Harris has some bad stuff in her history but so far she has been saying the right things and backing the right people to allay any concerns. It appears to not be just pandering. She's politically putting her money where her mouth is. I have no reason to expect that she's lying and if she gets the big chair she will suddenly flip and go all "law and order on us". While it is rare and I'm always sceptical at first, people can change.
Also, truth be told, I'm a bit more pro Harris now just to spite the "too ambitious" nitwits. Irrational, but I'm only human.
My take is that it's entirely possible that her entire national career has been about cynically doing things that she knows will make her more popular and not really caring about anybody on a personal level. Like, maybe she doesn't regret a single thing she ever did as DA. Maybe she's like, "Fuck all those dumb people I screwed over" and she goes home at night and plays recordings of the weeping of the underpriviliged while smiling and sipping champagne.
But everything she's done the past half decade has been the stuff I would want her to do anyway. She pushes policies I like and says things I like and supports people i like. If her evil plan is to do a bunch of good progressive shit so she can become president and do more good progressive shit to trick people into thinking she's a good person, like, okay? I think I'm fine with that?
I want my girlfriend to have a good and pure secret heart. I just want my president to enact good policy; they can go wank it to puppy snuff films all night long if they feel like it, I don't care.
Nothing about Harris' positions have ever really struck me as inconsistent. She bends with the politics of the time like every politician but I think sometimes there's a confusion between not agreeing with a particular nexus of positions and said nexus of positions not being valid or coherent or honest.
Like, to use the above example, I can see how a ton of people would have a problem with her "It is not progressive to be soft on crime" quote but there's nothing weird about it. It's not dishonest or at odds with anything else I've seen from her. Hell, in context I wouldn't be shocked if it was mainstream. Especially at the time.
Bass is a member of the Coalition for Autism Research and Education, which includes these as major points in their approach to autistic issues:
Bringing together public, private, and government entities to pursue
legislative initiatives that will help facilitate advanced treatments—and
ultimately a cure—for autism spectrum disorders.
• Promoting all means to ease the burdens of families and loved ones
affected by autism
The "search for a cure" narrative is a toxic one, rejected by many (most?) in the autistic community. Add to that a focus on treating autists as a burden and prioritizing the easing of that burden on others (instead of easing the burden of discrimination on actual autists) tell me I'm not enthused about Karen Bass.
That said, I'm not a single-issue voter, but this sucks.
The thing is, at least for the last point, it isn't a wrong or right thing. As a parent of a child with autism, both things are important. Parents and caregivers of children with autism absolutely do need help with the challenges it presents. The problem is, and I want to make this very clear, is that, depending on where on the spectrum your child can fall, many of the challenges aren't from the child themselves, but the fact that almost every standard system (schools, etc) that we send our children through, is not set up to respond well to any meaningful deviation from the "norm". Navigating this, and the frequent resistance to assistance, is absolutely a burden on parents and caregivers; and until the child is old enough or capable enough, to care for themselves, support for the parents and such is very important. Another challenge is that a depressingly large amount of assistance that IS available, isn't structured around finding the best way to allow the child to flourish, but more to adjust their behavior to better fit into society.
I think that's where your points come in, which are very valid, about the terrible goal of a "cure". I can't bring myself to demonize people who have that perspective, at least without allowing them to speak for themselves, because for people who don't have first hand experience with a child with autism, they could easily be unaware of how huge the spectrum of the diagnosis can encompass, and it is becoming less common that there are cases of such extremity that a child, properly cared for, is completely unresponsive to interactions, and can't be supported to learn ways that allow them to participate that also support their individualism. And, probably more depressing is that a lot of people don't actually understand the difference between various unrelated diagnosis for childhood disease and disorders and probably don't know the difference between autism and cerebral palsy, and so on.
This isn't me giving people a free pass, it's just me having the personal experience of even supposed trained educators not having any real idea what they're doing or having the experience or knowledge of how to best support and benefit more than very specific types of special needs, and don't have the resources to get that training if they wanted. If, as a parent, I find it hard to find people whose job it is supposed to be, to help me with my child, with a proper understanding of the current knowledge of the spectrum and diagnosis; the average person who doesn't have that experience, but wants to feel like they're helping, is unlikely to have any better understanding.
And as frustrating as it can all be, I don't want it to become yet another polarized topic where the fight doesn't even get to services and understanding, because people are being attacked for having the wrong opinion. While I certainly have little to no patience for the perspective that people who should know better, have, still viewing autism as a problem that needs a cure; I do have some empathy for parents who have to struggle with raising a child with needs that are outside typical social expectations and norms, who have never been given training themselves, or any preparation for it, and are in a society that is specifically designed to not only not provide for their needs, but frequently actively work to suppress and punish "deviation".
