If you need a reason to vote for Kamala

don't threaten us with a good time

I see posts going "Okay, I'll vote for Kamala, I GUESS IF I HAVE TO" and "omg if that's the best we can do I suppose I'll support it" and I'm like...

What do you people fucking WANT?

Let's run down how she's rated politically by some organizations that we vibe with, kay?

In addition, GovTrack (which is a nonpartisan tracker) places her in the MOST politically left-leaning categories of Senators. So we've got a very liberal, woman of color who's spent her career trying to mitigate draconian tough-on-crime laws to benefit the accused and keep black people out of prison and decrease recidivism and that's somehow...just barely tolerable.

So I ask again...what is that you're dissatisfied with? Is it Palestine? as recently as March she was calling for a ceasefire and demanding aid to Gaza. Keep in mind she's pretty constrained as to what's possible to do in this situation.

Is it just that she was a prosecutor? That is an important job that needs to be done and we WANT people doing it who aren't rah-rah tough-on-crime Gestapo types, which she is not. We need prosecutors who are addressing the root causes of crime and looking for ways to help people escape the cycle, which she has done to the point that she was often called SOFT on crime.

So what is your objection here? Is it that her politics aren't 100% aligned with a bunch of Tumblr socialists? I got news for you...we Tumblr socialists DO NOT REPRESENT THE ELECTORATE. If such a candidate existed, they would not win.

Democrats struggle sometimes because our tent is large. Republicans just want you if you're a straight white man and preferably rich. There's room for a lot more types in the lefty side, but sadly that means a lot of room also for dissention among the ranks. This is how they get us. Let's not let them, huh? Just a suggestion.

My September 2024 election reminder: ideological purity will not win you anything.

I see people on the left saying that they can't possibly vote for Harris because she's too pro-Israel, because she's too far to the right on immigration, because she's too far to the right on criminal justice, because she was a cop (she wasn't), because you think this policy or that policy is too conservative.

Not voting for her only increases the chances that we get a president who is even further to the right.

Those are our two choices. Like it or not, support the American political system or not, we have two choices, and one of them is further to the right on every single policy that you have opinions about.

So if you think Harris is too far to the right on Israel/Gaza, remember: Trump is so much further to the right. You don't like that the Biden administration is providing military aid to Israel (a thing that Harris cannot actually stop even if she wanted to, given that she's not president)? Trump has already proven, on a policy level, to be more pro-Israel. Remember when he moved the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, functionally acknowledging Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem? He is extremely pro-Israel and has materially proven it. Harris, on the other hand, has been calling for a cease fire since March and has recognized out loud the need for Palestinian sovereignty.

If you're wondering why she hasn't changed U.S. policy on Israel, I would like to remind you once again: she is not currently the President of the United States.

Holding on to your precious ideological purity and not voting for someone whose policies you find distasteful will not result in policies you like. It only increases the risk of policies that are so much further away from what you want.

Voting is public transportation. Voting is harm reduction. Voting is moving us a little bit closer towards the policies we want or, at the very least, keeping us from moving further and further away.

I think she was President from the handshake but it's been a safe bet since she had him at "they're eating the pets!" before five minutes had elapsed.

She is eating the orange nightmare alive.

Please, please vote for this woman, Americans.

Of course, I'm voting for her! Unfortunately, a concerning number of people STILL either won't vote at all, or they'll fucking vote for the orange nightmare. I fucking hate people!

There's more of us than there are of them, Destroyer of Mangoes. I think we can do it. :)

Also? Watching a woman of color absolutely gut him like a fish like this is ridiculously satisfying.

Things the Biden-Harris Administration Did This Week #32

August 30-September 6 2024.

Not to be a debbie downer but Tim Walz was in the military for 24 years, including during the Iraq war. He called the national guard on protestors following the George Floyd murder. He supports Israel. He's approved an oil pipeline across indigenous lands that break treaties.

It's weird to celebrate a man who goes against all leftist values

Elbit System, a top international arms manufacturer, who's weapons have been found in Israel, is also located in Tim Walz's state. People have protested for him to divest. Nothing.

