Well, for starters, she is more than willing to sacrifice the public policy aspirations of working people for that of political expediency as a means of enhancing her political career. See her advocacy for Medicare for All during the early stages of her 2020 campaign: strong endorsement, then tepid support, finally opposition based on the gutless rationalization of pragmatic incrementalism and ‘realism’. Think Hillary Clinton 2.0.
One more time. The political parties of our duopoly are not the same, except when they are. And when they are, for instance, in terms of corporate fealty, pandering to their respective bases, ignoring democratic principles (have you been keeping up with Democratic Party efforts to keep third party candidates off the ballot?), and acquiescing to the political constraints of an utterly corrupted political system, they are both, yes, despicable.
Tom, as a favor to me, and perhaps others, could you list the reasons you will be voting for Trump. Thank you. Your answer will help me to better understand your thinking.
For what it's worth, I will tell you why I will vote for the Democratic candidate. I subscribe to the theory of government enunciated by Frances Perkins, FDR's Sec. of Labor responsible for the New Deal programs:
"The people are what matter to government, and a government should aim to provide the means by which all the people under its jurisdiction can access the best possible life."
Good grief. Why is it that liberals are so quick to respond to Democratic Party critique by assuming that the critic will be voting for Trump? It’s as absurd as responding to critique of the U.S. role in the proxy war in Ukraine by assuming the critic is a supporter of Putin.
One more time. I despise Trump, and did long before he ever entered the political arena. I would never vote for him, just like I’ve never voted for any other GOP candidate. As to why people would vote for him, I can completely understand that. He has tapped in to two populist threads, and despite not caring about either, he has used them to augment the racist, Christian (fascist) Nationalist majority of his base. The first issue is the continuing war on the middle class and working people by the political establishments of both parties. The second is the power wielded by intelligence agencies and America’s continuing proclivity of involvement in endless war.
Admire Frances Perkins. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has abandoned the tenets of her theory, since Reagan, in favor of fealty to monied interest donors, the people be damned. It sat on the laurels of association with the New Deal, and instead of aggressively pursuing FDR’s Second Bill of Rights, adopted a strategic defensive posture to increasing GOP advances by courting Wall Street and Silicon Valley to win elections, and again, the people be damned.
I will be voting for a third party candidate for POTUS, as neither party in our current duopoly is worthy of my vote, imo. Both place donor interests ahead of working people, neither support a single-payer health care system, both support endless war, and both, currently, are complicit in the most horrific genocide of my lifetime.
Your last paragraph is totally true, Tom, but voting for a third party candidate gives you a sense of honor and defiance. You are also wasting a vote and a vote in the next election is a precious thing. Please reconsider and choose the lesser of your 2 evils.
No, voting for a candidate that most aligns with the policy agenda that
I think would be best for the country is an expression of democracy. I don’t give a damn about honor or defiance; your Dr. Phil armchair analysis is laughable.
Get off of your sanctimonious high horse about wasting a vote. It’s a repulsive, anti-democracy mindset, especially coming from one purporting to having a desire to ‘save’ democracy.
No, sorry. Sanctimonious high horse people don’t accuse others of wasting their vote, so that can’t be me. Happy New Year to you as well. It’s going to be an interesting year, that’s a given.
Tom, respectfully, you are bright enough to know that it is possible to waste a vote and in fact, to do more damage than good. Frankly, it's a simple process involving the lesser of two evils. Throwing away a vote could get you the worst, such as in 2000 when Ralph Nader's candidacy cost Al Gore the win in Florida, giving the presidency to Bush. Look at the disaster that followed: Iraq and the near depression that resulted.
No. No. A thousand times no. What cost the Dems were…. wait for it, registered Democratic voters who voted for Bush, in a vote total that dwarfed Nader’s numbers.
If Gore wins Tennessee, his home state, he wins the election. If he doesn’t put Clinton in the closet because of Monica, he probably wins. If he doesn’t pick a Republican as a running mate, he probably wins. If his assembled team in Florida contesting the election result cared about winning the messaging war as much as the GOP suits/thugs did, he probably wins. And if he spoke truths about the illegitimacy of the SCOTUS decision post-Bush inauguration, he probably kills Dubya’s second term, though Kerry’s clueless response to being Swift Boated might still have carried the day to another Dem loss they had no business losing.
One more time; lesser evil voting by Democrats is what brought us Trump. Dems need to start thinking long term, instead of focusing narrowly on the next election cycle. The ratchet effect is real, and has shifted the political landscape/Overton Window to the right since Reagan, election by election, regardless of whether Democrats happen to win, or hold Congress.
