The Kamala Harris presidential candidacy

[Carpet_pissr]

There's also a difference between the very visible, MAGA rally goer and a Trump voter. Both get exactly one vote, and they both have equal weight*

*depending on which state they live in, and all that EC bs

I think we may often mentally associate "MAGA" with the flag clothed idiots, the J6 traitors, the rally goers, the yard sign/bumper sticker types. The people that put all those Let's Go Brandon!" stickers on gas pumps a while back.

I think Kurth has an important point that we (collectively) remember lest we Hillary again (per Bill Clinton recently). It's too easy to fall into demonizing and mocking the dumb mouth breathers who pray to Trump Jesus when they get pulled over, while people like wealthy white "elites" behind gated communities also quietly vote for and fund this fool.

Heard a very interesting piece on NPR yesterday from someone that works on Men and Boys studies, or has a think tank, or something, and he was saying that many men vote R because they no longer feel welcome in the D party. Some aspects of it have become male unfriendly, and simply by being male they feel like liberals assign guilt to them automatically...for past male dominance, for getting higher wages, etc. The guy was obviously liberal himself, so he wasn't complaining, but definitely more warning that "we" need to be careful about how far we go into feminist territory, because we can go too far, and some think we have already.

If we actually ARE losing male votes because of this (not sure if he had numbers, or was just a gut feeling), I seriously doubt anyone in the D party would even consider such a "problem" given the atmosphere. It's a tough coalition to keep together for sure, as we saw with the straying hispanic and black vote in the past few years. It's also something that our opponents don't need to worry about as much, so a strategic advantage for them to be sure.

[Smoove_B]

I think Kurth has an important point that we (collectively) remember lest we Hillary again (per Bill Clinton recently). It's too easy to fall into demonizing and mocking the dumb mouth breathers who pray to Trump Jesus when they get pulled over, while people like wealthy white "elites" behind gated communities also quietly vote for and fund this fool.

[Carpet_pissr]

I think Kurth has an important point that we (collectively) remember lest we Hillary again (per Bill Clinton recently). It's too easy to fall into demonizing and mocking the dumb mouth breathers who pray to Trump Jesus when they get pulled over, while people like wealthy white "elites" behind gated communities also quietly vote for and fund this fool.

From how many votes they each get, yes. But maybe I am missing your picture point.

[Smoove_B]

From how many votes they each get, yes. But maybe I am missing your picture point.

Anyone voting for TFG is deluding themselves - no matter what BS reason they give in support. They deserve to be mocked and ridiculed endlessly.

[Carpet_pissr]

From how many votes they each get, yes. But maybe I am missing your picture point.

Anyone voting for TFG is deluding themselves - no matter what BS reason they give in support. They deserve to be mocked and ridiculed endlessly.

How are the gated community voters deluding themselves? They know he will give them or at least always fight for bigger, better tax breaks for their class. He delivered before, for them, why not again? Also, he represents (to them), the "wealthy, white" option. The "I would never send my kids to public school" option. The "we need to keep and maintain our social, financial and political power instead of letting it get distributed to the poorer, multicultural soup that the other side represents. That's not a delusion, if those are your values and goals, he is definitely the one to vote for. If you value YOU and YOURS above everything else, he is also very much aligned with your goals...again, not delusion.

[Unagi]

"I never thought I'd be fucked over by the 'Fuck Other People' Party..."

[Smoove_B]

They are deluding themselves for thinking they won't be impacted by voting for the face-eating leopard. Maybe not today, maybe not even next year, but history has repeatedly demonstrated that when the time comes, the leopard will indeed also eat their faces.

But they vote for those policies because they delude themselves into thinking they're different. Whether it's someone voting to take away benefits from "illegals" or a wealthy person thinking they're voting against taxes, it's all delusion.

[Unagi]

kinda a bam, right?
I mean, 'I nailed it' - not that you shouldn't have also replied.

