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

[Spartans9312]

Where Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris Stands On Marijuana

Voters this November will see the first major party presidential candidate who supports marijuana legalization at the top of the ticket, with Vice President Kamala Harris becoming the Democratic nominee after President Joe Biden made the historic announcement that he is exiting the race. Unlike...

www.marijuanamoment.net

Federal Register :: Request Access

Marijuana could be moved from schedule I to schedule III in the near future. The public comment period is over. It ended a few days ago.

Nearly 70% of Public Comments on Rescheduling Proposal Support Federal Marijuana Decriminalization, New Analysis Shows - Drug Policy Alliance

drugpolicy.org

70% of the comments were for “descheduling, decriminalizing, or legalizing marijuana at the federal level”

 

[LifelongIU77]

dumb

Can't wait for all the zombies for vote for trump again. Death doesn't seem to hold back MAGAdiots.

Oh look,more of "we'll accuse them of what we're doing".

Reports out of swing states are that atleast 20% of voters have already received more than 1 ballot. Shocker

 

[DANC]

He did as of the last personal finance data that I saw.

If he has any property, that's tough to do. In addition to his Senator salary, he get his military pay/pension - I think he is either in the Reserves or was.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

 

[BradStevens]

View embedded media

I wish Trump were smart or patient enough to debate her on this very topic. It should be aired on the biggest stage possible because this is exactly what has taken over education in many K-12 schools in progressive areas.

The fact is, in most things, everyone can't end up in the same place. And if that is your goal--everyone ending up in the same place--you don't give kids an equal chance for growth because of finite resources. The result is that in some (many?) things, focusing on equity means you decrease equality in treatment, by definition.

 

[LifelongIU77]

View embedded media

Sounds a whole lot like "we will take your hard earned money and give it to someone else who didn't work as hard,so everything is equal"

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I wish Trump were smart or patient enough to debate her on this very topic. It should be aired on the biggest stage possible because this is exactly what has taken over education in many K-12 schools in progressive areas.

The fact is, in most things, everyone can't end up in the same place. And if that is your goal--everyone ending up in the same place--you don't give kids an equal chance for growth because of finite resources. The result is that in some (many?) things, focusing on equity means you decrease equality in treatment, by definition.

The counter argument to this drivel deserves a much better advocate than Donald Trump.

Human civilization has already had this debate. And I don’t mean merely in a battle of words at the Oxford Union.

We really shouldn’t have to keep having it over and over again. We know how it works out in practice. But the vision is still so alluring to so many people. I guess we just fool ourselves into thinking that this time the outcome will resemble the sales pitch.

 

[ulrey]

She's a complete whackjob.

View embedded media

View embedded media

She’s literally energizing young people. It’s simply amazing.

 

[BCCHoosier]

Dude. You have no idea who I am what I do and why would I be be jealous of some dumb B who has been propped up her life and is part of the elite establishment. You can save your Psychoanalytical BS..

What does Pence have to do with this?

I'm guessing you didn't write a lot for a living.

 

[mohoosier]

Border Czar in action. Isn’t she so convincing?? 😂

 

[ulrey]

Lmao...ok smarty.
#1 Maga is a slogan,not rehearsed and recycled line from many different speeches.
#2 America was great when people took responsibility for themselves and their families. When people looked out for one another. When people still had hope for their own,and their kids future. When families could afford to take vacations together. When hard work paid off for the person who did it,not for the person who watched them do it. When we didn't have drag shows in schools,or books depicting sex and sexual scenarios to 2nd graders. When teachers feared parents coming to school,and not vice versa. When working a full time job,meant you had enough to have a place to live,and food to eat,and clothes on your back.(unlike most of you uppidity privileged fools,that is not the case for millions). When you could say the truth,without being mocked,canceled,or called an idiot,by people whose feelings are hurt by reality. When we didn't have 1 party,that was so terrified of losing their power and ability to influence the American people,that they lie,deceive,fabricate,and try to kill their political enemy. When we didn't have a government that forgot about letting the people decide their own fate,instead of being forced to "abide". When we had a strong majority of people who could think for themselves,and do it without thinking of the things that will benefit themselves specifically.
I'm so glad my Grandpa doesn't have to see the way things are right now. I never saw him cry,and I wouldn't want to,but I'm 100% positive he would. It's hard not to. Also,you should be ashamed of yourself for even asking the question. This country was great,until the people with the pussy ass mentality of thinking everything should be easy,and free,were coddled enough to feel vindicated. If you honestly believe it's better now than it was in the past,there's proof all over the internet that tells you otherwise. Republicans may not be the answer to all of the problems,but democrats sure the hell are the cause of the vast majority of them,and they are just getting worse.

Outside shooter will call you racist for posting this..

 

[NPT]

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.

🤣 A lot of politicians have used that phrase... Ronald Reagan used it and Bill Clinton used it so was Clinton and Reagan wrong to use it?