Respectfully, every vote cast for a Democratic candidate for President since Mondale has been a wasted vote, because every Democratic candidate who has won has betrayed FDR’s vision of a Party aligned with a working class base, and made it more likely to alienate voters who used to identify as Democrats, by caring more about donors than working people. And as long as we’re talking wasted votes, anyone who didn’t vote for Sanders in the Dem primaries in ‘16-20 wasted their vote, because they voted for incremental pragmatism in the face of economic and climate catastrophe, either out of fear or cowardice.
Tom, without a doubt, one must choose one's fights carefully, just as one must cast one's votes wisely. The obvious normally only comes into focus until after the fact.
A third party candidate in 2016 gave the election to the despicable. That was Jill Stein, and she's on her ego-trip again to try to ruin this country. (I don't disagree with many f her positions. But she should not be a third party candidate.) Also, and I know there were other elections as well in the past, the 2000 election went to Bush because of Nader's third party candidacy. So, if you must, hold your nose, but vote for democracy and the Democratic candidate. Do you really want to see this country fall under a narcissistic autocrat who doesn't care about the Constitution and will ruin everything our founding fathers (and most of the readers here) wanted? Look at the reality of the situation. For better or worse, as of now, we're a two-party country. One of the two candidates will win. A third party has no chance of winning--only subverting the process. So, keep voicing your opinions on issues that are important to you, but vote sensibly. Help save our country!
Sorry, Herb. We’re in the position we’re in today because Democrats can’t renounce their corporate donor fealty, and do right by the working class and the poor, and it turns millions of voters off.
I already debunked the Nader fallacy to Richard above. As to Stein, do you know why Clinton lost Michigan? It wasn’t because of Stein; her vote totals were exceeded by the number of ballots, many of them around Flint, in which voters had marked a preference for Democrats in every race on the ballot but the one for POTUS. They left that one blank. Why? Because instead of aggressively going after the corporations shilling for the GOP governor who allowed the water crisis to unfold, Obama actually showed up and told the people in the area the water was safe to drink. It still wasn’t. When you betray people, they usually remember.
I will not vote for a hold your nose party, nor candidate. That’s a ridiculous strategy to save a democracy, which we don’t currently have, btw. In case you haven’t noticed, we live in an inverted, totalitarian corporate state, which both parties, and their voters, have been complicit in creating. I will vote for the candidate who most aligns with the policy Rx I believe will best address the pressing issues we face as a nation. Would it be that most Americans voted that way, instead of holding their noses.
How do you figure it, Jenny? Biden wanted to forgive $1.6 trillion of student debt owed by 40,000,000 Americans. Trump and the Republicans, by contrast, gave a $2,000,000,000,000 (two trillion) tax break to a vastly smaller number of wealthy individuals and corporations. Biden's plan would have given a huge boost to the economy, which is now growing better than all the other nations in the world.
"The people are what matter to government, and a government should aim to provide the means by which all the people under its jurisdiction can access the best possible life."
Parties have flaws but the Republicans emphasis on making the country great by saving white supremacy, ignoring climate change, controlling women and in general oppressing people who they deem different means there are not “fine people on both sides”.
No argument the GOP is worse. But that’s a mighty low bar.
Race - The Democratic Party refuses to support a commission to even study reparations much less support the concept itself. It reneged on a promise to retire student debt for HBCU grads.
Climate - The Dems refuse to support the ‘leave it in the ground’ strategy, coupled with the renewables moon shot agenda necessary to seriously address the issue.
Women - Which party was it in ‘08-10 that controlled Congress and the White House and refused to legislatively codify Roe when it had the chance?
If the advocates of the Democratic Party would put half the energy they use demonizing the GOP and its supporters into pressuring their own elected officials to do the right thing for working people and the poor instead of bending over to corporate donors, we might put an end to the election ratchet effect that ensures governmental dysfunction.
Sorry but the racism and violence that Republicans proudly promote trump (pun intended) the Democrats' reticence to deal with racism. Racism goes way beyond student debt and reparations. It's an everyday existential threat to people of color-especially Black folks who've had to endure the impact of America's choice to practice racism for centuries.
Once again, imho there are not fine people on both sides.
So some people are fine, and others are deplorable. Gotcha. And so we get lesser evil voting. Gotcha. Which does occur on both sides, because while your side is fine, the other side thinks they are fine, and you are deplorable. So they lesser evil vote, too. And both parties are owned by donors, so between the ownership and the lesser evil voting, nothing gets fixed.
Yes, racism goes beyond reparations and student debt. But racism can’t be decoupled from economic class warfare in the U.S., because that is what created our American racism. If it is the existential threat you suggest, then why won’t Democrats address the economic class issue (thank you, capitalism) in a meaningful way?