[Hyena]

I see it as a mix of both regarding "privilege." Yes, there is the "haves and have nots" and the "equality=oppression", but I also see a lot of people believing that things are actively being TAKEN from them by the left. Trump has beat the drums on "They're coming for your jobs, your guns, your children, your homes, your money, your FREEDOMS!" When in actually, as all sane people know they aren't. But in my ill-informed opinion, it's a thinly disguised rally cry for...like-minded folk on the right.

[Smoove_B]

Definitely a 'bam - that's what I get for detailing my thoughts.

[El Guapo]

They are deluding themselves for thinking they won't be impacted by voting for the face-eating leopard. Maybe not today, maybe not even next year, but history has repeatedly demonstrated that when the time comes, the leopard will indeed also eat their faces.

But they vote for those policies because they delude themselves into thinking they're different. Whether it's someone voting to take away benefits from "illegals" or a wealthy person thinking they're voting against taxes, it's all delusion.

FWIW I think Carpet_Pissr is right (how's that for a 21st century sentence) that it's not all delusion. If you're very wealthy a Trump administration is going to cater to your bottom line in a way that the Harris administration won't. A Trump administration will reliably deliver a regressive tax cut; Harris will probably raise them (best case scenario is congressional deadlock keeps them the same).

To be sure with a second Trump administration there are risks to your bottom line - there are certainly Russian Oligarchs who fell out of favor with Putin and then fell out of a window. But if you're a sociopath who is comfortable being an obsequious toady in exchange for obscene wealth - it's not delusional to support Trump.

[Smoove_B]

FWIW I think Carpet_Pissr is right (how's that for a 21st century sentence) that it's not all delusion. If you're very wealthy a Trump administration is going to cater to your bottom line in a way that the Harris administration won't. A Trump administration will reliably deliver a regressive tax cut; Harris will probably raise them (best case scenario is congressional deadlock keeps them the same).

The number of people that his tax/business policy agenda will benefit is minuscule in comparison to the delusional "wealthy" folks that are voting for him thinking he represents their views and needs.

[Carpet_pissr]

FWIW I think Carpet_Pissr is right (how's that for a 21st century sentence) that it's not all delusion. If you're very wealthy a Trump administration is going to cater to your bottom line in a way that the Harris administration won't. A Trump administration will reliably deliver a regressive tax cut; Harris will probably raise them (best case scenario is congressional deadlock keeps them the same).

The number of people that his tax/business policy agenda will benefit is minuscule in comparison to the delusional "wealthy" folks that are voting for him thinking he represents their views and needs.

Their "views and needs" are "cut my taxes, or keep them low" - that is not a delusion because he did this, and will probably try to do more if we let him back in. If he or his admin can do that, they don't give a shit about his asshattery that appeals to the Trump prayers (who they look down on, but tolerate like necessary pawns).

I agree that it is in some ways short sighted, from a really long term perspective, especially if you believe that rising tides lift all boats. But many hate or simply disagree with that idea...they enjoy being the few yachts on the water...let the dinghies sink for all they care.

I mean it's kind of the defining ethos of the R party. I got MINE, and want to KEEP mine, you get YOURS however you can, motherfucker.

[Zaxxon]

FWIW I think Carpet_Pissr is right (how's that for a 21st century sentence) that it's not all delusion. If you're very wealthy a Trump administration is going to cater to your bottom line in a way that the Harris administration won't. A Trump administration will reliably deliver a regressive tax cut; Harris will probably raise them (best case scenario is congressional deadlock keeps them the same).

The number of people that his tax/business policy agenda will benefit is minuscule in comparison to the delusional "wealthy" folks that are voting for him thinking he represents their views and needs.

I mean, yeah to all of this. But also there's the forest-for-the-trees issue happening here that makes me agree with Smoove's assertion that anyone voting for Trump is deluding themselves. Let's assume that it's true that the leopards-eating-faces party and Chief Leopard will never eat their faces. There's still the issue that every day that goes by with TFG as President, we get one day closer to Rome burning. There's a non-zero chance that electing Trump permanently ends meaningful elections in the US. There's a 100% chance that hostile foreign leaders / nation-state attackers / little guys eventually take advantage of the crumbling USA and topple us from our perch.

