Kamala Harris Election Campaign

[The Atheist]

Looks like I was wrong in predicting it would be too late to replace Biden.

Whereas I will bask in being right. I used the parallel of NZ Labour replacing an unpopular leader 4 months before the election and pulling off a stunning win as a result.

She will destroy MAGA as a political movement.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Whereas I will bask in being right. I used the parallel of NZ Labour replacing an unpopular leader 4 months before the election and pulling off a stunning win as a result.

She will destroy MAGA as a political movement.

From your mouth to the US electorate's ears.

PS slap on plenty of the factor 50. Don't want to get sunburn from basking.

 

[Planigale]

BBC article on how ordinary people contributing relatively small amounts have rapidly raised funds for her campaign. Much healthier than depending on a few wealthy doners.

In the past week - roughly 100 days from Election Day - her US presidential campaign has raised $200m (£155m) and signed up more than 170,000 new volunteers.

On 21 July, in a matter of hours after the US president announced he was dropping out and endorsing his deputy, the group of black female political organisers convened their Zoom call.

The four-hour conversation attracted 44,000 participants and raised $1.6m for Ms Harris. The original goal was $1m in 100 days.

A

nother giant video conference on Thursday, "White Women: Answer the Call", kept crashing as more than 160,000 people hopped aboard - the largest call in the history of Zoom, according to organisers.

Shannon Watts, a high-profile advocate for gun control and the call's lead organiser, wrote on Twitter/X that the group had raised $11m for Ms Harris.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp0843v200lo

 

[Norman Alexander]

For someone described as a "topless model", she sure keeps her insta pretty tame. It's mostly her knitting, which is superb, by the way.

I suspect she's being labelled as a "topless model" because once years ago she did a bit of a racy shoot. It's not really a fair label.

From the article provided previously:

Ms Emhoff, 25, has modelled topless at New York Fashion Week,

Clearly I am about to indulge in a little tu quoque, but what the heck...

Can anyone show us anything from the current Mrs Trump's photographic portfolio? Hmmm?

 

[catsmate]

Maybe this doesn't mean as much as I think.

But Holy crap!

Over 160,000 women join Kamala Harris on a Zoom call

https://youtu.be/vQuKIRC6N4E?si=TNeTUg6xRAWBq_Nu

Ah, Covid-19. Great strides in video-conferencing.

 

[catsmate]

If I had my way I'd make it mandatory for you to vote. And not because I hate you or because I think you're stupid (I don't), but because every citizen has a civic duty to participate in the democratic process.

Agreed.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

If I had my way, Election Day would be a holiday on par with Independence day, because on (actually, around) that day, the Founding Fathers said "we have made for you a republic, if you can keep it" and Election Day is how we keep it.

 

[I Am The Scum]

That has to be one of the most bizarre posts I've ever seen and I've seen some real doozies. If "it's legal for legislators to engage in insider trading," then that's not 'criminal' by its very definition. That doesn't make Harris a "career criminal" as you claim.

It is legal for anyone to breathe oxygen.
Therefore, everyone is a career criminal.

Perhaps some steps were skipped.

 

[ahhell]

That's a good reason. The idea that he would be carpet bagging is a stretch. He grew up in South Bend Indiana because his father was a professor there. He lived in New York, Boston and London. Also, Illinois might prove attractive. South Bend is almost a suburb of Chicago, 80 miles away.

As I said, he can pick anywhere. I'm not sure where he lives now. But if Harris is elected, he probably will probably get a high profile post in that administration.

BTW, Illinois makes

I don't think its a stretch to call it carpet bagging to run for office in a place you've got no real connection with. Still, the only reason I meantioned CA and NY is I think he could get elected in either one but not likely state wide in indiana. That's all really. I do think he's talented poll but mayor of a medium city and transportation secretary aren't exactly steppingstones to the presidency. I would be surprised if KH picks him as VP because it is a bit of a risk to pick a gay man and he doesn't otherwise bring any votes she's not going to get anyway.

What are the qualifications for POTUS?

35 and a natural born citizen of the United States.

Technically that but most folks have some set of qualifications they'd like to see. Executive experience is very common. Honestly, most folks in the US only have one qualification, D or R in front of someone's name.

