What Kamala Harris, Joe Biden's VP Pick, Means For Tech (cnet.com) 521
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNET: After months of speculation, Joe Biden has picked California Sen. Kamala Harris to be his vice-presidential running mate in the race for the White House. The choice fulfills a pledge from Biden, the Democrats' presumptive nominee for president, to name a woman to his ticket as he seeks to unseat Donald Trump in the November election. [...] Here's what we know about Harris' stance on tech issues:
A California senator and former candidate in the 2020 presidential race, Harris made her name in Washington by grilling Trump nominees and officials from her seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Harris, 55, is known for being a tough-on-crime prosecutor earlier in her career. That toughness, however, didn't carry over to Big Tech companies when she was California attorney general, critics charge. During her time as the state's top law enforcement officer, Facebook and other companies gobbled up smaller competitors. Harris, like regulators under Obama, did little from an antitrust perspective to slow consolidation, which many members of Congress now question.
During her 2020 presidential bid, Harris' stance on consumer protections and antitrust issues weren't as tough as those of some of her rivals, especially Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who called for the breakup of large tech companies, like Facebook and Google. Still, Harris was vocal last year in urging Twitter to ban Trump from the platform for "tweets [that] incite violence, threaten witnesses, and obstruct justice." This was a demand Twitter rejected. She has also been critical of Facebook for not doing more to rid its platform of misinformation.
A California senator and former candidate in the 2020 presidential race, Harris made her name in Washington by grilling Trump nominees and officials from her seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Harris, 55, is known for being a tough-on-crime prosecutor earlier in her career. That toughness, however, didn't carry over to Big Tech companies when she was California attorney general, critics charge. During her time as the state's top law enforcement officer, Facebook and other companies gobbled up smaller competitors. Harris, like regulators under Obama, did little from an antitrust perspective to slow consolidation, which many members of Congress now question.
During her 2020 presidential bid, Harris' stance on consumer protections and antitrust issues weren't as tough as those of some of her rivals, especially Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who called for the breakup of large tech companies, like Facebook and Google. Still, Harris was vocal last year in urging Twitter to ban Trump from the platform for "tweets [that] incite violence, threaten witnesses, and obstruct justice." This was a demand Twitter rejected. She has also been critical of Facebook for not doing more to rid its platform of misinformation.
VP pick? I think you mean Pres. Candidate in Lieu (Score:3, Insightful)
He's doing better than you think (Score:4, Informative)
Sure, he's gafftastic, boarding on Gafftacular. But to be blunt he's always been. He's a good debater because he's good at the prep work. He's pretty crap at speaking off the cuff. So is Trump, but he gish gallops so you don't notice the same way.
Re: (Score:2)
>"I'm willing to bet there's guys in their 40s that can't ride a bike [youtube.com]"
Yeah, but a whole lot of 7-year-olds who CAN ride a bike. It really doesn't say a whole lot about one's mental capacity being able to ride a bike.
Re: Decline affects new skills and knowledge not o (Score:5, Funny)
"Spanish flu ended WW2"-Trump, a day ago.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Biden forgets all facts from the last 30 years, it will still be a major increase in knowledge from the residents of the White House.
But as far as I can tell, the "Biden is senile" meme came from conservatives trying to move attention from the fact that Trump has gone from partly-coherent to full-on word salad over the course of his presidency. Seriously, listen to one of his recent non-prepared speeches.
Re: (Score:3)
If Biden forgets all facts from the last 30 years, it will still be a major increase in knowledge from the residents of the White House. But as far as I can tell, the "Biden is senile" meme came from conservatives trying to move attention from the fact that Trump has gone from partly-coherent to full-on word salad over the course of his presidency. Seriously, listen to one of his recent non-prepared speeches.
As many who have dealt with a loved one who has goes down this path can tell you, it is not some sort of binary state. You are not just senile one day. It is a slow unrelenting progression. Even in its milder early stages an inability to recall things agreed to a few days ago exists. You can't learn new things. You can't keep your promises or commitments. You can't learn new skills or change existing habits. But if you want to have a conversation about old stuff that is locked in long term memory you can pu
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Pass the bowl already, wont'cha? Stop hogging it all.
Re: (Score:2)
Pass the bowl already, wont'cha? Stop hogging it all.
Dude, that is so "the old days", precovid, no social distancing.