What I would like, instead of just seeing the association with this organization and then hanging our heads or holding our nose; that she be asked specifically about it and find out if she has a more nuanced understanding or perspective, that just aren't represented by the organization. I mean, I'm a registered Democrat, but I sure as hell don't fall in line ideologically with their platform.
Great post. I love seeing someone trying to take a nuanced approach to a complex and often very personal subject.
My reaction comes from that for me, talking about "treating" "finding a cure" for autism is a harm and threat, directly and indirectly, to me and my family. If it's just some rando's opinion, I can talk to that. If it's an organization that says they advance the cause for people on the spectrum, then fuck them forever and always. They should know better, and they don't, which means they don't care about actual ASD.
To bring this back around, I expect a politician to be much more aware of who they support. That she isn't in this case does not speak well of her competence. Big no for VP for me.
Bass is a member of the Coalition for Autism Research and Education, which includes these as major points in their approach to autistic issues:
Bringing together public, private, and government entities to pursue
legislative initiatives that will help facilitate advanced treatments—and
ultimately a cure—for autism spectrum disorders.
• Promoting all means to ease the burdens of families and loved ones
affected by autism
The "search for a cure" narrative is a toxic one, rejected by many (most?) in the autistic community. Add to that a focus on treating autists as a burden and prioritizing the easing of that burden on others (instead of easing the burden of discrimination on actual autists) tell me I'm not enthused about Karen Bass.
That said, I'm not a single-issue voter, but this sucks.
So this seems like an unearned amount of cynicism to apply to "ease the burdens of families and loved ones affected by autism," a phrasing that, necessarily, includes the people with ASD themselves.
Could they have emphasised the individuals better? Sure, and they do in the announcement celebrating the passage of their signature legislation:
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Representative Mike Doyle (D-PA) announced today that bipartisan legislation to reauthorize federal programs that help individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and their families has been signed into law.
But there's probably people out there who would interpret that emphasis as othering, and suggestive of division in their family unit. What are you gonna do.
All that said, I've never heard of this congresswoman, this caucus, or this law, so if there are other data points that lead you interpret the same words I'm seeing as a negative, I would definitely like to know them.
Well. Like is the wrong word, but I feel obliged to inform myself of them nonetheless, and would appreciate any assistance in that goal.
Ed Rendell is for Bass, which means you should definitely oppose her. That asshole has been a pox on Democratic politics for twenty years.
/sigh I used to like Ed, briefly, in 2004, because for the hot minute that I was an officially elected member of the Ohio dem party*, I ended up in line for the bar behind him at the Ohio Jeff-Jack** dinner (he was a guest speaker that year) and was star struck
*I got to see my name on the same primary ballot as such dem luminaries as John Edwards and Joe Lieberman! I moved 2 weeks later and abandoned my precinct!
**its an enormous embarrassment that Dems proudly claim their political heritage back to these two...but like my lack of awareness about how useless Rendell was/is, I also didn’t know how shitty it was to claim this political heritage back then
Harris has some bad stuff in her history but so far she has been saying the right things and backing the right people to allay any concerns. It appears to not be just pandering. She's politically putting her money where her mouth is. I have no reason to expect that she's lying and if she gets the big chair she will suddenly flip and go all "law and order on us". While it is rare and I'm always sceptical at first, people can change.
Also, truth be told, I'm a bit more pro Harris now just to spite the "too ambitious" nitwits. Irrational, but I'm only human.
the problem (imo) to have with harris is less the general 'she's a cop' criticism and more that she had an 'every problem looks like a nail' approach when she was a prosecutor. School truancy a problem? Prosecute the parents! and etc.
I don't worry that she'd "go all law and order" in the nixon sense, but it should be a little concerning that she seemed to think that every issue had a solution that involved police power
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
+3
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
Bass is a member of the Coalition for Autism Research and Education, which includes these as major points in their approach to autistic issues:
Bringing together public, private, and government entities to pursue
legislative initiatives that will help facilitate advanced treatments—and
ultimately a cure—for autism spectrum disorders.
• Promoting all means to ease the burdens of families and loved ones
affected by autism
The "search for a cure" narrative is a toxic one, rejected by many (most?) in the autistic community. Add to that a focus on treating autists as a burden and prioritizing the easing of that burden on others (instead of easing the burden of discrimination on actual autists) tell me I'm not enthused about Karen Bass.
That said, I'm not a single-issue voter, but this sucks.
So this seems like an unearned amount of cynicism to apply to "ease the burdens of families and loved ones affected by autism," a phrasing that, necessarily, includes the people with ASD themselves.
Could they have emphasised the individuals better? Sure, and they do in the announcement celebrating the passage of their signature legislation:
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Representative Mike Doyle (D-PA) announced today that bipartisan legislation to reauthorize federal programs that help individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and their families has been signed into law.
