Sam Harris on Why He's Endorsing Kamala Harris

[Ohio Guy]

This is, of course, sensible and well thought out. I like Sam Harris a lot and whenever I see him in interviews or listen to his podcast, I often find myself agreeing with what he's saying. And his point about where he believes Harris stands on immigration, defunding the police, funding gender reassignment surgeries for imprisoned inmates and COVID conspiracies is spot on, IMO. All those things are boogeymen/strawmen arguments that no one actually takes seriously, save for people buying into the fear mongering from right-leaning campaigns. For what it's worth, a lot of the essay I linked above encapsulates why I voted for Harris.

Here's his case FOR Harris, which he admittedly spends little time on. It's definitely worth reading the whole essay linked above. It's short:


The positive case for Harris is simple: She will be a normal president, surrounded by normal experts, seeking normal political ends. The scientists she consults will be real scientists. The doctors, real doctors. Her administration will not be a 4chan thread come to life. Her foreign policy will not be made in consultation with podcasters who hock gold, ivermectin, and MREs. The notion of banning some vaccines will not receive serious consideration. Grifters and lunatics like Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, and Candace Owens won’t be short-listed for weekends in the Lincoln bedroom. The final stage of her campaign wasn’t organized and funded by an increasingly erratic billionaire who hallucinates about the strategic replacement of white America, and she will owe him no debt of gratitude. The positive case for Harris is easy to make: She is a sane public servant who will be committed to the rule of law and the betterment of our society.

 

[mcmurtry66]

This is, of course, sensible and well thought out. I like Sam Harris a lot and whenever I see him in interviews or listen to his podcast, I often find myself agreeing with what he's saying. And his point about where he believes Harris stands on immigration, defunding the police, funding gender reassignment surgeries for imprisoned inmates and COVID conspiracies is spot on, IMO. All those things are boogeymen/strawmen arguments that no one actually takes seriously, save for people buying into the fear mongering from right-leaning campaigns. For what it's worth, a lot of the essay I linked above encapsulates why I voted for Harris.

Here's his case FOR Harris, which he admittedly spends little time on. It's definitely worth reading the whole essay linked above. It's short:


The positive case for Harris is simple: She will be a normal president, surrounded by normal experts, seeking normal political ends. The scientists she consults will be real scientists. The doctors, real doctors. Her administration will not be a 4chan thread come to life. Her foreign policy will not be made in consultation with podcasters who hock gold, ivermectin, and MREs. The notion of banning some vaccines will not receive serious consideration. Grifters and lunatics like Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, and Candace Owens won’t be short-listed for weekends in the Lincoln bedroom. The final stage of her campaign wasn’t organized and funded by an increasingly erratic billionaire who hallucinates about the strategic replacement of white America, and she will owe him no debt of gratitude. The positive case for Harris is easy to make: She is a sane public servant who will be committed to the rule of law and the betterment of our society.

Lmao save for the ten million that got through, including criminals, the bail project releases who killed people, and the many others who were victims of crimes as a result of defunding it’s just boogeyman stuff

Lmao I love the college town bubble crowd telling us soros and that stuff is fake. She’s been a left wing radical. Second most lib senator this century. The glow up is moronic. We have her record of who she is. Oh and she lies nonstop. But trust us she will be someone new….

 

[ChicagoFineForNow]

Sam “if Covid had killed children, then no one would have been questioning us vaccinating the children” Harris.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

This is, of course, sensible and well thought out. I like Sam Harris a lot and whenever I see him in interviews or listen to his podcast, I often find myself agreeing with what he's saying. And his point about where he believes Harris stands on immigration, defunding the police, funding gender reassignment surgeries for imprisoned inmates and COVID conspiracies is spot on, IMO. All those things are boogeymen/strawmen arguments that no one actually takes seriously, save for people buying into the fear mongering from right-leaning campaigns. For what it's worth, a lot of the essay I linked above encapsulates why I voted for Harris.