Like, it's not going to happen on day 1 (or likely year 1), but it's absolutely a massive accelerant to the in-progress decline of America's position in the world (and our security / ability to flourish that depend on that position).

Which is not to say that a Harris administration would stop this inevitable decline in its tracks. But it's at least not accelerating things even further.

You vote for TFG, you're voting to Burn It All Down. And while that may seem like a fun thing for those who perceive the status quo as having left them behind, reality wouldn't match the expectation.

[GreenGoo]

They are deluding themselves for thinking they won't be impacted by voting for the face-eating leopard. Maybe not today, maybe not even next year, but history has repeatedly demonstrated that when the time comes, the leopard will indeed also eat their faces.

But they vote for those policies because they delude themselves into thinking they're different. Whether it's someone voting to take away benefits from "illegals" or a wealthy person thinking they're voting against taxes, it's all delusion.

There're a thousand ways that bad social policy affects everyone, not just the targets. It permeates and contaminates society in ways that are only partially predictable.

You can try to control society at gunpoint, but it will eventually find uses for those guillotines.

[GreenGoo]

I mean it's kind of the defining ethos of the R party. I got MINE, and want to KEEP mine, you get YOURS however you can, motherfucker.

Gunpoint.

[Unagi]

FWIW I think Carpet_Pissr is right (how's that for a 21st century sentence) that it's not all delusion. If you're very wealthy a Trump administration is going to cater to your bottom line in a way that the Harris administration won't. A Trump administration will reliably deliver a regressive tax cut; Harris will probably raise them (best case scenario is congressional deadlock keeps them the same).

The number of people that his tax/business policy agenda will benefit is minuscule in comparison to the delusional "wealthy" folks that are voting for him thinking he represents their views and needs.

People don't understand how much a new face costs, and not as many people can afford them who think they can.

[Zarathud]

From how many votes they each get, yes. But maybe I am missing your picture point.

Anyone voting for TFG is deluding themselves - no matter what BS reason they give in support. They deserve to be mocked and ridiculed endlessly.

Agreed. I grew up in MAGA Republican rural country. Why pay taxes for schools and roads and development? Years later all those dumb selfish choices led to bad outcomes, but the locals want to blame the immigrants who moved into the summer communities that were being abandoned.

My favorite was my neighborhood refusing to get annexed into the city sewers, and now they can’t afford to get connected or redo the water well/tower. And the city isn’t willing to annex them due to the cost. Not sure how that’s the government’s fault.

I couldn’t get out fast enough to Chicago for college and a career.

[Kurth]

Plus, it's very dependent on how you define "privilege". Are most MAGA voters a part of a "privileged class"? Well, if you define that as upper middle class or higher economically, maybe not (I'm hedging because I don't have any actual data). If you define it as "white, straight, Christian", then probably they are. Whether they've taken full advantage of that privilege is one thing, but at a minimum they're not getting pulled over for Driving While Black, and they're not subject to the unconscious bias that many non-whites are subject to every day. That's a form of privilege, whether they recognize it or not.

I think that's what is bothering me: Defining "privilege" as "white, straight, Christian" feels kind of wrong. Sure, those people enjoy a certain kind of privilege, at least in theory, but those characteristics also correlate with a huge swath of America that is far from privileged if we think of privilege as also correlating to things like wealth, education, safety, health, stability, etc.

I'm also not sure if it's right to question "whether they've taken full advantage of that privilege" as opposed to "whether they've enjoyed the benefits of that privilege."

[YellowKing]

Being white and male pretty much trumps (pardon the term) everything else.

I think it's important to note that "privilege" doesn't necessarily mean you actually have wealth, a good job, an education, etc. It just means you didn't have the same barriers to achieving those things that others did.