I’ll answer the question - they won’t because their donors pay them not to.
Trump garnered more votes from people of color in ‘20 than he did in ‘16. Early polling suggests he will top that in ‘24 if it is a Biden-Trump contest. The existential threat messaging needs work it seems.
I do agree with a lot of what you say and have been holding my nose for over decades and vote blue but ...................... I still will. I voted for Nader in 2000 and even held an event to promote him. I don't regret my vote for him out here in Oregon as the repugs were bound and determined to get GWB in there with the help of Florida politicians and brotherly corruption.
They are both American women who are of Indian descent. Also, both are intelligent and accomplished and ambitious and politically shrewd and have very good smiles. It's been decades since I was referred to as an Irishman.
I don't want to speculate. Kamala's mother is of Indian descent and her father is Jamaican. Both of her parents are highly educated her father being a professor of economics at Stanford.
Both of Nikki's parents are Indian.
With that in mind, I was just wondering what you were implying with your comment? I have worked for and with over 300 Indians since 1995. One of my best friends when I lived in CA was from India and he was an electrical engineer who worked for Intel. The Indians I worked with in the 1990's had good technical skills, but most of them were hard to understand and weren't very familiar with American customs, culture and even holidays. That has certainly changed over the years. It's rare that I have trouble understanding any of the Indians I work with, even if they have never been to the US. The Indian consulting firms make a point of having their consultants only speak English which is a really good thing since my attempts at Hindi, well, they suck.
One of the young Indian consultants attempted to teach me some Hindi phrases. I was so bad at it that he and the other Indians laughed uncontrollably.
Unfortunately, Kamala is as despicable as Haley and just as ambitious.
O rly?
Do tell the rest of the class what makes VP Harris so despicable. Be prepared to show your work.
Well, for starters, she is more than willing to sacrifice the public policy aspirations of working people for that of political expediency as a means of enhancing her political career. See her advocacy for Medicare for All during the early stages of her 2020 campaign: strong endorsement, then tepid support, finally opposition based on the gutless rationalization of pragmatic incrementalism and ‘realism’. Think Hillary Clinton 2.0.
One more time. The political parties of our duopoly are not the same, except when they are. And when they are, for instance, in terms of corporate fealty, pandering to their respective bases, ignoring democratic principles (have you been keeping up with Democratic Party efforts to keep third party candidates off the ballot?), and acquiescing to the political constraints of an utterly corrupted political system, they are both, yes, despicable.
Tom, as a favor to me, and perhaps others, could you list the reasons you will be voting for Trump. Thank you. Your answer will help me to better understand your thinking.
For what it's worth, I will tell you why I will vote for the Democratic candidate. I subscribe to the theory of government enunciated by Frances Perkins, FDR's Sec. of Labor responsible for the New Deal programs:
"The people are what matter to government, and a government should aim to provide the means by which all the people under its jurisdiction can access the best possible life."
Good grief. Why is it that liberals are so quick to respond to Democratic Party critique by assuming that the critic will be voting for Trump? It’s as absurd as responding to critique of the U.S. role in the proxy war in Ukraine by assuming the critic is a supporter of Putin.
One more time. I despise Trump, and did long before he ever entered the political arena. I would never vote for him, just like I’ve never voted for any other GOP candidate. As to why people would vote for him, I can completely understand that. He has tapped in to two populist threads, and despite not caring about either, he has used them to augment the racist, Christian (fascist) Nationalist majority of his base. The first issue is the continuing war on the middle class and working people by the political establishments of both parties. The second is the power wielded by intelligence agencies and America’s continuing proclivity of involvement in endless war.
Admire Frances Perkins. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has abandoned the tenets of her theory, since Reagan, in favor of fealty to monied interest donors, the people be damned. It sat on the laurels of association with the New Deal, and instead of aggressively pursuing FDR’s Second Bill of Rights, adopted a strategic defensive posture to increasing GOP advances by courting Wall Street and Silicon Valley to win elections, and again, the people be damned.
I will be voting for a third party candidate for POTUS, as neither party in our current duopoly is worthy of my vote, imo. Both place donor interests ahead of working people, neither support a single-payer health care system, both support endless war, and both, currently, are complicit in the most horrific genocide of my lifetime.
Your last paragraph is totally true, Tom, but voting for a third party candidate gives you a sense of honor and defiance. You are also wasting a vote and a vote in the next election is a precious thing. Please reconsider and choose the lesser of your 2 evils.