Sigh, alright, guess I'm actually going to defend a politician for once, let's do this I guess:

--

"Tim Walz was in the military for 24 years, including during the Iraq war" - Half True.

Tim Walz was in the military for 24 years. As a member of the national guard. He was never deployed overseas.

The man left the military in May of 2005 in order to run for public office. The unit of the NG he served with, the 125th Field Artillery, weren't mobilised for a deployment order until July of the same year, and people he worked with have come forward to confirm that one of the reasons he left was because he was morally opposed to the war.

Tim Walz never went to Iraq, the man didn't step onto foreign soil as a military man apart from a brief deployment to Italy in 2003 as part of the security forces during Operation Enduring Freedom. The man himself openly says that he never saw direct combat, ever.

--

"He called the national guard on protestors following the George Floyd murder" - This is such a gross oversimplification of the role a state governor plays during times of unrest that it's just fully a misrepresentation.

(It's also a misrepresentation of what the National Guard even is, but that's a whole other can of worms.)

Tim Walz didn't make the singular decision to mobilise the national guard. He did not singlehandedly call the national guard. The mayor of Minneapolis, Jacob Frey, contacted Walz' office on the evening of the 27th of May to formally request the deployment of the Minnesota National Guard to the city.

This request by the mayor was immediately followed up with a written request by the Minneapolis Police Chief, Medaria Arradondo, who sent it through a couple of hours later.

Once that happened, there was no way for Tim Walz to ignore those requests. He was the governor of a state.

Tim Walz did not dispatch the National Guard to the city until the next evening. His hesitation and delay to call in the Guard even once he was formally requested to do so by the mayor of a city is one of the things he was slammed for, and was a black stain on his tenure as governor.

I'm not defending the actions of the National Guard once they were deployed, not by any means, but I am defending the idea that Tim Walz went all in on savage crackdowns when he verifiably did the opposite. In fact, during the strategising phase of the mobilisation, the governor's office filed numerous requests with the city for a list of defensive priorities, so that the guard would be protecting federal property.

But the actions of the National Guard once they were there, were not in Tim Walz' hands. The governor of a state is not a Commander In Chief like the president is.

(What was up to Tim Walz was his decision to make sure the state's Attorney General led the prosecution during the case against the police officers involved in the George Floyd trial, which resulted in the convictions. This move by Tim Walz was praised by civil rights groups.

I'll also point out that his decisions, reforms, and rulings in regards to police brutality were praised by Reverand Al Sharpton of the National Action Network, who said; "We don't want a guy who's wildly radical -- we want someone with an open mind, he has shown that with how he addressed police brutality in his own state,"

And also by Jotaka Eaddy, the founder of Win With Black Women, who said "Governor Walz’s tenure has also been marked by his steadfast commitment to advancing social justice and protecting vulnerable communities and communities of color.")

--

"He Supports Israel" - True, completely true. ,But I hate to break this to you; every single institutional "In Crowd" Democrat supports Israel. The Venn Diagram of "Democrats who don't support Israel" and "Democrats who will end up near the White House" has no overlap. I'm sorry.

--

"He's approved an oil pipeline across indigenous lands that break treaties." - Also entirely true, and indefensible. Fuck him for that one. Absolutely.

--

And finally, "Elbit System, a top international arms manufacturer, who's weapons have been found in Israel, is also located in Tim Walz's state. People have protested for him to divest. Nothing." -

Elbit System isn't located in Minnesota, it's located in Texas, but why let a bit of googling and research get in the way of some good outrage.

They don't list any facilities or operation centers being in Minnesota. I have spent half an hour trying my best to find any evidence of any connection Minnesota has with Elbit System at all, but apart from one single f*cking petition that claims that the Minnesota retirement funds own 10,000 shares of Elbit Systems, but lists no sources for its outrage I can't find anything.

Elbit Systems have operational facilities in Texas, New Hampshire, Alabama, Virginia, and Florida. Their administration offices are in Alabama, Utah, Georgia, Florida, Virginia, and Maryland.

Those are all also currently Republican states, with the only exception being Maryland.

They are a publicly owned company, this is all information you can find with a bit of simple googling.

But again, hey, why let a bit of basic fact checking get in the way of some good outrage.

