Did Kamala have to share the stage with a faith healer, an anti-vaxxer, a “doctor” who claims drinking bleach water will cure cancer, or whatever woo woo loon/grifter that tickled Oprah’s credulity this week?
As a civil rights trial lawyer, I see Kamala Harris exhibiting true compassion and empathy for these women. I have cried sincere tears giving closing arguments to a jury, so I know what that's like.
I also see a Kamala Harris as someone who has the ability to set emotion aside in order to get the very best result possible. These are not inconsistent. Just as a surgeon who cares deeply for your wellbeing will cut you open, so will Kamala do what is lawful and necessary to heal the rot that has infected us.
Bit disappointed about the gun thing…I am 100% fuck all private gun ownership. But I acknowledge that it’s a demographic which it can’t hurt to cater to, as long as it’s a strong message of strong controls on gun ownership. Liability insurance requirements alone would solve SO many issues.
Lots of rural people have guns for good reasons, like putting meat on the table, keeping the coyotes out of the chicken yard, dealing with a pack of dogs that are running the horses.
Gun ownership is not the problem. It's mundane stuff like licensing, insurance, training, and also harder stuff to tackle like a culture that thinks wearing your gun to Walmart is a reasonable and even cool thing to do. Stopping a sizable segment of the population from being braindead assholes is a difficult hill to climb.
I agree that there are perfectly good reasons to own a gun. But the people who have those perfectly good reasons are a microscopic fraction of the people who own guns. What we need to change is the perception that ownership is a right, when it should be a jealousy guarded privilege. After, as you say, people demonstrate their suitability via their willingness to comply with training, licensing, registering, insuring, and etc.
Her response about having a gun probably got her some votes. I'm very anti-gun but I can live with her statement for the common good. Desperate times and all....
Totally fair. I'm fairly anti-gun, but over the years I've noticed that gun ownership isn't inherently problematic. It's the gun fetishization we need to get away from.
Can you imagine the threats Harris must get? I disagree with the efficacy of using home firearms for protection, but I can sure see where she's coming from.
Thing is, putting aside the real-life statistics on having guns in the home - it's probably where most Americans stand. That they want guns for home protection but don't think the general public should have assault weapons.
I'd personally melt down every damn gun in the country if I could (aside from the military), but getting the assault weapons ban back in place is the most important thing. And if she makes that look like the "reasonable" position by being a gun owner who would shoot an intruder with her, I dunno, Glock, then more power to her.
Not surprised she is armed. Every CA prosecutor I know regardless of politics, especially those involved with gangs and violent crime, has a concealed carry permit.
One of my brother’s college friends is now in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, prosecuting mainly financial crimes. There’s still enough Mafia activity in NYC that a lot of those white collar guys also do concealed carry.
She also said anyone breaking into her house is "getting shot". She went on to talk about weapons of war and such and I a lowly and lonely Dem in a sorry ass (R) state, approve of this message. There is a stark difference between personal protection and national defense! Soldiers know this, police know this, and anyone who will admit the truth knows this... but Democratic leaders need to say it out loud.
A very good previous top cop and America's dad are the perfect people to possibly turn around a LOT of old (R) fear tactics... if it's not already too late for it.
right, that hippocratic oath and all...I say this often but I don't know why the AMA etc are not more involved with this anit-women's reproductive rights movement. It flies in the face of everything they stand for and they're a powerful group.
It was a remarkable event; remarkable television; remarkable politics.
Remarkable because it worked --
• Because the event was real, authentic -- not some pretended non-event, like a claimed "press conference"
• Because the box of lights and wires that is a TV, during that event, lived up to Edward R.Murrow's admonition that "this instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and even it can inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends."*
• Remarkable politics because of the foregoing combined, and because like FDR's fireside chats**, it allowed a leader to leapfrog over the news media gatekeepers and speak directly to the people. Remarkable because while these mass communication tools have existed for decades (and have only grown cheaper, more widespread and more powerful) no candidate until Harris has used them so effectively and with such moral purpose.
I haven't read the article yet, but I just had to comment, because it moved me so much: look at the way people are looking at Kamala, the expressions on their faces*. I'm actually crying. It's been so long since half this country was united for something more than just going against (Trump, billionaires, corrupt SCOTUS, abortion, police brutality, class warfare, etc.).
My heart feels so full right now.
*Everyone's expressions except for that one man who looks plain dumbfounded, lol.
So yes, please, Harris campaign, let’s have more events like this where Kamala can speak directly to Americans, even if it’s not the New York Times. It was incredibly compelling television.
Yes indeed - more of this - and not the Dotard either (we don't need another 'debate')
Did Kamala have to share the stage with a faith healer, an anti-vaxxer, a “doctor” who claims drinking bleach water will cure cancer, or whatever woo woo loon/grifter that tickled Oprah’s credulity this week?
As a civil rights trial lawyer, I see Kamala Harris exhibiting true compassion and empathy for these women. I have cried sincere tears giving closing arguments to a jury, so I know what that's like.
I also see a Kamala Harris as someone who has the ability to set emotion aside in order to get the very best result possible. These are not inconsistent. Just as a surgeon who cares deeply for your wellbeing will cut you open, so will Kamala do what is lawful and necessary to heal the rot that has infected us.
Harris/Walz 2024.
Ta, Dok. Oprah Winfrey bores me to tears, but I'm glad to have her on our side.
With people like Oprah on “our side” who needs Republicans?
Bit disappointed about the gun thing…I am 100% fuck all private gun ownership. But I acknowledge that it’s a demographic which it can’t hurt to cater to, as long as it’s a strong message of strong controls on gun ownership. Liability insurance requirements alone would solve SO many issues.
