, he had one of his policy aides call me twice to continue to the conversation (it had to do with the treatment of K-1 income for purposes of income threshold triggers). The proposed policy never went forward, so it was mooted. However, I was impressed that I got the level of interaction I did.

Young is generally considered by most to be more of a work horse than a show horse. I wouldn't say that's unfair. But there's plenty of show horse to him, too. When I've talked with him at other encounters (ie, fundraisers), I've gotten the familiar feigned listening and interest, the canned and rehearsed talking points, the subtle nodding....before he went on to somebody else to repeat the whole act.

That's not a knock at him, really. It's just to say that they're all, at some level, like this.

Honestly didn't know much about Young since I've been gone from IN since before he came into office, but from what I've read, he's the type of person we need. I don't fully align with him on some key issues (e.g., Abortion), but overall he was scored as a moderate conservative and seems to have lots of drafting and influence on legislation. That's the type of guy you want running a national office.

However, to your point, if he is more of a work horse, while that is what we honestly need, it becomes difficult to get elected. Young may have enough show where the point is moot, but there are probably several Congressmen that are too engaged in actually trying to do things vs. campaigning and/or not enough show to make a difference at a national level. And that's too bad.

One interesting note is that Young has the fourth lowest Net Worth (negative) in Congress IIRC. On one hand, it makes you certain that someone like that isn't abusing their position of power. On the other, it makes me worried that someone like that might need to at some point or perhaps isn't competent to oversee a country with an annual GDP of many $Trillions.

 

[Bloom.]

Everyone understands what she’s saying. Maybe she should be more creative and not repeat the same slogan over and over.

Why should she be different than any politician you've ever voted for?

 

[zeke4ahs]

She's probably the worst single candidate the Dems could nominate. It's almost like they know the election is over so they're throwing her to the wolves so they don't have to deal with her and Clyburn in 2028.

Haha keep telling yourself that.

 

[Bloom.]

She is really sickening. She has been unburdened of the task of running in the primaries. Tulsi put in her in her place when she tried to run before. She has been handed the nomination probably because those with real aspirations in the Dem Party think it better to wait to 2028 at this point. Certainly they took a roll call but who knows.

Don't be jealous.

She likely accomplished more in her professional career than you have before entered the legislative branch. She was more than accomplished enough to take on Pence, who gets the advantage coming in because he likes to hang his hat on "God."

The Democrat is the biggest threat to Democracy in this country.

Dumb

Probably why they have adopted that as their Party platform against Trump . They want to deflect Americans from them being that threat.

You hate it that others live life differently than you. Makes sense.

Had biden dropped before the primaries started, I doubt that she'd win.

You should be happy about that. She runs right of many who would've run against her.

Trump can lose to anyone because so many hate him and she may look a bit better vs him in the debate than vs Vance who would of destroyed her. Everyone else is blackballed.

The notion that Vance would destroy her in a debate is laughable. Have you heard him speak? LOL The MF'er is awkward as hell when he's off script.

 

[zeke4ahs]

It shows lack of depth and complexity, which is troubling when you are supposed to be running the most powerful country on earth, which is highly complex and nuanced.

Because we all know that Donald Trump certainly has the depth and complexity to run the most powerful country on earth. I mean who doesn’t think of Trump when depth and complexity are mentioned?

 

[zeke4ahs]

Don't be jealous.

She likely accomplished more in her professional career than you have before entered the legislative branch. She was more than accomplished enough to take on Pence, who gets the advantage coming in because he likes to hang his hat on "God."


Dumb


You hate it that others live life differently than you. Makes sense.


You should be happy about that. She runs right of many who would've run against her.


The notion that Vance would destroy her in a debate is laughable. Have you heard him speak? LOL The MF'er is awkward as hell when he's off script.

That speech the other night was painful. I think he was the only one that laughed at his awful jokes. I almost felt sorry for him.

 

[Bloom.]

She's probably the worst single candidate the Dems could nominate. It's almost like they know the election is over so they're throwing her to the wolves so they don't have to deal with her and Clyburn in 2028.

LOL

 

[Bloom.]

That speech the other night was painful. I think he was the only one that laughed at his awful jokes. I almost felt sorry for him.

Diet Mountain Dew

"You guys are great."

Had he said, I only drink the best soft drinks, that would've been Trumpian. He had zero rapport with the crowd. He either needs to hire his PR people or stick to the script.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Haha keep telling yourself that.

Of course she’s a terrible candidate. Anyone with an ounce of objectivity recognizes that. She has a 38 percent approval. When she ran on her own and wasn’t anointed was nowhere close to winning. The most high profile task she was charged with is the border and it’s an abject failure and remains a top voter priority. It’s okay to recognize that and still vote for her. Dems could put a chimp up for election and you’d claim it’s the perfect candidate. Good lord.

Hell I’d vote for Shapiro Kelly manchin and many others over trump and I’m conservative. I recognize trump’s a shit candidate. It’s okay to not be just blindly loyal. You sound like a fool

 

[DDE-6-20-23]

Because we all know that Donald Trump certainly has the depth and complexity to run the most powerful country on earth. I mean who doesn’t think of Trump when depth and complexity are mentioned?