--

So yeah, there's all that. Jesus Christ, you're all fucking unbearable.

Regarding indigenous issues, I also want to point out Walz's lieutenant governor is White Earth Nation Ojibwe. If Walz gets elected, she would be the first Native American governor of a US state. I can't speak to the oil pipeline stuff, it sounds like that sucks. But it's not like Walz isn't committed to the welfare of indigenous people in the state.

I know this is a little out of left field, but here is Walz's speech at a GIS user conference where he talks about how geographic literacy is important and how the state of Minnesota uses GIS to support environmental and social initiatives.

Minnesota's goal is have the lowest rate of child poverty in the nation. They do this with a tax credit. But you can't get a tax credit if you don't file taxes. So they used GIS to pinpoint to the street level where they needed to target filing initiatives, going door to door in some places.

I'm telling you this because it is a lot of work trying to attack big problems from multiple angles, and it's not always going to be as clean and morally pure as people hope. But it is evident Walz is setting the tone for a state that is trying hard to do right by its residents.

There is no such thing as a morally pure politician that can get things done. It is the nature of politics that sometimes you have to compromise. But that's where the bus metaphor comes in. You use politicians to get you closer to where you want to be, instead of not getting on the bus because it's not going on the path you want it to take.

I would also add to the excellent fact-checking here: we should always be asking questions when we see posts and statements like this.

In this case, the answer to all three questions is no. And I would actually say that it doesn’t pass the disinformation sniff test: https://instituteforpr.org/10-ways-to-spot-disinformation/

Sean Astin will be campaigning for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in several midwestern states this week.

Via instagram

“Well that does it. I’m hitting the Campaign Trail.

#Astin4Harris”

remember that biden’s american rescue plan act included an expansion of the child tax credit that immediately cut childhood poverty in half. the only reason it was allowed to expire was a single senator (joe manchin) who is not running for reelection

you can help get millions of kids out of poverty by voting for Biden & your democratic senate candidate this november

remember that democrats & the left talked for years and years about how the price of insulin was outrageously high, causing people to die from trying to ration it, and then Joe Biden’s inflation reduction act capped the price of insulin at $35/month. the madman just did it

(*technically he could do it only for medicare, but medicares market power pressured eli lilly to drop the price to $35 for everyone. that was a 70% price cut)

you’re never going to believe who cast the tiebreaking vote in the senate on BOTH the inflation reduction act and the american rescue plan — that’s right, our very own vice president Kamala Harris 🌴👏 this administration is the best of the best all the way through, and we can keep making life better for millions of people by voting blue up & down the ballot in november

and remember: you can be a part of it. sign up to get the word out to swing voters with me at https://events.democrats.org/event/569897/

Transcription - Kamala Harris: "How many of you guys, college students, had to have a drill during high school or middle school or elementary school, or even in college, where you learned about how you need to hide in a closet or crouch in a corner in the event that there is a mass shooter roaming the hallways of your schools?" [Most of the crowd raises their hands] "Look at that. Look at that. And here's the thing - it terrorized you! It is traumatizing! I don't want that any of our children should have to sit in class, when you should be paying attention to what is happening in the front of the classroom, letting your mind open up to the wonders of science, math, or art or whatever, and instead have to be worried about who's going to come banging through the door carrying some kind of weapon. Leaders should be leading on this issue. And so I'm telling you, if Congress fails to act -- I'll give them 100 days to get bill on my desk for signature, and if they do not do it, I will put it in place by executive action, a comprehensive background check requirement, and a ban on assault weapons and importation of assault weapons into our country. I'm done." [TikTok sound]

Important to know...

Michael de Adder, Halifax Chronicle Herald

* * * *

Trump promises to eliminate future elections

July 29, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

Last Friday, Trump told Christian rally-goers that “You won’t have to vote any more” if they elect Trump in 2024.

Let that sink in. A presidential candidate promised to eliminate future elections.

The media yawned.

Actually, the media ignored the story (except for The Guardian) until commentators on social media and the Harris Campaign shamed journalists into acknowledging Trump's antidemocratic threat—which they did in a dismissive, begrudging manner.