Lots of rural people have guns for good reasons, like putting meat on the table, keeping the coyotes out of the chicken yard, dealing with a pack of dogs that are running the horses.
Gun ownership is not the problem. It's mundane stuff like licensing, insurance, training, and also harder stuff to tackle like a culture that thinks wearing your gun to Walmart is a reasonable and even cool thing to do. Stopping a sizable segment of the population from being braindead assholes is a difficult hill to climb.
I agree that there are perfectly good reasons to own a gun. But the people who have those perfectly good reasons are a microscopic fraction of the people who own guns. What we need to change is the perception that ownership is a right, when it should be a jealousy guarded privilege. After, as you say, people demonstrate their suitability via their willingness to comply with training, licensing, registering, insuring, and etc.
Did anyone notice in MVP's expression during the story of the murder of Amber Thurman... yes, empathy... but also... ANGER. Righteous F**king Anger.
We need to feel anger at atrocities like this. And then take action.
And you know a righteously angry MVP will go medieval on this. I am here for it. And her.
Anger motivates many lawyers who work to benefit victims.
Her response about having a gun probably got her some votes. I'm very anti-gun but I can live with her statement for the common good. Desperate times and all....
Totally fair. I'm fairly anti-gun, but over the years I've noticed that gun ownership isn't inherently problematic. It's the gun fetishization we need to get away from.
Can you imagine the threats Harris must get? I disagree with the efficacy of using home firearms for protection, but I can sure see where she's coming from.
Thing is, putting aside the real-life statistics on having guns in the home - it's probably where most Americans stand. That they want guns for home protection but don't think the general public should have assault weapons.
I'd personally melt down every damn gun in the country if I could (aside from the military), but getting the assault weapons ban back in place is the most important thing. And if she makes that look like the "reasonable" position by being a gun owner who would shoot an intruder with her, I dunno, Glock, then more power to her.
Not surprised she is armed. Every CA prosecutor I know regardless of politics, especially those involved with gangs and violent crime, has a concealed carry permit.
One of my brother’s college friends is now in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, prosecuting mainly financial crimes. There’s still enough Mafia activity in NYC that a lot of those white collar guys also do concealed carry.
She also said anyone breaking into her house is "getting shot". She went on to talk about weapons of war and such and I a lowly and lonely Dem in a sorry ass (R) state, approve of this message. There is a stark difference between personal protection and national defense! Soldiers know this, police know this, and anyone who will admit the truth knows this... but Democratic leaders need to say it out loud.
A very good previous top cop and America's dad are the perfect people to possibly turn around a LOT of old (R) fear tactics... if it's not already too late for it.
It's why MPs usually carry a .45 rather than an M4A1.
I'm one of those weirdos who think doctors should be prosecuted for NOT providing life-saving care.
right, that hippocratic oath and all...I say this often but I don't know why the AMA etc are not more involved with this anit-women's reproductive rights movement. It flies in the face of everything they stand for and they're a powerful group.
Republicans swear the Hypocritic Oath. Abortions for me, none for thee.
YES, this!
I have a hard time imagining seeing a patient in that situation and refusing care.
It's easy from my position(health care provider in a very blue state) to judge them for letting her suffer and die.
This is hard, hard news for the Misogynist/Racist demographic.
also really hard for women
It was a remarkable event; remarkable television; remarkable politics.
Remarkable because it worked --
• Because the event was real, authentic -- not some pretended non-event, like a claimed "press conference"
• Because the box of lights and wires that is a TV, during that event, lived up to Edward R.Murrow's admonition that "this instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and even it can inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends."*
• Remarkable politics because of the foregoing combined, and because like FDR's fireside chats**, it allowed a leader to leapfrog over the news media gatekeepers and speak directly to the people. Remarkable because while these mass communication tools have existed for decades (and have only grown cheaper, more widespread and more powerful) no candidate until Harris has used them so effectively and with such moral purpose.
____
Sources:
* Edward R. Murrow's October 15, 1958 speech to the Radio-Television News Directors Association, https://www.rtdna.org/murrows-famous-wires-and-lights-in-a-box
* The Eleven Fireside Chats of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, broadcast May 12, 1933 to June 12, 1944, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/presidential-documents-archive-guidebook/fireside-chats-f-roosevelt
Not enough upfists in the world! Yes.
Great comment.
To testify to the impact of Amber's death is to relive that impact. Peace and blessings to her family, especially her mother.
Peace and Blessing.
I haven't read the article yet, but I just had to comment, because it moved me so much: look at the way people are looking at Kamala, the expressions on their faces*. I'm actually crying. It's been so long since half this country was united for something more than just going against (Trump, billionaires, corrupt SCOTUS, abortion, police brutality, class warfare, etc.).
My heart feels so full right now.
*Everyone's expressions except for that one man who looks plain dumbfounded, lol.
Kamala should continue to ignore the NYT just to piss them off. They helped elect Dump and want him back.
So yes, please, Harris campaign, let’s have more events like this where Kamala can speak directly to Americans, even if it’s not the New York Times. It was incredibly compelling television.
Yes indeed - more of this - and not the Dotard either (we don't need another 'debate')
She shines in Town Halls.
Nikki Haley's Iowa campaign co-chair endorses Kamala Harris
https://www.rawstory.com/kamala-harris-2024-republican-endorsements/?utm_source=push_notifications
Into my veins.
This pleases me considerably more than I'd anticipated it might.
Meanwhile Haley still thinks she has a future in the GOP.
Nimarata Randhawa still thinks she has a future, period. Even funnier.