Kamala Harris started out with a surge of popularity. Talking about corporate price gouging and selecting Tim Walz as her running mate who had clear populist messaging.
Then the strategists who think like you got in her ear. Told her to stop attacking corporations to protect donations. Had her campaign with Cheney and talk about shooting home invaders. Then of course she refused to take a strong stand on the genocide in Gaza.
Her momentum faded and she lost. In the aftermath some braindead analysts tried to blame words like Latinx and transgender rights.
She didn't campaign on that shit. She campaigned as Republican lite and it fucked her.
The fascists aren't going to rewards you with good environmental policy just because you throw trans people under the bus. They'll just demand another sacrifice. Meanwhile gender affirming surgery on minors is so fleetingly rare that it basically only exists in right wing propaganda and here you are repeating it like it's a valid concern.
The funny thing is I don't think Kamala needed to be woke to win. She just needed to adopt policies the base liked.
Had she not campaigned towards conservative voters, I think she could have won. Really strong campaign positions like medicare for all or taxing the rich have pretty broad appeal. Heck, she even could have campaigned on abortion access and rights and that would have been pretty decent. She didn't need to touch or address immigration. And her "no tax on tips, me too" thing was just embarrassing.
Gaza was a major issue, and a major misstep of hers was to say that none of her policies would be different from Biden's. Even if that were true, she had a whole lot of popular policies and positions from Biden's cabinet she could have ran on (like breaking up monopolies).
She ditched all of that to run like you said and it absolutely crushed the giant boost she got from Biden stepping down and Walz calling Vance a weirdo.
Policing isn't in the top ten most dangerous jobs. It's usually listed around the 15-25th most dangerous job in the US. Many Americans including myself are regularly in more danger.
It's also interesting to note that while violent crime and homicide in the United States have been declining for many years interpersonal violence has overtaken accidents as the leading cause of police on the job deaths.
It seems unlikely the cause of this is more violence among Americans. Since the overall rate is going down. It seems like changes in policing and attitudes and tactics have resulted in more officer deaths from interpersonal violence. Perhaps more de-escalation would save more police officers lives.
That gives a homicide rate for cops of about 7.5 per 100,000. That's a bit less than twice the US national average, and about on par with the overall murder rate in the Carolinas or Mississippi. Seems pretty good for a profession that would logically bring a substantially increased exposure to murderers.
B isn't necessarily irrational. Many other types of death are at your own actions. Things like drinking alcohol, eating whatever you feel like, not exercising, doing drug, even driving, etc provide some self-identified "benefit" to the individual that they choose to partake. It's rationale that someone is more afraid of dying from an activity they recieve no benefit from than an activity they do.
This is such a common argument that’s basically a fallacy. Many of those dangerous jobs are dangerous because of human error. So it’s funny that you think 60% of deaths being on purpose is normal, what other job in the dangerous top 10 has 60% intentional deaths? Like seriously?
It's a common argument because police and their supporters regularly claim they need to roll up in tactical gear and treat every encounter with civilians like it's a life-and-death struggle because they have one of the most dangerous jobs, yet the truth is they have about an order of magnitude fewer workplace fatalities than roofers and loggers.
This is despite the fact that police regularly escalate their encounters, making them more dangerous for everyone, police included.
Maybe loggers need to start doing their jobs with miniguns like that scene in Predator.
Tens of thousands of no-knock raids every year in the us is crazy stuff. In the early 80s the number was ~1500/year. More than an order of magnitude increase in no knock raids while violent crime has fallen.
What are the cycles called? How do they function? A lot of people use the world cycle like other people use the word magic. A mystery pretending to be an explanation.
The number of critics of Anthropogenic global warming who actually have expertise on climate change and actively publish on the subject can be counted on one hand. If 99.9% of astrophysicists agreed that a meteor was going to hit your house next Tuesday you wouldn't wait around for the few crackpot holdouts before you to agree to leave.
They're not going to have a normal country. The United States under Trump isn't interested in a democratic Iran. They want a dictator they can control.
I think you’re right that it would be a puppet state under trump. But in three years it will be a puppet state under somebody else! And maybe that somebody would relinquish the strings.
Not disagreeing with you, but US-controlled dictators have better track record of not killing thousands of protesters or just random people in own populations.
Not perfect option, but still is an improvement even from your positiom.
Agree. See also military dictatorships in South Korea and Taiwan. Many terrible years and brutal killings by the gov't. Both gov'ts were strongly supported by the US.
Wow, I did not expect this type of reply. I reject it. In South Korea, there was incredible civil violence between protesters and police. I'm talking about stolen automatic weapons by protesters, then used against the police after decades of unchecked violence by the police against protesters. In hindsight, it looks like a low grade civil war. It was brutally hard and violent for South Korean to gain their democracy. (When you listen to South Korean boomers talk about how much their treasure and defend their new-found democracy, it will bring tears to your eyes. They really lived the violence and found democracy.) Taiwan needed the last dictator to die. Once his son took over, he quickly devised a plan to transition to an authentic democracy. (They had rigged election for years.) Still, they had 40 years of the "White Terror" where secret police kidnapped and murdered thousands of protesters.
Related: Indonesia also had a very violent transition into democracy, but the old dictators didn't kill as many innocent people as Taiwan or South Korea.
As I understand, the US had very little influence during the democracy transition of these three nations. Regarding Taiwan, the US provided security gurantees against mainland China, but did not interfere with the gov't. South Korea, similar security guarantee against the "Kimdom". Again, did not interfere with the gov't. Indonesia: Provided no security guarantee and did not interfere with the gov't.
I can only see the US insistence on many bad foreign decisions in the name of democracy done in the Middle East by multiple administrations, that without much knowledge of the situation in East Asia, I venture to guess it is not a coincidence that US allies turned into democracies
I also am not sure about Indonesia as an example of a US ally, I don't think it is similar to the other two
Effectively both SK and Taiwan were completely dependent on US for defense, I doubt this had no bearing
Any honest reading of the history and the scholarship around the development of fascism and its characteristics would absolutely lead any honest person to the conclusion that there is a fascistic political movement happening in the United States and elsewhere.
When fascism loses its meaning it's when reactionaries describe leftist opposition to fascism as fascism. When they call antifa fascist for opposing fascism violently. That's when the meaning gets muddled.
reply