Re: He's doing better than you think (Score:5, Insightful)
The first two assertions are obviously true.
How can a slope be both long and steep at the same time? It's either steep or it's long. To be both steep and long, it would have to also be very high, and it wasn't. It was a perfectly normal ramp. As you've observed, it wasn't slippery. Photos of the ramp that actually show the surface seem to show that it's covered in traction material that shouldn't be slippery even when wet and wouldn't be slippery to even brand new leather-soled shoes. I found some pictures online that seem to be taken approximately level from the side of the ramp. I took some rise and run measurements of the slope and it seems to rise by about one unit for every 5 units of length. I checked it with an angle tool and it comes to about 10.32 degrees. That just isn't a difficult slope to manage.
I've heard some credible theories for why Trump has so much trouble with the ramp. First is that he definitely seems to be wearing a girdle of some sort most of the time. That appears to be one of the reasons he sits so strangely. The girdle actually forces him to sit that way.The limited range of motion due to that accessory may force him to use extra caution on ramps and stairs. It's also been noted that his shoes appear to both have high heels, and internal lifts, compromising his balance. Aside from the West Point ramp, Trump has been observed dozens of times having great difficulty with stairs and slopes.
Clothing choices aside, it seems like the main reason that Trump has difficulty with slopes is pretty much what you said. Trump is a feeble, overweight, low-energy old man. Really, there's nothing wrong with that per se. People decline physically as they age. It happens, and contempt isn't a healthy response to it. The problem is that Trump himself constantly spews contempt for others for supposed physical and mental infirmity. It becomes difficult not to measure him by his own yardstick. Add to that the way that he and his supporters rush to insist that the emperor is draped in clothes of the finest and rarest fabrics, rather than being stark naked, and there's plenty of cause for contempt. If Trump and his supporters would just cop to him being what he is rather than trying to prop up some mythical version of him, we'd be a lot more comfortable As it stands, Trump and his supporters come off sounding frighteningly like the yes men of dictators like Nicolae Ceausescu or Kim-Il Sung.
Re: (Score:3)
He's likely wearing lifts as well.
Re:VP pick? I think you mean Pres. Candidate in Li (Score:4, Informative)
He's 3 years older than Trump and can walk down a gentle slope unaided. You have far more chance of getting Pence, aka the worst case scenario.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Biden is already far enough into dementia to be unfit. It's widely known at this point, which is why there won't be a presidential debate.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Re: VP pick? I think you mean Pres. Candidate in L (Score:3, Insightful)
He intentionally conflates widely known and often repeated. It is a Trump rhetorical tactic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except West Point does these kinds of events pretty regularly, and often features various dignitaries and such; and this very ramp has been used before.
You can see the same ramp in other footage at other occasions, and it has regularly spaced grip strips on it. There is also footage from those other events of people wearing nice shoes ascending and descending it, there is even footage of a woman walking down it in spike heels without giving it any concern.
Even so, I don't really think Trump's ramp walk sign
Re: (Score:3)
Sure to both comments.
But that wasn't what Trump said, instead we got this nonsense about how it was so very long and so very steep and so very slippery. And then you defended that nonsense.
"77 year old-man doesn't want to fall and took it slow just in case" is pretty plausible.
On the other hand, his whole narrative of "Healthiest and most robust man ever to grace the oval office was navigating the steepest most treacherous ramp in the history of ramps" just invited the ridicule it got.
If the truth is Trump
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yep, in this election, if you are voting Democrat...then you are in essence voting for Harris for President, as that I don't know if Joe can make the 4 year distance, he seems to be faltering health wise.
I don't think the GOP ticket is any better in this regard. Both are out of touch with reality. So now it comes down to whether you want to elect a buffoon or a clown. Personally, I am fond of circuses. Also, I really think people need to have some courage and get out of this two party mindset. Its time we reform the US political system from a party standpoint.
Re: VP pick? I think you mean Pres. Candidate in L (Score:5, Interesting)
If we had 5 major parties we wouldnt be polarized and people would be forced to work togeather. Im tired of this teeter totter design where we bounce back and forth blaming the other party. 30 years of no progress.
Re: (Score:2)
Me too. Year after year, election after election, forced into a political ratchet set up by the 2 major parties that works its way ever deeper into corruption every time we're forced into voting for the lesser of two evils.