It is tiresome to highlight the media’s failings, but this incident is so egregious that it is important on many levels. Most importantly, it underscores that Democrats cannot relent in their effort to warn the American people that Trump hopes to end fundamental democratic norms—like the peaceful, regular transfer of power as prescribed by the Constitution.

Among the issues that should drive voters to the polls in 2024, Trump’s repeated promises to end democracy should be the most alarming. But concepts like “democracy” and “tyranny” strike many voters as “abstract.” Taking away the right to vote is not abstract; doing so would render all other rights illusory.

Let’s turn this incident against Trump by convincing voters that Trump really, truly wants to eliminate the right to vote after 2024. And we must not let him (or his surrogates) weasel out of the plain meaning of his words.

What did Trump say?

 At a rally in Florida on Friday, Trump said,

See The Guardian, Trump tells supporters they won’t have to vote in the future: ‘It’ll be fixed!’.

Like most of Trump's statements, it is simultaneously inscrutable and blazingly obvious. He is promising the end of democracy if he is elected. “In four years, you won’t have to vote again.”

The same words uttered by most other politicians might be susceptible to innocent interpretations. But those words uttered by this president can mean only one thing: He wants to eliminate elections in America. He tried to override the will of the people in 2020 by canceling their votes through coup and insurrection. He says he will do so again if he is re-elected. We should believe him.

To repeat: A presidential candidate has promised that 2024 will be the last time that Americans will vote because “everything will be fixed.” That is the equivalent of a five-alarm fire for democracy.

How did the GOP, the media, and the Harris campaign respond? You can probably predict their responses, but let’s look for ourselves.

The GOP response

In typical GOP fashion, the GOP response was (a) he didn’t mean what he said, (b) he said the opposite of what you think you heard, and (c) Trump says weird things all the time, so chill out!

The typical Republican response was delivered by New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu, who laughed off the statement by saying, (a) it was “hyperbolic,” (b) Trump was trying to make the point that “We want everyone to vote in all elections,” and (c) it was a classic “Trumpism.”

Saying that the statement was hyperbolic and “a Trumpism” are. not serious responses because they do not address the substance of what Trump actually said. Trump incited an insurrection by telling people to “Fight like hell” moments before the attack on the Capitol.” We are long past claiming that Trump's words should not be taken seriously and literally.

Claiming that Trump's statement means the exact opposite of what Trump said is depraved. Sununu’s interpretation of “We want everyone to vote in all elections” vs. Trump's “You’re not gonna have to vote again” is depraved. The depravity of Sununu’s perverse interpretation is not diminished because Sununu delivered the lie with a hearty laugh.

Other Trump apologists (on social media) argued that Trump was saying only that Republicans would not need Christian evangelical votes after 2024 because Trump would do such a great job of fixing all problems in America, “you’re not gonna have to vote.” That explanation makes no sense; even if Trump “fixed” all the problems in America in the next four years, the Constitution still requires an election in 2028.

There is simply no reasonable interpretation of Trump's words other than his declaration that in four years, he intends to eliminate elections (if he can).

The media’s response

As noted above, The Guardian gave serious coverage to Trump's statement. US media outlets, not so much. See, for example, Lucian K. Truscott IV’s description of the NYTimes’ pathetic response. As Truscott notes in his Substack, the Times relegated the statements to “a few lines in a wrap-up piece about what’s happening in the presidential campaign . . . and they buried it on the Times website.” The Times then breezily moved on to pedestrian coverage of the campaigns as if they were reporting the details of an itinerary rather than one of the most shocking statements ever by a major-party candidate for the presidency.

Perhaps even worse was the pathetic interview of Chris Sununu by Martha Raddatz on ABC. Raddatz asked Sununu, “What the heck did he [Trump] mean there [in the statement]?” As noted above, Sununu responded,

Sununu’s pathetic response was enough to satisfy Radattz, whose follow-up question was, “Ok. Let's turn to President Biden and Kamala Harris.”

I won’t pick on Raddatz (much). Almost every journalist on mainstream media is as pathetic as Raddatz. The inability to ask follow-up questions to ludicrous rationalizations of attacks on democracy is staggering. Most are entertainers, not journalists. Their presence on “news” shows is insulting to their viewers.