No, voting for a candidate that most aligns with the policy agenda that
I think would be best for the country is an expression of democracy. I don’t give a damn about honor or defiance; your Dr. Phil armchair analysis is laughable.
Get off of your sanctimonious high horse about wasting a vote. It’s a repulsive, anti-democracy mindset, especially coming from one purporting to having a desire to ‘save’ democracy.
If anyone is on a” sanctimonious high horse” it’s you. Happy New Year.
No, sorry. Sanctimonious high horse people don’t accuse others of wasting their vote, so that can’t be me. Happy New Year to you as well. It’s going to be an interesting year, that’s a given.
Tom, respectfully, you are bright enough to know that it is possible to waste a vote and in fact, to do more damage than good. Frankly, it's a simple process involving the lesser of two evils. Throwing away a vote could get you the worst, such as in 2000 when Ralph Nader's candidacy cost Al Gore the win in Florida, giving the presidency to Bush. Look at the disaster that followed: Iraq and the near depression that resulted.
No. No. A thousand times no. What cost the Dems were…. wait for it, registered Democratic voters who voted for Bush, in a vote total that dwarfed Nader’s numbers.
If Gore wins Tennessee, his home state, he wins the election. If he doesn’t put Clinton in the closet because of Monica, he probably wins. If he doesn’t pick a Republican as a running mate, he probably wins. If his assembled team in Florida contesting the election result cared about winning the messaging war as much as the GOP suits/thugs did, he probably wins. And if he spoke truths about the illegitimacy of the SCOTUS decision post-Bush inauguration, he probably kills Dubya’s second term, though Kerry’s clueless response to being Swift Boated might still have carried the day to another Dem loss they had no business losing.
One more time; lesser evil voting by Democrats is what brought us Trump. Dems need to start thinking long term, instead of focusing narrowly on the next election cycle. The ratchet effect is real, and has shifted the political landscape/Overton Window to the right since Reagan, election by election, regardless of whether Democrats happen to win, or hold Congress.
Respectfully, every vote cast for a Democratic candidate for President since Mondale has been a wasted vote, because every Democratic candidate who has won has betrayed FDR’s vision of a Party aligned with a working class base, and made it more likely to alienate voters who used to identify as Democrats, by caring more about donors than working people. And as long as we’re talking wasted votes, anyone who didn’t vote for Sanders in the Dem primaries in ‘16-20 wasted their vote, because they voted for incremental pragmatism in the face of economic and climate catastrophe, either out of fear or cowardice.
How do like them wasted vote apples?
Tom, without a doubt, one must choose one's fights carefully, just as one must cast one's votes wisely. The obvious normally only comes into focus until after the fact.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Same to you, my brother! It sure portends to be one of the more interesting ones in my 71 years on this earth.
…perfection is the enemy of the good…
Cliche much?
A third party candidate in 2016 gave the election to the despicable. That was Jill Stein, and she's on her ego-trip again to try to ruin this country. (I don't disagree with many f her positions. But she should not be a third party candidate.) Also, and I know there were other elections as well in the past, the 2000 election went to Bush because of Nader's third party candidacy. So, if you must, hold your nose, but vote for democracy and the Democratic candidate. Do you really want to see this country fall under a narcissistic autocrat who doesn't care about the Constitution and will ruin everything our founding fathers (and most of the readers here) wanted? Look at the reality of the situation. For better or worse, as of now, we're a two-party country. One of the two candidates will win. A third party has no chance of winning--only subverting the process. So, keep voicing your opinions on issues that are important to you, but vote sensibly. Help save our country!
Sorry, Herb. We’re in the position we’re in today because Democrats can’t renounce their corporate donor fealty, and do right by the working class and the poor, and it turns millions of voters off.
I already debunked the Nader fallacy to Richard above. As to Stein, do you know why Clinton lost Michigan? It wasn’t because of Stein; her vote totals were exceeded by the number of ballots, many of them around Flint, in which voters had marked a preference for Democrats in every race on the ballot but the one for POTUS. They left that one blank. Why? Because instead of aggressively going after the corporations shilling for the GOP governor who allowed the water crisis to unfold, Obama actually showed up and told the people in the area the water was safe to drink. It still wasn’t. When you betray people, they usually remember.
I will not vote for a hold your nose party, nor candidate. That’s a ridiculous strategy to save a democracy, which we don’t currently have, btw. In case you haven’t noticed, we live in an inverted, totalitarian corporate state, which both parties, and their voters, have been complicit in creating. I will vote for the candidate who most aligns with the policy Rx I believe will best address the pressing issues we face as a nation. Would it be that most Americans voted that way, instead of holding their noses.
Well said.
Neither party deserves to win in my opinion. Two parties owned by money! This is Democracy?