I want real candidates. Actual options. A vote that matters. Representatives to go with my taxes.
Re: VP pick? I think you mean Pres. Candidate in L (Score:5, Informative)
>"If we had 5 major parties we wouldnt be polarized and people would be forced to work togeather."
But that will never happen, unless we change the voting system to instant runoff voting in primaries and elections. It can be done, and without even changing the Constitution.
https://vairvote.org/ [vairvote.org]
Otherwise, it is, essentially, impossible to have more than 2 meaningful parties because of the spoiler effect. It would be absolutely wonderful to have some new parties. This two-way-divide is crazy. You can't take hundreds of issues and divide them into just two buckets and expect anyone to be excited about the "least worst" bucket they ultimately have to accept.
Re: (Score:3)
No it's far worse than that. You'd also need to abolish the two main parties. Different voting systems maintain multi party politics but do not cause them. Changing the system may result in a few minor parties getting an odd seat here or there but it won't abolish 2 party politics in America as the overwhelming majority of people will question the legitimacy of new entrants.
Look to systems like Australia with preferential voting that favours minors, and with many parties on the ballots and several "major" p
Re: VP pick? I think you mean Pres. Candidate in L (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe anyone who is anti-IRV is someone who either doesn't understand the concept (because they have been lied to, never exposed to the idea before, or it has never been explained properly), or is high-up in the entrenched two-party system and thinks they have something to lose, politically.
I'm anti-IRV, do understand the concept very well, and am not entrenched in the two-party system. I've just been exposed to better ideas.
IRV is a poor compromise. It's easier to understand than pairwise evaluation, but is mathematically weak [wikipedia.org]. If you're going to accept the complexity you might as well use the best methods available.
Personally, I think understandability is a primary requirement for a voting method, so I'd make the tradeoff the other direction, opting for approval voting. It's less expressive than a ranked-choice ballot, but in mathematical terms it's roughly as good as IRV and it's dead simple for voters to understand: "Mark all the candidates you find acceptable".
Were it not for the logistical complexities of running another election, my favorite approach would be approval voting with a majority requirement, meaning that if no candidate has the approval of at least 50% of the voters, you re-run the election with a new slate of candidates. From a philosophical perspective, this seems ideal, especially because it makes a blank ballot meaningful. Pragmatically, it's probably better to select a winner and get on with things until the next election.
Re: (Score:3)
>"meaning that if no candidate has the approval of at least 50% of the voters, you re-run the election with a new slate of candidates"
That is exactly what IRV does, but without having to actually run the election again.
Re: (Score:3)
>"America is deeply provincial. That's why two parties"
No, that is not why. In fact, being "deeply provincial" (which is not a bad thing) would be an argument as to why more parties are needed and WOULD form and become strong if they had the opportunity to do so. Being "deeply provincial" doesn't explain why there are only two parties that do or can matter (at least, not in any higher-profile/important elections).
There are two parties because the current voting system doesn't allow other parties to mat
Re: (Score:2)
https://twitter.com/HKrassenst... [twitter.com]
Re: Screeching Harpy (Score:3, Insightful)
Textbook example of don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
And she jailed righty activist journalists she didn't like.
Not a good person at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Joe is picking the person he thinks should be president from February 2021 to January 2025.
Not quite, for appearance sake he will be allowed the office for a while. So long as he heeds his various advisers and handlers they won't be in a hurry to 25th amendment him. I'm sure they'd be happy to keep him on as a front man for the actual shot callers.
You have a point... He will be the face, but only for as long as he can read the prompter and not stray into adlibbing. But again, this assumes he wins, which is not at all a given at this point.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm unsure as well. My main problem with her and Biden is that they have never run large organizations. Neither did the alleged president. His business experience was mostly devoted to finding new marks after having fleeced the old ones for all he could get. It took him 3 1/2 yrs to use up the new marks he found in the Republican party, what a bunch of rubes. Now he has no marks left to sucker as evidenced by the fact that he can point to no reason why he should get another term.
I'd have felt better if Bide
Joe's Pick (Score:5, Funny)
Was hoping she'd be Attorney General (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Was hoping she'd be Attorney General (Score:5, Interesting)
I so wanted her to be the one that goes after all these crooks screwing with our nation...