Raddatz’s failure to challenge Sununu’s answer and her immediate transition to a question about President Biden and Kamala Harris demonstrates the media’s dangerous addiction to mindless “balance” and false equivalency. Nothing Kamala Harris did over the weekend deserves to be in the same news block as a story about a presidential candidate promising to end the need for elections. Nothing.

Having watched the media fail miserably for seven years with Trump, nothing should surprise us. But the guy tried to overturn one election already and is saying he will do it again. What will it take for the media to realize that Trump is a unique threat to democracy who deserves coverage that applies only to aspiring dictators?

Even if the Times and Raddatz believed that Trump's remarks had a benign explanation, they failed to acknowledge the more plausible, malign interpretation. Instead, they were willing to assume that Trump's remarks were harmless “Trumpisms.” They are not. We saw what happened after Trump told his followers on January 6, 2021: “We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.”

So, continue writing those letters to the editor and comments to stories highlighting the media’s failings. And become a messenger for Harris by amplifying her campaign’s messaging. Read on!

The Harris Campaign’s response

Kamala Harris’s campaign organization has been reacting to Trump's missteps and threats like a rapid response force to each. Early Saturday morning, the Harris campaign posted a clip of Trump's comments and attached the following statement:

The Harris campaign’s statement is spot-on for several reasons. First, the campaign issued the statement just after noon on Saturday morning, showing a willingness and ability to rebut Trump quickly. By responding within the same news cycle, the Harris campaign shaped the social media response, which ultimately prodded the major media to acknowledge Trump's threat.

Second, the Harris campaign identified Trump's threats in plain language, including

Dangerous threats demand plain language. The Harris campaign rose to the challenge.

The campaign’s statement was strong in another respect: In identifying Trump as a threat to democracy, it identified Kamala Harris as the point of unity to stop Trump. A very smart move! Kamala Harris is giving Democrats the antidote to Trump's cult of personality. The campaign is fashioning Kamala Harris as a champion of democracy. And it is working!

Concluding Thoughts

Trump's threats present a dilemma. Should we take them seriously? Or does our attention give them credence and heft they do not carry on their own? As with most things in life, there is tension in truth. We must take Trump's threats literally and seriously. But we must not ascribe superpowers to Trump or self-executing inevitability to his threats. By taking his threats seriously, we can prevent them from coming to fruition. So, do not despair or cower in fear. Raise the alarm as we work to defeat Trump and stop his dark plans.

Meanwhile, Democrats continue to rally around Kamala Harris. She held her first fundraiser in Pittsfield, MA at the Colonial Theatre. The event was sold out, with an overflow crowd in front of the theater. Kamala Harris spoke after an all-star warm-up that included former Governor Deval Patrick, Senators Warren and Markey, Rep. Neal, and Heather Cox Richardson.

According to those in attendance, the evening was “electric.” The crowd was so enthusiastic, Kamala Harris had difficulty quieting the cheers so she could say “Thank you.” She gave a great speech and pumped up the crowd even further.

In eight short days, Kamala Harris has unified and inspired Democrats in a way that has defied expectations of pundits and career politicians. She is doing so at the precise moment that Trump's veneer of invincibility is cracking. We need to sustain the wave of enthusiasm for Kamala Harris and spread it to others—so that we can push Trump’s downward trajectory past the tipping point of no return. We can do that!

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

Putting some positivity out there about the election

Feel free to add more things on this thread, but the most important thing is to get out there and VOTE

Vote for President

Vote for Senators

Vote for Congresspeople

Vote in your local elections

Vote Blue down ballot

#you wanted the party to listen? it did#you wanted a powerful man to willingly give up that power for the sake of the country and the people he swore to serve? he DID#now it's time to roll up our sleeves and convert an astonishing opportunity into a historic accomplishment (via @unstatedmartini)

“She has a chance because we are going to give her a motherfucking chance” is probably one of the stronger motivating statements I’ve seen…for years, really.