Who really first came up with the phrase 'Make America Great Again'?

The saying actually has a long, bipartisan history in American politics.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[NPT]

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.

So true... just like some people will never think the rich pay enough taxes.

The fact is, in most things, everyone can't end up in the same place.

That is true. She keeps talking about not everyone starts in the same place and that's true but just because you start in the same place doesn't mean you end up in the same place. I'll bet there's a wide range on this forum where people started but some will have been very successful and others not so successful and there might not be much correlation between starting point and end point.

I'm guessing you didn't write a lot for a living.

Lame....

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

That is true. She keeps talking about not everyone starts in the same place and that's true but just because you start in the same place doesn't mean you end up in the same place. I'll bet there's a wide range on this forum where people started but some will have been very successful and others not so successful and there might not be much correlation between starting point and end point.

While there certainly is a correlation between the starting point and the ending point, that's also not the only thing we need to know about it.

A) You're absolutely right that it's easy to find examples of people who started in poor circumstances and ended up doing terrific.

B) You can also find examples of people who started in terrific circumstances and ended up doing poorly.

C) Life, success, happiness....it isn't all about money. There are plenty of people who are well-off and miserable -- drug addicts, estranged from family, etc. There are plenty of people who aren't well-off and aren't miserable.

D) The best things kids can get from their parents, whether they get financial support from them or not, are great lessons, great examples to follow, great attitudes, morals, discipline, work ethic. And one doesn't have to have any spare money lying around to give their kids those gifts.

E) Lastly, all of this still avoids the larger point which is that societies that have tried to effectuate equality have mostly ended up in some really bad places.


Human beings have unequal outcomes because we have unequal outputs.

 

[mohoosier]

This is hilarious.

In 2021, Axios reported that Kamala Harris had become the administration’s “border czar.”

Today, they did two interesting things. First, they ran a story that Republicans were falsely calling her the Border Czar.

Naturally, gobs of people were dunking on them for this. So what did they do? Scrubbed it out of their own 3 year old story!

I always think of things like this when MSMers put themselves on a pedestal and rail on others for being hacks.

(FTR, there is no federal job title that is “Border Czar”, or any other “Czar” for that matter…it’s always been a colloquial thing).

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

View embedded media

On the surface, this is just haggling over semantics. Was she or was she not a "czar"? Or was she merely a "point person"? And what's the difference? Does the diplomatic nature of her assignment (as opposed to her, say, taking oversight of CBP) make the charges false?

But that's merely on the surface. The underlying issue is that both sides know that the border is a major political liability for the Biden Administration. Harris couldn't disown that even if she hadn't have been given this assignment -- however one would characterize it. But the fact that she was given the assignment makes her more vulnerable to it than if the Dems were nominating somebody like Gretchen Whitmer....who really could plausibly disown it.

If Biden's border record had been a stellar one and voters recognized it as that, Harris would embrace this (and Republicans would be talking about something else).

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

View embedded media

We really need a thread on this because it’s only gonna get worse. The media will stop at nothing.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

We really need a thread on this because it’s only gonna get worse. The media will stop at nothing.

I also saw where GovTrack (which tracks the voting records of Reps and Senators) literally erased their 2019 rating which found that Kamala Harris was the most liberal US Senator in that session.

This report sat up there for 5 years...and they erased it as soon as she became the Dems' nominee. I think they offered some kind of cursory explanation for doing it. But, gee whiz.

This sort of thing really does have an Orwellian feel to it. But how successful can somebody be trying to erase history in the age of the Internet and Social Media? I don't know -- but it's less than they used to be able to.

 

[BradStevens]

I also saw where GovTrack (which tracks the voting records of Reps and Senators) literally erased their 2019 rating which found that Kamala Harris was the most liberal US Senator in that session.

This report sat up there for 5 years...and they erased it as soon as she became the Dems' nominee. I think they offered some kind of cursory explanation for doing it. But, gee whiz.

This sort of thing really does have an Orwellian feel to it. But how successful can somebody be trying to erase history in the age of the Internet and Social Media? I don't know -- but it's less than they used to be able to.

How do the mechanics of this work?

Do the campaigns have people who scour the internet for stuff like this that they think is arguably false and then reach out to those sites and ask/demand changes?

 

[mcmurtry66]

I also saw where GovTrack (which tracks the voting records of Reps and Senators) literally erased their 2019 rating which found that Kamala Harris was the most liberal US Senator in that session.

This report sat up there for 5 years...and they erased it as soon as she became the Dems' nominee. I think they offered some kind of cursory explanation for doing it. But, gee whiz.

This sort of thing really does have an Orwellian feel to it. But how successful can somebody be trying to erase history in the age of the Internet and Social Media? I don't know -- but it's less than they used to be able to.

But msm isn’t in the bag….

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

How do the mechanics of this work?

Do the campaigns have people who scour the internet for stuff like this that they think is arguably false and then reach out to those sites and ask/demand changes?