 

[ahhell]

If I had my way I'd make it mandatory for you to vote. And not because I hate you or because I think you're stupid (I don't), but because every citizen has a civic duty to participate in the democratic process.

Sometimes a citizen has a duty not to vote. I've chosen not too an number of times. I never voted in local elections of my college town for instance. I was just not invested in the long term in that community.

So, mandatory voting, ok, but only if their is an option for abstain and/or none of the above.

 

[The Don]

Sometimes a citizen has a duty not to vote. I've chosen not too an number of times. I never voted in local elections of my college town for instance. I was just not invested in the long term in that community.

So, mandatory voting, ok, but only if their is an option for abstain and/or none of the above.

That's the case in the countries I'm aware of.....

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Sometimes a citizen has a duty not to vote. I've chosen not too an number of times. I never voted in local elections of my college town for instance. I was just not invested in the long term in that community.

So, mandatory voting, ok, but only if their is an option for abstain and/or none of the above.

In that case, the correct thing is to hand in a blank/invalid ballot, to just stay at home - otherwise you sell the message that you don't care either way.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't think its a stretch to call it carpet bagging to run for office in a place you've got no real connection with. Still, the only reason I meantioned CA and NY is I think he could get elected in either one but not likely state wide in indiana. That's all really. I do think he's talented poll but mayor of a medium city and transportation secretary aren't exactly steppingstones to the presidency. I would be surprised if KH picks him as VP because it is a bit of a risk to pick a gay man and he doesn't otherwise bring any votes she's not going to get anyway.

That would be reasonable if they also limited campaign contributions from that state or district. The idea behind regional or State representation is that you represent the interests of where you are running.

Technically that but most folks have some set of qualifications they'd like to see. Executive experience is very common. Honestly, most folks in the US only have one qualification, D or R in front of someone's name.

I'm with Thomas Jefferson on this. I want to eliminate political parties entirely.

 

[ahhell]

That would be reasonable if they also limited campaign contributions from that state or district. The idea behind regional or State representation is that you represent the interests of where you are running.


I'm with Thomas Jefferson on this. I want to eliminate political parties entirely.

Oddly, one of the mistakes of the founders is not accounting for parties enough. Parliamentary systems do better at that. Though, in an ideal world I agree, it would be better if they were not a thing.

 

[acbytesla]

Oddly, one of the mistakes of the founders is not accounting for parties enough. Parliamentary systems do better at that. Though, in an ideal world I agree, it would be better if they were not a thing.

Parties force a sort of unanimity across all issues. Less flexibility and compromise. Less ability to stand on conscience. I think they should be illegal. No group fundraising.

I really wish we could go back to 1789 and change a lot of things. I think a parliamentary unicaneral system would be preferable. I would do away with states entirely. The US needs wholesale changes in government. That said, I'm terrified about just how much they could and probably would screw it up.

 

[ahhell]

Parties force a sort of unanimity across all issues. Less flexibility and compromise. Less ability to stand on conscience. I think they should be illegal. No group fundraising.

I really wish we could go back to 1789 and change a lot of things. I think a parliamentary unicaneral system would be preferable. I would do away with states entirely. The US needs wholesale changes in government. That said, I'm terrified about just how much they could and probably would screw it up.

All bad ideas.

Successful parties force consensus not unanimity. You could make them illegal but they will exist in some form anyway, well unless you want to ban any sort of organization outside the government. If not political parties it would be various clubs or other forms of organization that fill that void. Getting rid of states would mean there would not be a united states, its like telling the Europeans to get rid of their individual countries or the Scots to get rid of Scotland. Aside from that, federalism is the only practical way a country the Size of the US could be a democracy. Sure, you could get rid of the states but then you'd end up in something more like the Soviet Union or China than a democracy. Honestly, the notion that the feds should be running everything is so crazy to me I can't imagine why anyone would think that was a good idea.

 

[The Atheist]

From your mouth to the US electorate's ears.

PS slap on plenty of the factor 50. Don't want to get sunburn from basking.

This is one occasion I hope to being able to continue basking until January 2025.

BBC article on how ordinary people contributing relatively small amounts have rapidly raised funds for her campaign. Much healthier than depending on a few wealthy doners.

Bingo!