Here's his case FOR Harris, which he admittedly spends little time on. It's definitely worth reading the whole essay linked above. It's short:


The positive case for Harris is simple: She will be a normal president, surrounded by normal experts, seeking normal political ends. The scientists she consults will be real scientists. The doctors, real doctors. Her administration will not be a 4chan thread come to life. Her foreign policy will not be made in consultation with podcasters who hock gold, ivermectin, and MREs. The notion of banning some vaccines will not receive serious consideration. Grifters and lunatics like Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, and Candace Owens won’t be short-listed for weekends in the Lincoln bedroom. The final stage of her campaign wasn’t organized and funded by an increasingly erratic billionaire who hallucinates about the strategic replacement of white America, and she will owe him no debt of gratitude. The positive case for Harris is easy to make: She is a sane public servant who will be committed to the rule of law and the betterment of our society.

Everything in that last paragraph is a case against Trump -- to which he makes the case "for" her by saying that, unlike Trump, she's normal.

The problem (for me) with this view is that, while it's true she's not Trump and that this is a good thing, it's also true that she is advocating bad policies. It's fine to believe that her genuine intention is the betterment of society -- I would hope her supporters believe that, anyway. But, to me, (a) her intention doesn't matter, and (b) the outcome on society were these policies to go into effect would not be betterment.

In other words, her being not Trump doesn't suddenly make her agenda a positive thing for the country. Taxing unrealized capital gains is not a beneficial policy, even if the person proposing it is not a lunatic like Trump. Making people who have paid the bills they've amassed also pay the bills of people who have not paid the bills they've amassed is not a beneficial policy. It's a terrible idea, for numerous reasons.

I think it's telling that some of the cases being made for Harris are largely, if not entirely, just pointing out that Donald Trump is a loose cannon and she's not. It's not the first time I've seen something like this.

 

[Bowlmania]

This is, of course, sensible and well thought out. I like Sam Harris a lot and whenever I see him in interviews or listen to his podcast, I often find myself agreeing with what he's saying. And his point about where he believes Harris stands on immigration, defunding the police, funding gender reassignment surgeries for imprisoned inmates and COVID conspiracies is spot on, IMO. All those things are boogeymen/strawmen arguments that no one actually takes seriously, save for people buying into the fear mongering from right-leaning campaigns. For what it's worth, a lot of the essay I linked above encapsulates why I voted for Harris.

Here's his case FOR Harris, which he admittedly spends little time on. It's definitely worth reading the whole essay linked above. It's short:


The positive case for Harris is simple: She will be a normal president, surrounded by normal experts, seeking normal political ends. The scientists she consults will be real scientists. The doctors, real doctors. Her administration will not be a 4chan thread come to life. Her foreign policy will not be made in consultation with podcasters who hock gold, ivermectin, and MREs. The notion of banning some vaccines will not receive serious consideration. Grifters and lunatics like Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, and Candace Owens won’t be short-listed for weekends in the Lincoln bedroom. The final stage of her campaign wasn’t organized and funded by an increasingly erratic billionaire who hallucinates about the strategic replacement of white America, and she will owe him no debt of gratitude. The positive case for Harris is easy to make: She is a sane public servant who will be committed to the rule of law and the betterment of our society.

Her opponent is out of his fvcking mind. Did you hear what he called himself over the weekend? The Father of Fertilization. I mean, what the actual fvck? And the simulated sex acts with a microphone? He’s completely lost it.

You’ll start hearing, “But her policies!” in the thread. First, with respect to the most important policy - regarding the economy - she’s got the backing of dozens of reputable economists.

Also, and as someone else said, obsessing about policy now is like someone making a decision about what color to paint the living room while the house is burning down. Trump is unfit and insane. He can’t be anywhere near the Oval Office again.

 

[Ohio Guy]

Lmao save for the ten million that got through, including criminals, the bail project releases who killed people, and the many others who were victims of crimes as a result of defunding it’s just boogeyman stuff

Lmao I love the college town bubble crowd telling us soros and that stuff is fake. She’s been a left wing radical. Second most lib senator this century. The glow up is moronic. We have her record of who she is. Oh and she lies nonstop. But trust us she will be someone new….