Don't we all? https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
The president first donated to Ms Harris in 2011 as she was running for attorney general. That donation amounted to $5,000 (£3,793). He then donated another $1,000 (£758) to her re-election campaign in 2013
Ivanka Trump also donated thousands of dollars to the Democratic senator. In 2014 she donated a reported $2,000 (£1,517) to Ms Harris’ re-election efforts.
Re:Was hoping she'd be Attorney General (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, you get a brownie point. I had to lol at this...
"Brown recently acknowledged in an op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle that he “may have influenced” Harris’s career. "Yes, we dated. It was more than 20 years ago. Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was Assembly speaker,” he wrote.
He noted that he had helped other politicians throughout his career, and said Harris was the “only one, who after I helped her, sent word that I would be indicted if I ‘so much as jaywalked’ while she was D.A.” He added: “That’s politics for ya.""
This is how sausage is made.
Re: (Score:2)
She's a whore, he was a client
Way to keep it classy around here.
Re:Was hoping she'd be Attorney General (Score:5, Informative)
Then 30, Harris was dating 60-year-old Willie Brown, at the time the Democratic speaker of the California State Assembly, when he placed her on the California Medical Assistance Commission in 1994. The position paid over $70,000 per year [...] The seven-member board was largely comprised of late-career former state officials who were semi-retired or biding time before retirement. At 30 years old, Harris was the youngest appointee by some three decades.
You may wonder why she was chosen for the job:
Harris had no medical background [...] According to state records of the time, members of the committee had to be "selected from persons with experience in management of hospital services, risk management insurance or prepaid health programs, the delivery of health services, the management of county health systems, and a representative of recipients of service.”
About their "break-up":
The breakup reportedly happened shortly after Brown met 32-year-old San Francisco socialite Carolyn Carpeneti [...] While the two were dating, Carpeneti was paid $2.33 million for campaign work from a network of nonprofit groups and committees run by Brown and his associates
About his previous "girlfriend":
In the 1980s, he reportedly hired his girlfriend Wendy Linka as a fundraiser, and she was later hired as a marketing director for city commissions after Brown became mayor.
So the pattern is quite clear here, you may not like the words, but it is what it is.
Bad move (Score:4, Insightful)
He took the Hillary Clinton approach. A truly bad choice. Turns out only 5% of the population thinks that the candidate's sex actually matters when it comes to voting, and premiering Biden's "I promise to choose a woman VP" is exactly the kind of stupidity that cost Hillary the election. He should have capitalized on the economy angle, something that matters to *every* American and not just the idiots.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In finance you don't compare against 0, you compare against what you *could* have gotten if you had invested somewhere else. Biden had an opportunity to pick someone that could steal voters from the center right, which would have gained him votes and cost Trump votes. Instead he went for the far left, which gained him votes he was guaranteed either way. That's a bad move.
Re:Bad move-She was a corrupt prosecutor (Score:3, Insightful)
Kamala Harris: Introducing a faked confession isn’t outrageous prosecutorial misconduct.
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Re:Bad move (Score:5, Insightful)
If only 5% of the population thinks a candidates's sex matters, then there should be no problem with him picking a woman as his VP from the other 95%. You seem to be in denial about the fact that you are part of that 5%.
Re: (Score:2)
If only 5% of the population thinks a candidates's sex matters, then there should be no problem with him picking a woman as his VP from the other 95%. You seem to be in denial about the fact that you are part of that 5%.
Whoosh! Way to miss the point.. This is about painting the campaign into the corner, needlessly...
He locked himself into a "Black Woman" as a choice and painted his campaign into a corner way back in the primaries. She went after Joe during the debates, claws out and didn't pull any punches and that audio/video will make campaign ad fodder for the opposition. It's done now, but truth be told he could have done better had the needs of the primary (winning black and woman's vote) not painted him into the cor
Re: (Score:2)
If only 5% of the population thinks a candidates's sex matters, then there should be no problem with him picking a woman as his VP from the other 95%. You seem to be in denial about the fact that you are part of that 5%.
The problem is not selecting a women. The problem is saying you are ONLY going to pick a women and then following thru on it. He vetted no men for the position. Biden's process and behavior was explicitly sexist. The end result isn't at issue.
Re:Bad move (Score:4, Insightful)
Whereas when the last few score presidents only vetted men for the position, that wasn't sexist I'm sure.