How do you figure it, Jenny? Biden wanted to forgive $1.6 trillion of student debt owed by 40,000,000 Americans. Trump and the Republicans, by contrast, gave a $2,000,000,000,000 (two trillion) tax break to a vastly smaller number of wealthy individuals and corporations. Biden's plan would have given a huge boost to the economy, which is now growing better than all the other nations in the world.
Bears repeating! Amen for mentioning Richard.
"The people are what matter to government, and a government should aim to provide the means by which all the people under its jurisdiction can access the best possible life."
I agree our political
Parties have flaws but the Republicans emphasis on making the country great by saving white supremacy, ignoring climate change, controlling women and in general oppressing people who they deem different means there are not “fine people on both sides”.
No argument the GOP is worse. But that’s a mighty low bar.
Race - The Democratic Party refuses to support a commission to even study reparations much less support the concept itself. It reneged on a promise to retire student debt for HBCU grads.
Climate - The Dems refuse to support the ‘leave it in the ground’ strategy, coupled with the renewables moon shot agenda necessary to seriously address the issue.
Women - Which party was it in ‘08-10 that controlled Congress and the White House and refused to legislatively codify Roe when it had the chance?
If the advocates of the Democratic Party would put half the energy they use demonizing the GOP and its supporters into pressuring their own elected officials to do the right thing for working people and the poor instead of bending over to corporate donors, we might put an end to the election ratchet effect that ensures governmental dysfunction.
Sorry but the racism and violence that Republicans proudly promote trump (pun intended) the Democrats' reticence to deal with racism. Racism goes way beyond student debt and reparations. It's an everyday existential threat to people of color-especially Black folks who've had to endure the impact of America's choice to practice racism for centuries.
Once again, imho there are not fine people on both sides.
So some people are fine, and others are deplorable. Gotcha. And so we get lesser evil voting. Gotcha. Which does occur on both sides, because while your side is fine, the other side thinks they are fine, and you are deplorable. So they lesser evil vote, too. And both parties are owned by donors, so between the ownership and the lesser evil voting, nothing gets fixed.
Yes, racism goes beyond reparations and student debt. But racism can’t be decoupled from economic class warfare in the U.S., because that is what created our American racism. If it is the existential threat you suggest, then why won’t Democrats address the economic class issue (thank you, capitalism) in a meaningful way?
I’ll answer the question - they won’t because their donors pay them not to.
Trump garnered more votes from people of color in ‘20 than he did in ‘16. Early polling suggests he will top that in ‘24 if it is a Biden-Trump contest. The existential threat messaging needs work it seems.
I do agree with a lot of what you say and have been holding my nose for over decades and vote blue but ...................... I still will. I voted for Nader in 2000 and even held an event to promote him. I don't regret my vote for him out here in Oregon as the repugs were bound and determined to get GWB in there with the help of Florida politicians and brotherly corruption.
Totally understand, and recognize your right to make your own choice in the voting booth. That’s one facet of democracy.
That said, your over decades remark made me smile, and gave me another moniker for Democratic Party other than Team Blue; the Hold Your Nose Party.
Illustrative of the current landscape within the duopoly.
Brava!
I take it “ambitious” is a slur when applied to women. Your misogyny is glaring.
Lordy, is there another Kamala around. I haven’t met her? But misogynists abound
You evidently don't like Indian women.
Huh? You do realize they Kamala and Nikki are both "Indian" women.
Were you not aware?
They are both American women who are of Indian descent. Also, both are intelligent and accomplished and ambitious and politically shrewd and have very good smiles. It's been decades since I was referred to as an Irishman.
Why do you think I made that remark? N.B. Please don't answer, unless you want to have a sensible non-aggressive discussion.
I don't want to speculate. Kamala's mother is of Indian descent and her father is Jamaican. Both of her parents are highly educated her father being a professor of economics at Stanford.
Both of Nikki's parents are Indian.
With that in mind, I was just wondering what you were implying with your comment? I have worked for and with over 300 Indians since 1995. One of my best friends when I lived in CA was from India and he was an electrical engineer who worked for Intel. The Indians I worked with in the 1990's had good technical skills, but most of them were hard to understand and weren't very familiar with American customs, culture and even holidays. That has certainly changed over the years. It's rare that I have trouble understanding any of the Indians I work with, even if they have never been to the US. The Indian consulting firms make a point of having their consultants only speak English which is a really good thing since my attempts at Hindi, well, they suck.
One of the young Indian consultants attempted to teach me some Hindi phrases. I was so bad at it that he and the other Indians laughed uncontrollably.
Anyway, so why did you make your remark?