You didn’t read the essay, did you?

 

[mcmurtry66]

Everything in that last paragraph is a case against Trump -- to which he makes the case "for" her by saying that, unlike Trump, she's normal.

The problem (for me) with this view is that, while it's true she's not Trump and that this is a good thing, it's also true that she is advocating bad policies. It's fine to believe that her genuine intention is the betterment of society -- I would hope her supporters believe that, anyway. But, to me, (a) her intention doesn't matter, and (b) the outcome on society were these policies to go into effect would not be betterment.

In other words, her being not Trump doesn't suddenly make her agenda a positive thing for the country. Taxing unrealized capital gains is not a beneficial policy, even if the person proposing it is not a lunatic like Trump. Making people who have paid the bills they've amassed also pay the bills of people who have not paid the bills they've amassed is not a beneficial policy. It's a terrible idea, for numerous reasons.

I think it's telling that some of the cases being made for Harris are largely, if not entirely, just pointing out that Donald Trump is a loose cannon and she's not. It's not the first time I've seen something like this.

spot on per usual

 

[ChicagoFineForNow]

Everything in that last paragraph is a case against Trump -- to which he makes the case "for" her by saying that, unlike Trump, she's normal.

The problem (for me) with this view is that, while it's true she's not Trump and that this is a good thing, it's also true that she is advocating bad policies. It's fine to believe that her genuine intention is the betterment of society -- I would hope her supporters believe that, anyway. But, to me, (a) her intention doesn't matter, and (b) the outcome on society were these policies to go into effect would not be betterment.

In other words, her being not Trump doesn't suddenly make her agenda a positive thing for the country. Taxing unrealized capital gains is not a beneficial policy, even if the person proposing it is not a lunatic like Trump. Making people who have paid the bills they've amassed also pay the bills of people who have not paid the bills they've amassed is not a beneficial policy. It's a terrible idea, for numerous reasons.

I think it's telling that some of the cases being made for Harris are largely, if not entirely, just pointing out that Donald Trump is a loose cannon and she's not. It's not the first time I've seen something like this.

I’m not sure there is a strong affirmative case to make for Harris. At best she’s an unknown. Which is completely fine to vote for if you view Trump as unacceptable.

 

[mcmurtry66]

, IMO. All those things are boogeymen/strawmen arguments that no one actually takes seriously,

i read this and should have stopped. you don't live in a city. you have no idea what you're talking about - and that's also per usual

 

[mcmurtry66]

I’m not sure there is a strong affirmative case to make for Harris. At best she’s an unknown. Which is completely fine to vote for if you view Trump as unacceptable.

she's not an unknown. she's far from an unknown. she has a record. teh second most lib senator of this century. she chose walz. she also has endless positions she's supported from bail projects to defunding to the border

 

[Ohio Guy]

Everything in that last paragraph is a case against Trump -- to which he makes the case "for" her by saying that, unlike Trump, she's normal.

The problem (for me) with this view is that, while it's true she's not Trump and that this is a good thing, it's also true that she is advocating bad policies. It's fine to believe that her genuine intention is the betterment of society -- I would hope her supporters believe that, anyway. But, to me, (a) her intention doesn't matter, and (b) the outcome on society were these policies to go into effect would not be betterment.

In other words, her being not Trump doesn't suddenly make her agenda a positive thing for the country. Taxing unrealized capital gains is not a beneficial policy, even if the person proposing it is not a lunatic like Trump. Making people who have paid the bills they've amassed also pay the bills of people who have not paid the bills they've amassed is not a beneficial policy. It's a terrible idea, for numerous reasons.

I think it's telling that some of the cases being made for Harris are largely, if not entirely, just pointing out that Donald Trump is a loose cannon and she's not. It's not the first time I've seen something like this.

You’re right it’s not the first time we’ve seen this. It worked to get Biden elected in 2020.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

First, with respect to the most important policy - regarding the economy - she’s got the backing of dozens of reputable economists.