I personally wish Biden hadn't locked himself in that way, but he had an excellent slate of candidates even with the restriction; while Harris was one of my least-favorite possibilities she's still an excellent choice.
Also, he said he would pick a woman and them followed through with his pledge. Which seems a fine thing in a politician, especially after Trump's constant flip-flopping, lying, and contradicting himself.
Re:Bad move (Score:4, Insightful)
Whereas when the last few score presidents only vetted men for the position, that wasn't sexist I'm sure.
Jesus what about Christ. Explicitly excluding one sex for this position is sexist regardless of WHO is doing it or what the sex is. If you happen to end up vetting all men or all women for a position is in itself not a problem unless sex was explicitly a criteria for selection.
I personally wish Biden hadn't locked himself in that way, but he had an excellent slate of candidates even with the restriction; while Harris was one of my least-favorite possibilities she's still an excellent choice.
This is your opinion. I can't stand Harris and won't be voting for the ticket due to this pick.
Also, he said he would pick a woman and them followed through with his pledge. Which seems a fine thing in a politician, especially after Trump's constant flip-flopping, lying, and contradicting himself.
The opposite is true. Saying your going to do wrong thing and then following thru on your pledge to do wrong thing is worse than changing your mind and doing right thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Whereas when the last few score presidents only vetted men for the position, that wasn't sexist I'm sure."
Wow.
The last few score? I'll give you Obama although his opponent McCain had a female VP nominee. Obama defeated a female for his nomination, the same one who actually became a Presidential nominee 8 years later W was strongly considering two women before choosing Cheney. Then there was Clinton - no way Hillary was going to allow him to choose a female. Then in 1984 there was Geraldine Ferraro. So
Re: (Score:3)
He should have capitalized on the economy angle, something that matters to *every* American and not just the idiots.
Who would he have chosen to capitalize on the economy angle?
Re: (Score:3)
You could say Biden took the John McCain approach of picking a female VP, you'd even still have your point about it leading to a loss in the General Election.
Will she accept? (Score:2)
Re:Will she accept? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Biden loses, she will basically have lost her chance of winning President herself.
How so? The American political attention span is barely 24 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
After all she openly said she believes the sex allegations against Biden.
If Biden loses, she will basically have lost her chance of winning President herself.
I know she commented on believing the women who said that they felt uncomfortable with Biden touching them. I don't know that she's commented on the later more explicit accusations.
Given solo performance there is little downside (Score:2)
If Biden loses, she will basically have lost her chance of winning President herself.
Untrue, look at her 2020 performance. Her popularity was single digit when she dropped out of the democratic primary. The downside risk to her is low, she can't get much lower.
Re: (Score:2)
After all she openly said she believes the sex allegations against Biden. If Biden loses, she will basically have lost her chance of winning President herself.
Oh for Pete's sake.. #MeToo rarely applies to democrats at this level. Clinton got away with it for decades with a long stream of complaints and one case of documented lying about his proclivities and inappropriate relationship with an intern.. Teddy Kennedy got away with some outrageous behavior too. It's like a badge of honor for men in power.
By the way, how does this disqualify her? I'm guessing she will have a change of heart.. "I talked to Joe, I no longer believe he needs to explain anything." or s
What Kamala Harris, Joe Biden's VP Pick, Means For (Score:2, Insightful)
What Kamala Harris, Joe Biden's VP Pick, Means For Tech..
It means that Donald Trump will win another 4 years..
This is such a disappointment, does not unite the party.. No one cares if its a woman, or a black or whatever.. At least Elizabeth Warren I could have sort of lived with...
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody always forgets the swing voters (Score:3, Interesting)
Now since we all like tech here let's do some Math:
About 50% of voters turn our for a general election. About 50% of those turn out for a primary. 2020's turnout so far has been typical.
About 84% of Bernie voters say they'll vote Biden, leaving 16% in the "neverBiden" camp.
Now, based on the Wikipedia
Re: (Score:3)
You make some excellent points, and honestly, I'm not sure what I'm going to do.
This is a center-right republican ticket straight out of the 80s or 90s.
Biden spent most of his life as anti-abortion, war on drugs, fiscal conservative, and still doesn't support legalizing marijuana. Harris made a career out of throwing people into jail for drug crimes.