That's a really good question. Your guess is as good as mine.

But I'd guess that, in this instance, whoever makes these kinds of decisions at GovTrack is supportive of Harris, recognized the rating as a potential liability for her, and did this unilaterally. I'm not sure if Trump and/or his surrogates had been making hay of the rating and that this was the catalyst for the revision.

Thing is: you have to wonder if these folks are aware of the Streisand Effect. The GovTrack rating -- the original one, that is -- will get far more attention than it probably otherwise would've gotten because they decided to make an ex post facto change to it 5 years later.

 

[mcmurtry66]

How do the mechanics of this work?

Do the campaigns have people who scour the internet for stuff like this that they think is arguably false and then reach out to those sites and ask/demand changes?

It’s just a motion son. Nunc pro tunc that shit. This is what we meant to say got damnit

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

But msm isn’t in the bag….

But it's not as if GovTrack can deny they made the rating...whether they changed it or not. I'm sure the Trump campaign will refer to the rating repeatedly. Do people in the media say that Trump's lying about it? That this rating doesn't exist -- even if it did for 5 years?

If the media weren't acting as advocates and were simply doing the job of reporting, you'd say that they wouldn't do that. That they'd explain this rating was made, was left active for 5 years, and was changed within days of Harris becoming the presumptive nominee.

I guess we'll see how they treat it.

 

[BradStevens]

But it's not as if GovTrack can deny they made the rating...whether they changed it or not. I'm sure the Trump campaign will refer to the rating repeatedly. Do people in the media say that Trump's lying about it? That this rating doesn't exist -- even if it did for 5 years?

If the media weren't acting as advocates and were simply doing the job of reporting, you'd say that they wouldn't do that. That they'd explain this rating was made, was left active for 5 years, and was changed within days of Harris becoming the presumptive nominee.

I guess we'll see how they treat it.

I'm guessing the way this plays out is Trump supporters will say she is or was the most liberal senator, as ranked by independent organizations, and Harris supporters will say that's misleading because those organizations changed or withdrew that.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I'm guessing the way this plays out is Trump supporters will say she is or was the most liberal senator, as ranked by independent organizations, and Harris supporters will say that's misleading because those organizations changed or withdrew that.

Which is the point of them withdrawing it, I'm sure. To give Harris and her supporters the ability to say that.

I agree -- I just wonder if, aside from its Orwellian aroma, it's even a smart thing to do strategically. Yeah, they can say the rating was changed or withdrawn...but doesn't that have an even worse impact than merely ignoring it?

 

[BradStevens]

Which is the point of them withdrawing it, I'm sure. To give Harris and her supporters the ability to say that.

I agree -- I just wonder if, aside from its Orwellian aroma, it's even a smart thing to do strategically. Yeah, they can say the rating was changed or withdrawn...but doesn't that have an even worse impact than merely ignoring it?

At the end of the day, electorally, I don't think much of this stuff matters. The vast majority of the electorate don't vote rationally, don't (and can't) have all the relevant information, etc.

I find this kind of stuff more important because it is more evidence of the decay of neutrality, attempts at objectivity, and a sense of fair play within our institutions (that are supposed to champion those values). Long term, I think that kind of decay destroys nations/societies.

 

[LifelongIU77]

At the end of the day, electorally, I don't think much of this stuff matters. The vast majority of the electorate don't vote rationally, don't (and can't) have all the relevant information, etc.

I find this kind of stuff more important because it is more evidence of the decay of neutrality, attempts at objectivity, and a sense of fair play within our institutions (that are supposed to champion those values). Long term, I think that kind of decay destroys nations/societies.

They constantly "change" history for the benefit of their candidate. Just like they change the meaning of words for the same reason. Recession was defined by the same criteria for 80+ years,and then Biden took office.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I find this kind of stuff more important because it is more evidence of the decay of neutrality, attempts at objectivity, and a sense of fair play within our institutions (that are supposed to champion those values). Long term, I think that kind of decay destroys nations/societies.

I completely, wholeheartedly, and enthusiastically agree with that.

Core institutions are the spinal column of any national body. I don't want to overstate the importance of a single, obscure organization like GovTrack. But as far as the broader scope of media and information, it's incredibly important that people can have confidence in their trust.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Recession was defined by the same criteria for 80+ years,and then Biden took office.

This isn't accurate. The NBER has long been considered the official marker for the start and end of recessions -- and it's often wrongly stated that the criteria is simply two successive quarters of negative growth.

It's not like the NBER always had used the "2 successive quarters" method and just decided to ditch it for Biden's sake. They've never used that criteria to mark the start of a recession.

 

[NPT]

Life, success, happiness....it isn't all about money. There are plenty of people who are well-off and miserable -- drug addicts, estranged from family, etc. There are plenty of people who aren't well-off and aren't miserable.

Truer words have never been spoken. I don't have a problem helping people but a lot on the left thinks that I should pay for other people's bad decisions.