Yeah, but it's basically the same group of people, with the same general set of views, that have steered us to the precarious position we're in now.

Why should anybody listen to the kinds of people who have led us here? I wouldn't have much problem with Keynesians, if only they would be more faithful to Keynes -- who did *not* advocate for permanent deficits....he advocated for surpluses during expansionary periods that would be used to pay the debts incurred during contractionary periods.

Read General Theory -- it's all in there.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I’m not sure there is a strong affirmative case to make for Harris. At best she’s an unknown. Which is completely fine to vote for if you view Trump as unacceptable.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/04/politics/proposition-36-harris-declines-position/index.html

this is who she is. a radical left wing california politician

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You’re right it’s not the first time we’ve seen this. It worked to get Biden elected in 2020.

What I mean is somebody saying they're making a positive case for Harris (or it could be Biden) by just saying they aren't Trump. That's not a case to vote for somebody. It's a case not to vote for somebody else. But elections aren't binary exercises.

 

[ChicagoFineForNow]

she's not an unknown. she's far from an unknown. she has a record. teh second most lib senator of this century. she chose walz. she also has endless positions she's supported from bail projects to defunding to the border

I think some are hoping she won’t be ambitious or competent enough to pursue any of her stated progressive values. Rather she’ll be ground into dust by the permanent Washington interests and operate a presidency by committee and “experts” like we’ve seen with Biden.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

You didn’t read the essay, did you?

If in the essay he’s saying that concerns about immigration/defunding police/etc are nothing more than strawmen/right wing fear mongering then there’s no point in reading it, because it’s ridiculous.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I’m not sure there is a strong affirmative case to make for Harris. At best she’s an unknown. Which is completely fine to vote for if you view Trump as unacceptable.

Yeah, of course. But nobody should call this a positive case for voting for a particular candidate. It's a misnomer (and one of no consequence, really).

Nobody has to convince me not to vote for Trump. I came that conclusion quite a while ago. But, to me, she's no better -- they're both bad, for different reasons (and Trump certainly has his own share of bad policies, too!)

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

If in the essay he’s saying that concerns about immigration/defunding police/etc are nothing more than strawmen/right wing fear mongering then there’s no point in reading it, because it’s ridiculous.

Yeah, I agree with you on that. Those things are genuine problems -- they aren't just fear-mongering.

Ask those big city mayors who bitched to high heaven about having to deal with busloads of migrants being dropped off in their cities. They seem to understand it just fine...when it's coming into their back yard. Border jurisdictions have been screaming about this for a long time.

It's not a fake problem.

 

[Ohio Guy]

Her opponent is out of his fvcking mind. Did you hear what he called himself over the weekend? The Father of Fertilization. I mean, what the actual fvck? And the simulated sex acts with a microphone? He’s completely lost it.

You’ll start hearing, “But her policies!” in the thread. First, with respect to the most important policy - regarding the economy - she’s got the backing of dozens of reputable economists.

Also, and as someone else said, obsessing about policy now is like someone making a decision about what color to paint the living room while the house is burning down. Trump is unfit and insane. He can’t be anyone near the Oval Office again.

I couldn’t agree with you more.

Its bizarre to me that people assume she’ll impose some far left agenda when she hasn’t campaigned on anything close to that while also shrugging and trying to assure us - or themselves - that Trump won’t actually do all the crazy things he says he wants to do almost daily.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Robert Strozk, SAIC, Crossfire Hurricane- “No. No, he’s not. We’ll stop it.”

BTW, Hoopsdoc, I love that your signature refers to Peter Strzok as "Robert Strozk." It's the wrong first name and a misspelled surname, but I think you should leave it just as it is.

 

[twenty02]

A lot of commentary here from people that obviously didn't even read the essay.

 

[Ohio Guy]

If in the essay he’s saying that concerns about immigration/defunding police/etc are nothing more than strawmen/right wing fear mongering then there’s no point in reading it, because it’s ridiculous.

You didn’t read the essay, did you?

 

[Ohio Guy]

A lot of commentary here from people that obviously didn't even read the essay.