I don't know what the fuck happened, but apparently the entire fucking country (except like Sanders and Warren) has gotten dragged 30-40 years back and to the r
Let Biden have the Whitehouse (Score:4, Informative)
1. National Vote By Mail.
2. Automatic Voter Registration.
3. Ranked Choice Voting.
That's the stuff that matters. We're a "Winner Take All, First Past the Post" voting system. Such systems will inevitably result in 2 parties since if anyone from party A breaks ranks to form party B they just hand everything to party C.
We need to attack First Past the Post Voting and general voter suppresion. Biden & Harris will do that, if only to save their own skins. Trump is very obviously trying to end Democracy. This isn't even hyperbole anymore. You don't send armed goons in camo to pull people into unmarked vans when you're interested in Democracy.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, pretty much. Once again, Trump is the second-worst candidate in the race. If he were as dangerous as the Democrats tell me he is, then it's pretty fucking irresponsible of the Democrats to fail to nominate a decent human being to run against him, TWICE.
-jcr
What does that say about the GOP to nominate Trump twice? Lets face it, both parties are completely trolling the voters of this country at this point.
You can thank Hilary for that (Score:2)
We've got another 8-12 years of this as the party (very slowly) rebuilds from the damage she did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, cops cop and the ultimate insider (Score:5, Interesting)
I find it pretty amazing that with all of the rioting going on over police, Biden chose the most Coppy Cop to ever cop. Just search sometime on her record in California, truly a no-mercy kind of law enforcement officer...
Then on top of that, it's just another ultra-connected political insider.
Who wants any of what she has to offer? None of the primary voters did.
If Biden wanted balance, and being a woman was mandatory to his selection, he should have picked Tulsi Gabbard. Then at least he might have gotten a few independent votes for the ticket (that would have been a combo I might have considered given Biden might not even make it through the election).
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to not know the difference between a prosecutor and a cop, but then you're SuperKendall so that's no surprise. Also, you're a Trump supporter so it's also no surprise that you don't approve. They must be doing something right. Also, if he wanted to run with a cop, he'd have chosen Demmings.
With regard to Tulsi Gabbard, I doubt Biden was interested in having a known homophobe as his running mate, but it's again unsurprising that a Trump shill like you would recommend it.
Do you think anyone would
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to not know the difference between a prosecutor and a cop
Get used to the label because you're going to hear it a lot over the nex three months. [reason.com]
Kamala is the devil (Score:4, Interesting)
We had Kamala as our AG in California for a while. She gave more power to the police and did nothing whatsoever to help the average person. Wolf in sheep's clothing. Nothing good can come from Kamala Harris.
Sad, (Score:2)
Slashdot I mean, not Harris or Biden's pick. Any topic that's remotely political just gets drowned in the swamp right away. All you can see are some bubbles, and there's a nasty smell...
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
For everyone wondering why Harris (Score:3, Interesting)
1. He backed himself into a corner by saying he'd choose a female candidate, but it was the quickest way to diffuse accusations of sexual misconduct. It worked too.
2. Hilary Clinton gutted the Democratic party in from 2008-2016 to ensure she didn't face another Obama.
3. Warren is too old and Wall Street hates and fears her.
4. Harris is a known quantity. Her faults are mostly a turn off to about 2-3% hard core lefties, and I speak from experience with them nothing short of Nina "Joe Biden is a bowl of Shit" Turner would satisfy them. Maybe Bernie in a wig?
This is mostly thanks to Hilary "The Gift that Keeps On Giving" Clinton. Obama shares a bit of blame for letting her gut the party in those 8 years.
Now for anyone worrying (or hoping) that Harris's record as a prosecutor will bite the Dems, it's unlikely. Trump had much, much better people in 2016. So far he hasn't been able to land a hit on Biden. He just spoke about Harris and once again tried to paint her as a member of the "radical left" who's going to take away your healthcare.
That's just silly. I honestly think Trump thought Bernie was going to win the primary and now that he's facing Biden he doesn't know what to do.
The slow death of free speech and academic freedom (Score:3, Interesting)
When she was the AG of California, she was threatening to throw people into prison for disagreeing with her position on global warming.
Mull that over for a while...