It's going to just keep on building, too.

I've been conducting a little experiment at WSOP's poker site. I changed two of my account names to Trump2024! and Harris2024!

The odd person has asked to friend my Trump name, maybe half a dozen in the week since I changed it. Compare that to the 136 people who have friended my Harris handle.

After 8 years of senile old white men running the country it's almost like a sigh of relief from the electorate - finally someone worth voting for.


A
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp0843v200lo

 

[acbytesla]

All bad ideas.

Successful parties force consensus not unanimity. You could make them illegal but they will exist in some form anyway, well unless you want to ban any sort of organization outside the government. If not political parties it would be various clubs or other forms of organization that fill that void.

I beg to disagree. I agree with Democratic stances on most issues. And on some, I think the GOP or other positions are better. Having to support one issue should not mean I have to support the other.

Getting rid of states would mean there would not be a united states, its like telling the Europeans to get rid of their individual countries or the Scots to get rid of Scotland. Aside from that, federalism is the only practical way a country the Size of the US could be a democracy. Sure, you could get rid of the states but then you'd end up in something more like the Soviet Union or China than a democracy. Honestly, the notion that the feds should be running everything is so crazy to me I can't imagine why anyone would think that was a good idea.

I know it's radical since we are so accustomed to our present system. But our system is a remnant from what the Brits imposed on us plus the compromises made with the slave colonies. There is a part of me that almost thinks the wrong side won in the Revolutionary War.

The Great Compromise of the Constitutional Convention was and is a disaster. It baked in the cake a grossly undemocratic system. I get that federalism is a good governor on the feared tyranny of a central government. But it has also led to mass duplication of resources.
One personal pet peeve for me is dealing with fishing licenses. Let me buy a single fishing license. That's a major and expensive pain for me. I also don't like how corporations pit one state against anther seeing which state will cut their taxes or offer subsidies. It's another tactic used to move the tax burden to others.

 

[ahhell]

I beg to disagree. I agree with Democratic stances on most issues. And on some, I think the GOP or other positions are better. Having to support one issue should not mean I have to support the other.

Not sure how you can avoid that, unless you run for office yourself or have found a candidate that you agree with on all issues. At some point you, me, and everyone else has to vote for someone they disagree with on something. It also didn't use to be that American parties were so homogeneous either, so that's not even necessary consequence of parties. I mean there was a time when the Democrats had 90% of the black vote, 90% of the Catholic Vote, and 90% of the Jim Crow Vote. There were progressives in both parties at one point. Even up to the 80s the GOP had the NE banker types, western farmers, and the Jim Crow Vote. Anyrate, it doesn't really matter, there will be political parties. If you ban them some other organization will take their place, IDK, different racing teams fan groups might fill the void.

I know it's radical since we are so accustomed to our present system. But our system is a remnant from what the Brits imposed on us plus the compromises made with the slave colonies. There is a part of me that almost thinks the wrong side won in the Revolutionary War.

The Great Compromise of the Constitutional Convention was and is a disaster. It baked in the cake a grossly undemocratic system. I get that federalism is a good governor on the feared tyranny of a central government. But it has also led to mass duplication of resources.
One personal pet peeve for me is dealing with fishing licenses. Let me buy a single fishing license. That's a major and expensive pain for me. I also don't like how corporations pit one state against anther seeing which state will cut their taxes or offer subsidies. It's another tactic used to move the tax burden to others.

Also doesn't really matter, federalism was the only way there would be US. its a way that is almost always chosen when initially independent states join together to form a political union. Switzerland, Germany, the US, Canada, Australia, Austria......the list goes on.

I have my doubts about the efficiency of running fishing licenses through the feds as well. A mean, the feds duplicate their on efforts often enough. Your anti-federalism is also an argument against county and city governments. Should get rid of those and just have them run by the feds for efficiency's sake?

The great compromise was just a compromise in who states would represented at the federal level, the federalism was already a given at that point.

 

[theprestige]

Oddly, one of the mistakes of the founders is not accounting for parties enough. Parliamentary systems do better at that. Though, in an ideal world I agree, it would be better if they were not a thing.

Political parties are right up there with money and police, on my list of things that if we didn't have them the first thing we'd do is invent them.