[GreenGoo]

I think that's what is bothering me: Defining "privilege" as "white, straight, Christian" feels kind of wrong. Sure, those people enjoy a certain kind of privilege, at least in theory, but those characteristics also correlate with a huge swath of America that is far from privileged if we think of privilege as also correlating to things like wealth, education, safety, health, stability, etc.

I'm also not sure if it's right to question "whether they've taken full advantage of that privilege" as opposed to "whether they've enjoyed the benefits of that privilege."

Since it's a sociological term as opposed to an attribute, it makes sense that some people who would match your definition would not be recipients of the benefits of privilege. At least not all of them.

I find a good starting point is how do cops treat a person, and how does a person feel about being stopped by the cops. It may not cover all possible criteria, but it's a place to start.

edit: Also, what YK said.

[Skinypupy]

I think it's important to note that "privilege" doesn't necessarily mean you actually have wealth, a good job, an education, etc. It just means you didn't have the same barriers to achieving those things that others did.

That was what I was getting at with my original post.

Privilege also doesn’t necessarily imply you didn’t work hard or were handed anything in particular, although that certainly can be the case as well (I.e. Elon, Trump, etc).

[Zarathud]

While the definition may be accurate, the poor whites have historically defended themselves by pushing down on minorities—which not long ago included Irish, Italians, Polish, Catholics and Jews. There were similar deed restrictions against selling to white Jews and Catholics like those against selling to Negroes (the term used at the time).

It was worse for the Chinese who were original targets of anti-immigrant backlash.

Frankly, we should target discrimination and social bias more based on the science of representation. But it’s an easy shorthand to blame it all on The Man (white heterosexual normative) as that’s a continuation of the 60s counterculture.

[waitingtoconnect]

Just normal…

https://www.instagram.com/thedailyshow/ ... BnmzZSbOO/

[Kurth]

Being white and male pretty much trumps (pardon the term) everything else.

I think it's important to note that "privilege" doesn't necessarily mean you actually have wealth, a good job, an education, etc. It just means you didn't have the same barriers to achieving those things that others did.

Ok. But what if you faced different barriers to achieving those things?

I don't think this is what you are implying, but one way to read this is that we should have little sympathy for white males in this country who fail to achieve success despite enjoying a privilege that "pretty much trumps everything else." They've just squandered their privilege.

[Alefroth]

All it's saying is that there are no systemic obstacles for white men.

[Kurth]

All it's saying is that there are no systemic obstacles for white men.

I think the "for" in that sentence is doing some heavy lifting.

[Alefroth]

How so?

What would be better? 'In front of'?

[Jaymann]

Oddly if you change "for" to "against" it does not change the meaning of that sentence.

[YellowKing]

I don't think this is what you are implying, but one way to read this is that we should have little sympathy for white males in this country who fail to achieve success despite enjoying a privilege that "pretty much trumps everything else." They've just squandered their privilege.

I'm not making any judgment against anyone. I'm just saying that if you're a white male, you don't face the same obstacles of racial/gender bias as a minority or a woman. That doesn't mean you don't face any obstacles, or that if you fail to be wealthy then you've somehow wasted your opportunity.

[Grifman]

More and more polls show Harris with a lead:

[ImLawBoy]

I don't think this is what you are implying, but one way to read this is that we should have little sympathy for white males in this country who fail to achieve success despite enjoying a privilege that "pretty much trumps everything else." They've just squandered their privilege.

I'm not making any judgment against anyone. I'm just saying that if you're a white male, you don't face the same obstacles of racial/gender bias as a minority or a woman. That doesn't mean you don't face any obstacles, or that if you fail to be wealthy then you've somehow wasted your opportunity.

Yeah, it's really quite a stretch to say that acknowledging privilege associated with being a straight white male somehow implies a straight white male who doesn't achieve financial success has squandered their privilege. I don't think anyone is claiming that privilege is the only factor in determining success. There's a lot of stuff that goes into success, and privilege is just one piece.