From a numbers perspective, the way Democrats (both official endorsements and regular voters) have immediately LINED UP behind Harris is something we haven’t seen since Obama and I’m honestly not sure it was this strong then (the Obama/Clinton primary competition was fierce). ActBlue (the Democrats’ political fundraising platform) raised $63 MILLION in one day yesterday, which is a record for any political fundraising ever. On the more conservative side, the Nikki Haley Voters PAC, a group that represents conservatives who oppose Trump and had already endorsed Biden, immediately endorsed Harris yesterday.

There’s tons of work to be done, and there will be challenges. The misogynoir has started and it’s going to suck and we need to be prepared for that. But this is more than a chance, this is the most energy I’ve seen from the Democrats in YEARS.

Oh and I just saw this and I cannot imagine a zoom call with 40,000 people (the call raised over $1 million in 3 hours)

I've talked a lot about why you should vote AGAINST Trump. No fucking shit, right? But I want to vote FOR something, too.

Kamala Harris hasn't had time yet to put together her platform documents, though no doubt we'll see those in the coming days. But this is a good analysis of where she and Joe Biden stand - and Kamala is more progressive on every front.

Abortion rights: Joe would've restored Roe, but Kamala would expand it to prevent states from limiting access. The pre-clearance measure discussed here is a non-starter but I'd expect Kamala to be looking at how to frame the issue for another try.

Israel and Gaza: it's true that Kamala hasn't broken with Joe publicly about Gaza. However, the article goes on:

Kamala has also declined to preside over the upcoming session of Congress that Netanyahu is speaking at, on invitation by Republicans. She wasn't scheduled to before this, but I think declining now is a clear indicator that her foreign policy will not include the broad support we saw from Joe.

Climte Change: Honestly, the Build Back Better bill was so fucking substantial and incredible I think Kamala would be hard-pressed to do much more. I think Kamala needs to have a solid response ready to the recent Supreme Court decision overturning Chevron, which is the biggest threat to the EPA and other agencies in our lifetimes. (Trump, by the way, would abolish the EPA and the vast majority of environmental protections.)

Student debt relief: She was more progressive earlier, and I expect we'll see many of Joe's relief packages continue expanding.

Similarly:

Free college: Kamala's in full support. I understand Joe's position that students from wealthy families should pay their own way, but I also know from experience that students from wealthy family not immune to financial abuse by controlling parents.

Trade: this is actually a great one to know, because Kamala's hesitance on these trade agreements are related to a) environmental concerns, and b) outsourcing American jobs. Republicans love to lose their shit over outsourcing American jobs. Here's more significance in the trade sphere:

This is going to be a HUGE talking point for your conservative-leaning relatives. Business leaders do not want Trump in office, because the agenda laid out in Project 2025 will make it harder for them to do business - it will make it harder for them to attract global talent, costlier to import and export, and stunt economic growth. Do you know that "undecided" voter who votes red for "fiscal responsibility?" This your talking point. Kamala's platform spends, but in such a way that it will stimulate economic growth and solidify the US as a business leader worldwide.

Artificial Intelligence: I'll let Kamala speak for herself.

The article also talks about data privacy, where Kamala and Joe are very similar, and animal welfare. Historically, Kamala defended animal welfare protections in CA, but remember that as Attorney General, Kamala's job was to defend the law no matter what her personal feelings were. Biden made some strides here, but many will agree not enough - I think this is a place where Kamala has to tread very carefully because progressives are in favor of more stringent animal welfare protections, but agricultural and rural voters are already a demographic inclined to view progressive agendas negatively, feeling forgotten, misunderstood, and passed over in favor of large cities. It's definitely a weakness for the Dems so I wouldn't expect to hear much about animal welfare as a voting issue.

IN SUM

I'm very happy to vote FOR Kamala, not just against Trump. I think she stands to take stronger action on abortion, stronger action on Israel and Gaza, stronger action on college and student debt relief. I think she'll continue work inherited on environmental protections and infrastructure. I think she will do more to protect LGBTQ+ individuals and unions, as well as standing strong on disability reform and criminal justice reform (yes, I know she was a prosecutor, and I also know that she worked on several important CJ reforms during her time as AG - here's an article about her progressive record as DA).

Remember, there's no such thing as a protest vote. The only people who benefit by third-party voting or choosing not to vote are the far-right.