Exactly. A lot of the questions/comments posted here are clearly addressed there.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I couldn’t agree with you more.

Its bizarre to me that people assume she’ll impose some far left agenda when she hasn’t campaigned on anything close to that while also shrugging and trying to assure us - or themselves - that Trump won’t actually do all the crazy things he says he wants to do almost daily.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/04/politics/proposition-36-harris-declines-position/index.html

because that's who she is. come out and say yes i'm for stricter sentencing. she says no comment. on the border she says i'm for a bill. on prices she says i was born middle class. when choosing a vp she chose a progressive. she is the second most lib in the senate this century.

it's bizarre to me that you somehow think she'll be something different. she's a say anything to win candidate with a long history of being a radical progressive. and she's told you her values haven't changed.

 

[ChicagoFineForNow]

I did see Harris and Shapiro make the final case for each last week. I’d assume the essay is much of the same. Do with it what you will.

 

[mcmurtry66]

A lot of commentary here from people that obviously didn't even read the essay.

i read ohio's post. i read what ohio wrote. that's what i'm commenting on. for those of us in cities not outside of rural athens ohio college town that's more than enough.. for those of us dealing with the woke bullshit it's offensive. college town people saying ohhh you're fearmongering. fck right off

 

[twenty02]

i read ohio's post. i read what ohio wrote. that's what i'm commenting on. for those of us in cities not outside of rural athens ohio college town that's more than enough

No offense to Ohio.... But I don't think he did a very good job summarizing the piece in his post.

 

[Bowlmania]

Yeah, but it's basically the same group of people, with the same general set of views, that have steered us to the precarious position we're in now.

Why should anybody listen to the kinds of people who have led us here? I wouldn't have much problem with Keynesians, if only they would be more faithful to Keynes -- who did *not* advocate for permanent deficits....he advocated for surpluses during expansionary periods that would be used to pay the debts incurred during contractionary periods.

Read General Theory -- it's all in there.

Trump has “steered us to the precarious position we’re in” and the Chaos Candidate, Don the Con, will drive the bus right off the cliff if he wins tomorrow. But he won’t. But he’ll insist that he did. POS.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I couldn’t agree with you more.

Its bizarre to me that people assume she’ll impose some far left agenda when she hasn’t campaigned on anything close to that while also shrugging and trying to assure us - or themselves - that Trump won’t actually do all the crazy things he says he wants to do almost daily.

Well, you're approaching a presidential election as a binary here. And it's really not. Not, anyway, in terms of casting a vote. It's a binary in terms of outcome -- but that doesn't constrain any of us. I certainly don't feel constrained by that.

What Trump would or wouldn't do is relevant to the case for voting for him, and what Harris would or wouldn't do is relevant to the case for voting for her. It's fine to compare and contrast them, of course. But it's also OK to conclude (as I have) that neither of them are worthy of voting for.

And what any candidate would do is a different question than what they would be able to do. The reason I'm pulling for gridlock is that it would make it difficult for either winner to advance much, if any, of their agenda. And it seems perfectly fair to consider Harris' previously stated positions in evaluating her as a candidate. Not only do I think it's reasonable to conclude that she's ditched some of those positions out of expedience and timing, I think it's hard to make a case otherwise.

 

[mcmurtry66]

No offense to Ohio.... But I don't think he did a very good job summarizing the piece in his post.

My tolerance for the woke shit is gone. Lost a cop last month to an illegal alien. Rural college town people have no fcking idea what they’re talking about. Boogeymen….

Illegal immigrant charged in death of St. Louis police officer

Officer David Lee, an 18-year veteran of the force, leaves behind a wife and two children.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Ohio Guy]

What I mean is somebody saying they're making a positive case for Harris (or it could be Biden) by just saying they aren't Trump. That's not a case to vote for somebody. It's a case not to vote for somebody else. But elections aren't binary exercises.

I think people understood that not getting out to vote for Biden would’ve meant Trump would have won in 2020. I think there are people who are excited to vote for Harris, but I suspect there are a lot of Americans who are motivated to keep Trump out of office. I’m one of them.