The chief law enforcement officer of one of the largest states in the nation was threatening to put people in jail for what they SAID and BELIEVED about a controversy involving science. As AG, she was in authority over people with guns and the legal power to use them on the citizenry, and with NO ACTUAL LAW she was threatening this.
I live and work in California.
No matter what YOU think or say (with the obvious safety exceptions for "fire!" in a theater that's not on fire, or death threats) I would never support jailing you, or ANYBODY (including Kamela) for what they say or believe. If current VP Mike Pence had threatened to jail people for disagreeing with HIM on global warming, I'd be EXACTLY as hostile to him. I hope sane Slashdotters are similarly consistent and open-minded and see at least a minimally-problematic issue with this idiot. If Kamela had gotten her way, academic freedom and free speech would have collapsed..... and let's face it: Joe will not serve two terms in office, so she will be the President no later than 2025 if Joe wins in November.
Backpage? (Score:5, Interesting)
She's an H1B supporter (Score:3)
She's also a sponsor of S386, Mike Lee's H1B bill. If you're on the wrong side of that relationship, bear that in mind.
He knew claims were fake (Score:4, Insightful)
...how did Joe get past her outright calling him a racist on stage during the debates? Did he forget?
Forget, no. He knows calls of racist, sexist, etc from a democratic politician are fake these days. That such claims are just a progressive's way of saying "I disagree with you". ;-)
Re:I wonder.... (Score:5, Informative)
...how did Joe get past her outright calling him a racist on stage during the debates?
Did he forget?
Sorry, but seemingly, that never happened in the first place. Fox news host admits as much https://www.thedailybeast.com/... [thedailybeast.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
She didn't say the exact words, "you are a racist", but she did call him a racist in every way it can be said except that. Go back and watch the debates. It's perfectly clear if you pay attention. And stop reading that propaganda site.
That's not how it works, the burden of evidence is on those who claim Kamala Harris called Joe Biden a racist or any variation thereof.
This is a motte-and-bailey (Score:5, Informative)
> That's not how it works, the burden of evidence is on those who claim Kamala Harris called Joe Biden a racist or any variation thereof.
Basically, she said that he wasn't a racist... yet blamed him for the racist actions of opposing busing & praising segregationist Democrats. The two halves of what she said contradict each other and you can prove any statement whatsoever from a contradiction. Also, when you get to the meat of the article you yourself posted, you read that "Roberts admitted that Harris never used the word “racist” to describe Biden, but added, “whether or not she actually said the word ‘racist’ or not, I mean, the intimation was there.”" So they're playing motte-and-baily with this, pretending she didn't accuse Biden of doing any racist stuff by retreating to the point that she said he "wasn't a racist" while accusing him of doing racist things.
Here's a transcript [rev.com] of the exchange and one part of it that stands out.
Re: (Score:3)
She pretty much called him out as a racist on the debate I saw.
I have no reason to doubt that was what you thought when you saw it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I get your points, but you don't make them well.
"her outright calling him a racist on stage"
but
"She didn't say the exact words, "you are a racist""
"stop reading that propaganda site"
but
Site shows video of Fox News.
He didn't care (Score:5, Interesting)
There's unlikely to be an issue with the black community. I didn't understand it myself until I read this [bluemassgroup.com].
As for Harris, a few months ago I would've said she had zero chance at the presidency and that she'd sink any campaign she was on. I based that on her record as prosecutor.
But now? Trump keeps dropping the ball again and again, screwing up his Corona Virus response while hammering crap issues like Statues. He's trying to attack Biden for being a tool of the "radical Bernie left" which is batshit crazy, Biden's a moderate Republican.
I think the people that put Trump in office either all left or are in Jail. Those were the guys that could've used Harris' record to drive a wedge in the black community. Without them Trump can't do Dickie McGeezaks. He'll keep floundering in the polls.
I also think Trump knows this. Frighteningly the poll statistic blog 538 has run articles on how Trump's cheating will effect the election. [fivethirtyeight.com] When even those guys acknowledge it we can no longer pretend it's not a thing. It's now something that is being considered in a statistician's models. That's fucked up, and the fact that Trump's party hasn't called it out is too.
This election won't be won by Harris, Biden, campaigning or anything else. It'll come down to whether Biden can secure voting rights for his constituents.
All other things not equal (Score:2, Insightful)
It's also incredibly doubtful that VP picks actually mean anything. They may cause a slight poll bounce due to the news cycle, but they basically have never actually moved the numbers.