He did it very well term 1. Term 2 gonna be even better. He dominated amongst world leaders, did something dems have NEVER done in regards to foreign policy..Try harder. They (foreign leaders with a brain) all want him back. All the world wants Don back beeeyahyatch.

If the mods turn off the bans I'm willing to have at it...What you say mods? I get a

Let's have at it y'all. Who's in?

 

[hoosboot]

Yeah. But I long ago came to the conclusion that most politicians are, in large part, just actors playing a role.

Some have more substance to them than others. I've interacted with Todd Young a number of times -- one of which was for a fairly extended period of time in DC at lunch discussing a proposed tax policy that was being considered.

He not only listened intently to what I had to say to him there, he had one of his policy aides call me twice to continue to the conversation (it had to do with the treatment of K-1 income for purposes of income threshold triggers). The proposed policy never went forward, so it was mooted. However, I was impressed that I got the level of interaction I did.

Young is generally considered by most to be more of a work horse than a show horse. I wouldn't say that's unfair. But there's plenty of show horse to him, too. When I've talked with him at other encounters (ie, fundraisers), I've gotten the familiar feigned listening and interest, the canned and rehearsed talking points, the subtle nodding....before he went on to somebody else to repeat the whole act.

That's not a knock at him, really. It's just to say that they're all, at some level, like this.

I had a similar experience with Harris. Engaged with great depth and intelligence on a topic that she is invested in and passionate about in a policy environment and got the blank handshake and laugh in others. Agree with you that it's par for the course. I don't think any person can really be passionate and extraordinarily well informed about everything. Different times call for different strengths and we can't always predict the people who rise to meet them.

 

[hoosboot]

The problem, as I see it, is that her saying "we don't get to invent ourselves out of whole cloth" is standing in for "we're all condemned to the circumstances of our birth...but for the beneficence of a welfare state."

It's interesting because I don't see her saying that at all. I see her saying that we should look with gratitude at the communities that helped build us and not allow what has come before us stop us from dreaming of what could be (both for ourselves and for our community.) It strikes me as a fundamentally optimistic sentiment. I'm surprised that you are so pessimistic and cynical about what are fairly simple, middle-of-the-road ideas. I could see criticizing her for engaging too much in generic platitudes, but not for the content of these particular platitudes. Gratitude and dreams seem like fundamental building blocks for what has made the grand American experiment so powerful.

 

[zeke4ahs]

He did it very well term 1. Term 2 gonna be even better. He dominated amongst world leaders, did something dems have NEVER done in regards to foreign policy..Try harder. They (foreign leaders with a brain) all want him back. All the world wants Don back beeeyahyatch.

If the mods turn off the bans I'm willing to have at it...What you say mods? I get a

Let's have at it y'all. Who's in?

You just spout as much nonsense as Trump. World leaders make fun of him. They laugh at him. Now Putin of course he wants his puppet back.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Of course she’s a terrible candidate. Anyone with an ounce of objectivity recognizes that. She has a 38 percent approval. When she ran on her own and wasn’t anointed was nowhere close to winning. The most high profile task she was charged with is the border and it’s an abject failure and remains a top voter priority. It’s okay to recognize that and still vote for her. Dems could put a chimp up for election and you’d claim it’s the perfect candidate. Good lord.

Hell I’d vote for Shapiro Kelly manchin and many others over trump and I’m conservative. I recognize trump’s a shit candidate. It’s okay to not be just blindly loyal. You sound like a fool

Like I said, keep telling yourself that. Young people and people of color are extremely energized. She certainly wasn’t my top choice, I never said she was. But I think she’s got a decent chance of beating Trump and that’s all I care about. Come on. You seriously believe the VP has power to make policy? Just like Pence was the Covid Czar right? It’s ceremonial.

 

[Cortez88]

I don’t see much of an inconsistency. I think in first case she is talking about personal characteristics and in the second she is talking about personal accomplishments. Even a severely disabled person and be led to accomplish more.

I have never related to that unburdened by the past schtick. I mostly don’t see the past as a burden (even though I know it wasn’t perfect). We stand on the shoulders of many people who did great things. I guess that’s why I see nothing wrong with MAGA

Second paragraph. Incredible leap.

I saw Raiders of the Lost Ark. That’s why I don’t eat sweet potatoes.

 

[larsIU]

Isaw Raider of the Lost Ark. That’s why I don’t eat sweet potatoes.

I thought the dates were poisoned?

 

[BradStevens]

I thought the dates were poisoned?

 

[dbmhoosier]

She's a complete whackjob.

 

[DDE-6-20-23]

You just spout as much nonsense as Trump. World leaders make fun of him. They laugh at him. Now Putin of course he wants his puppet back.

First off, Kamala would not have a clue how, what, where, when, or why to even speak amongst any foreign world leaders. She would be a clueless cackle brain. Not even as a puppet on strings, which is clear she would be, would she be able to manage herself without stuttering out a word salad that would make everyone wonder wtf. A vote for her would be a vote for stupidity. Now go ahead, reply, and make a fool of yourself again.

 

[Cortez88]

I thought the dates were poisoned?

Goat says get off his pedantic corner Lars.