 

[Ohio Guy]

No offense to Ohio.... But I don't think he did a very good job summarizing the piece in his post.

I can see why you’d say that and think it’s probably a fair point. Still, I think Harris’ essay is worth reading for a lot of people here.

 

[snarlcakes]

Sam “if Covid had killed children, then no one would have been questioning us vaccinating the children” Harris.

For the record, I thought he was dumb prior to Covid breaking his brain.

 

[Harry Hondo]

Lmao save for the ten million that got through, including criminals, the bail project releases who killed people, and the many others who were victims of crimes as a result of defunding it’s just boogeyman stuff

Lmao I love the college town bubble crowd telling us soros and that stuff is fake. She’s been a left wing radical. Second most lib senator this century. The glow up is moronic. We have her record of who she is. Oh and she lies nonstop. But trust us she will be someone new….

STILL she’s better than him! Seriously, dude, he’s a f’n dumpster fire as a human being. I honestly can’t think of ONE positive adjective to describe him. And lately at his rallies he’s just a name calling rambling fool. covering topics from Arnold Palmer’s dick size to simulating a blowjob on a microphone. What’s wrong with him, and more importantly, what’s wrong with you for supporting such an unsavory character? Embarrassing!

I can’t wait until Wednesday. Can you tell? 😃

 

[mcmurtry66]

STILL she’s better than him! Seriously, dude, he’s a f’n dumpster fire as a human being. I honestly can’t think of ONE positive adjective to describe him. And lately at his rallies he’s just a name calling rambling fool. covering topics from Arnold Palmer’s dick size to simulating a blowjob on a microphone. What’s wrong with him, and more importantly, what’s wrong with you for supporting such an unsavory character? Embarrassing!

I can’t wait until Wednesday. Can you tell? 😃

Nothing is worse than a progressive. Nothing

 

[Bowlmania]

But, to me, she's no better -- they're both bad, for different reasons (and Trump certainly has his own share of bad policies, too!)

Your argument in #29 was well-stated (although that analysis is certainly not unique to this election). Then I saw what I've quoted directly above and it's like, ok, this is what he really thinks.

Trump is uniquely awful. He is a clear and present danger. That's not something I'm pulling from my ass but rather based on what I've seen and heard with my own eyes and ears, as well as what I've read over the past nine years. That includes the comments of respected military officers and other officials who worked closely with him who say he's unfit, irresponsible and dangerous. The "she's no better, they're both bad" argument is fundamentally flawed, and the ultimate false equivalence.

 

[larsIU]

It was a well written screed against Trump.

Harris is still meh at best.

 

[larsIU]

Nothing is worse than a progressive. Nothing

Except possibly a second Trump term. This is where we’re at.

America needs to do better.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Except possibly a second Trump term. This is where we’re at.

America needs to do better.

I don’t see it that way. Trump’s first term didn’t bring the progressive shit to our doorstep. Soros prosecutors. Bail projects murdering people in your neighborhood. Illegals drunk on the roads killing people. Harris is dangerous. Progressives are dangerous. A present danger to where our kids play. There are no comparable trump policies that touch me, my neighbors, my kids’ schools

 

[snarlcakes]

I don’t see it that way. Trump’s first term didn’t bring the progressive shit to our doorstep. Soros prosecutors. Bail projects murdering people in your neighborhood. Illegals drunk on the roads killing people. Harris is dangerous. Progressives are dangerous. A present danger to where our kids play. There are no comparable trump policies that touch me, my neighbors, my kids’ schools

A list of all the crazy shit the left has done the past 4 1/2 years: Grew government 15-20% during peacetime, BLM riots, defund the police, allowing kids to be mutilated/prescribed puberty blockers, have allowed in unprecedented levels of illegals, all the gender crazy shit, covid vaccine mandates/closing of schools and Palestine protests. Why is it so hard to just say the left is crazy, but I think Trump is crazier, I’m liberal, and I’m voting for Kamala?