Before invoking statistics to make a comparison you must always first consider if all other things are equal. In this case they are absolutely not. We are dealing with a candidate which may already be displaying signs of the onset of dementia. He already has staff leading him around by the arm and pulling him away from waiting reporters. He will be 78 when sworn in if he wins. Harris seems highly likely to replace him during his term, the 25th amendment or resignation a very real possibility unlike in more
Re: (Score:3)
[Trump] has always been like this, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago.
Not at all true. Trump has always been a narcissistic asshole, but if you go back and watch him in interviews from, say, the late 90's, he's at least able to string a sentence together. Nowadays he just simply cannot do that. There's no question he's in serious cognitive decline.
Re: (Score:3)
I wish Democrats would focus on protecting the second amendment for black people. In this country if you have a gun in your car even if licensed and you are stopped by cops and you are not white you have a high chance of being shot and/or arrested on trumped up charges like resisting arrest, forced to plea bargain and then have your right to own a gun taken away as a convicted felon. A good first step would be right to vote and right to own guns only be taken away for those convicted with a full trial not t
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is going to win 40 states.
If you don't care about tech why do you troll /. so much?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
B. I comment on Slashdot because it's news for nerds. You must have a very tiny world view if you think only people into tech are "nerds".
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Go read Donald Trump (Score:3)
Trump uses a rhetorical device called a Gish Gallop as well as a fair amount of charm & charisma to keep you from smelling his bullshit.
But if you read transcripts of him speaking then there's nothing left but the bare, real contents of Trump's mind. It's like staring into the mouth of madness.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>"Joe seems pretty sharp"
Seriously? I have seen way more than enough to believe not only that his mind has slipped, but is getting worse, and pretty quickly.
>" compared to Donald"
Trump says a lot of stupid things, but his mind isn't slipping away. If there actually is a live debate, this will be apparent, really quickly. I think the Biden campaign will now do anything they possibly can to prevent a live debate.
>"and I really doubt he made the choice by himself."
That is for sure.
Re:That about wraps it up for Joe's campaign. (Score:5, Insightful)
What have you seen? Biden's always had a stutter, so a lot of right wing media likes to put those together to make a montage of him, but he's clearly able to say what his policies are and answer questions.
Trump on the other hand just babbles nonsensically whether or not he's saying. Here's a quote from him yesterday in response to a question about whether he gives any pause children going to school:
No, because they may have, as you would call it a case and maybe a case, but it’s also a case where there’s a tiny, it’s a tiny fraction of death, tiny fraction, and they get better very quickly. Yeah, they may have it for a short period of time. But as you know, the seriousness of it in terms of what it leads to is extraordinarily small, very, very much less than one percent. Jonathan.
First of all, "a tiny fraction of death" is nonsense, but ignoring that, he just repeated the same thing several times.
Now I'll concede he might not actually be senile, he could just be a bad orator and pretty stupid.
Re:That about wraps it up for Joe's campaign. (Score:5, Informative)
Trump has always been a terrible speakers with a borderline illiterate vocabulary, but he's vastly worse now than 3 years ago, and don't forget that he had a health emergency not long ago that they covered up by claiming he was rushed to the hospital to perform part of a routine physical. It may be that he had a stroke. His public speaking has been a shit show since then.
I'll take a decade of Biden stutters over Yo! Semite! With Biden, the thought will get out eventually. With Trump, stupid is forever.
Re: (Score:3)
You should definitely vote for the true pro-diversity, Trump ticket then.
Re: (Score:3)
No. He should vote Green. After all, isn't that the right color for trolls?
Re:Joe Biden has named his 2020 VP: authoritariani (Score:5, Funny)
Joe didn't make any errors. Joe was just as excited to find out who he picked for VP as everyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm assuming the Democrats are supremely confident in their ability to win this election.
I found this article which is clearly in favor of the D ticket [nytimes.com]. Here's a key quote on that topic:
"No sooner had her selection leaked than several Democratic operatives emailed me to say, anxiously, 'I hope she’s better in the general election than she was in the primary!' She certainly flopped then, leaving the race even before the Iowa caucuses."
A lot of people (including me) are trying to understand why Biden chose her. She definitely has a skillset where she is strong and capable, but why Vice President?