I'm a straight white male born into the middle class in a prosperous democracy. All of those give me some form of privilege vs. someone who does not share those characteristics. I think I've been fairly successful. I like to think I would have been fairly successful even without that privilege, because I'm smart and have a good work ethic. The reality is, though, that I don't have to find out if I would have been tripped up by lack of privilege over some point in my path.

[LordMortis]

I'm a straight white male born into the middle class in a prosperous democracy. All of those give me some form of privilege vs. someone who does not share those characteristics. I think I've been fairly successful. I like to think I would have been fairly successful even without that privilege, because I'm smart and have a good work ethic. The reality is, though, that I don't have to find out if I would have been tripped up by lack of privilege over some point in my path.

My blue collar parents chose a good school district, which essentially allowed me to always fall upwards. "My privilege" did the rest. Even as my father complained that his children couldn't get scholarships to Michigan when so many others with less achievement did (though he'd hide it from us until later). I still managed to do alright with not being as dumb as the people around me and reasonably hard work and falling upward through my entire working life. "My privilege" definitely had a lot to do with it, as I never had to prove anything to anyone. It always just assumed I would make it work or hang myself. Others don't get that latitude. I hit that aura, quite frankly because I was young white male whose curiosity was encouraged by the society he was raised in where the expectation is my type will work and get ahead.

That said, if you were raised by parents who ignored that privilege and hold disdain for everyone for holding them back while pushing others forward, what you're squandering, I'd think, is not your privilege, but rather the privilege of your children, if that makes sense. It's really the same for all children of all parents, I'd imagine, but being a white little boy, It seems, removes two hurdles from getting ahead. It surely doesn't by any stretch of the imagination clear the path, but two hurdles can be meaningful.

Anyhoo, just blather. I'm constantly reminded of my student teaching when my advisor encouraged me to watch how teachers unintentionally work with different children. At the age of 24, IIRC, it was the first time I was truly mindful of my social surroundings.

[Jaymon]

We likely need an entirely new thread to discuss hidden privilege and systemic discrimination, instead of cluttering up the Kamala thread.

[Alefroth]

More and more polls show Harris with a lead:

That same article has this-

In the seven states where the 2020 election was closest - Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, Michigan and Nevada - Trump had a 45% to 43% lead over Harris among registered voters in the poll.

I'm not sure how they get that. Is that an average? If so, it's not really a useful measure.

[Kraken]

Anybody going to watch the much-hyped interview on CNN tonight at 9 EDT? I haven't decided yet whether to spend the time or just read highlights tomorrow.

[Unagi]

I might turn it on, and mute it - in the off chance I contribute to modern-day ratings' statistics.

[waitingtoconnect]

Trump on "Truth" Social...

Dana Bash of CNN has a chance at greatness today. If she gave a fair but tough interview of Comrade Kamala Harris, she will expose her as being totally inept and ill suited for the job of President, much as I exposed Crooked Joe Biden during our now famous Debate. How cool would that be for Dana and CNN??? Also, the interview should not have Tampon Tim present to help with the inevitable Kamala stumbles, and under no circumstances should the transcript be allowed to be changed in any way, shape, or form. Dana and Jake were fair, but firm, in my CNN Debate with Crooked Joe. This is a chance for Dana Bash to reach REAL stardom, while at the same time doing a great service to our now failing Country. Good luck, Dana, do the right thing!!! DJT

Is he both intimidating and bribing the journalist at the same time?

And new fundraising emails:

ALERT FROM DONALD TRUMP GIVE $10

If everyone reading this gives just $10, we'll outraise Kamala today!
I’m counting on you.
I also just want to say I will always love you, so thank you for your support.

Yes it says I will always love you…

[YellowKing]

Nate Silver has Trump favored to win now. Apparently he thinks it will all come down to Pennsylvania and Trump will pull it out.

[Kraken]

My pearls remain unclutched. Let's see what the polls do after the debate, if it happens.