But there's probably people out there who would interpret that emphasis as othering, and suggestive of division in their family unit. What are you gonna do.
All that said, I've never heard of this congresswoman, this caucus, or this law, so if there are other data points that lead you interpret the same words I'm seeing as a negative, I would definitely like to know them.
Well. Like is the wrong word, but I feel obliged to inform myself of them nonetheless, and would appreciate any assistance in that goal.
I'm gonna nest this behind a spoiler because I think it's worth talking about re:Bass and the election, but some folks may not want it gumming up their feed.
Part of it is an autistic culture issue that, if you're not in the culture, you might not notice. Not sure how much you're immersed in it, I don't want to make assumptions.
There is a persistent trope in anti-autistic rhetoric which prioritizes the feelings and experiences of non-autistic family members over the feelings and experiences of autistic individuals. You'll hear stories from mothers who are heartbroken by their child's "condition", but nobody ever asks the child how they feel about their mother describing them in such dark and burdensome terms. You'll see resources dedicated to training autistic children to "act normal", but no resources dedicated to accommodating them when they don't. The organization Autism Speaks, which heads up the annual "Light It Up Blue For Autism Awareness" push, was (for a while -- I haven't check in on them lately) led by a board entirely composed of people who were not, themselves, autistic. How can you call your organization Autism Speaks when none of the people speaking are autistic?
This division in perspective has real consequences for autistic children especially, because it's how parents end up justifying heinous "treatments" like bleach enemas to try and "fix" their kids.
Increasing general awareness of autism and autism spectrum disorders
among Members of Congress and policy analysts in federal government;
• Educating Members of Congress on current and future research initiatives
regarding autism;
• Serving as a forum where autism-related policy issues can be exchanged,
debated, and discussed;
• Bringing together public, private, and government entities to pursue
legislative initiatives that will help facilitate advanced treatments—and
ultimately a cure—for autism spectrum disorders.
• Promoting all means to ease the burdens of families and loved ones
affected by autism
With the context of this split in "families-first" vs. "individual first" rhetoric, I hope you can understand how an autist like me can look at that list and see not just a failure to acknowledge the issues people like me would prioritize, but a handful of red flags pointing to toxic narratives which endanger us -- autists as burdens, autism as disease in need of cure, etc. And that's before you get into the admittedly finicky issue of phrasing like "people with autism" vs. "autistic people".
Could it be that their hearts are in the right place? Apart from the cure narrative, maybe. But this kind of rhetoric has a rich context that tells me they are, at best, not listening to autistic people enough to understand it.
Harris has some bad stuff in her history but so far she has been saying the right things and backing the right people to allay any concerns. It appears to not be just pandering. She's politically putting her money where her mouth is. I have no reason to expect that she's lying and if she gets the big chair she will suddenly flip and go all "law and order on us". While it is rare and I'm always sceptical at first, people can change.
Also, truth be told, I'm a bit more pro Harris now just to spite the "too ambitious" nitwits. Irrational, but I'm only human.
the problem (imo) to have with harris is less the general 'she's a cop' criticism and more that she had an 'every problem looks like a nail' approach when she was a prosecutor. School truancy a problem? Prosecute the parents! and etc.
I don't worry that she'd "go all law and order" in the nixon sense, but it should be a little concerning that she seemed to think that every issue had a solution that involved police power
Entirely legit, but I am sympathetic to seeing a bunch of problems and only having one real lever to pull to effect change, even if I realize that the proper response in that situation was to just leave the damned lever alone.
More to the point, she seems to legit regret hammering on that single lever, and to understand why that was bad, and to have learned from that mistake. Which is a pretty rare quality in a politician.
But anyway, her power as veep is limited, and if she looks like a shitty person to have in power, it's not like we're obligated to install her as POTUS in 20XX.
Ultimately, I think assessing her as president is probably misguided. Assessing her as vice president, I think she'd be fine at messaging, great for optics, we wouldn't be losing anything huge in removing her from the Senate, and she'd be at least nominally capable as president.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
"NEWS: Pelosi admonished top counterintel official Evanina during private briefing this a.m., accusing him of withholding info about Russia. Evanina ultimately acknowledged that Russia is trying to boost Trump’s reelection; Dems want him to say it publicly."
- Natasha Bertrand is a NatSec journo for Politico.
It's a multi tweet thread, and the third post has the gold.
"During the private briefing Evanina said he expected Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe to reveal more about the Russians' activity during the Worldwide Threats hearing, but whether that hearing will even happen is still in doubt."
Expecting Ratcliffe to do so, should be grounds for immediate dismissal of Evanina based on either a level of naivete or deceit that shouldn't be permissable by someone in his position.
Fucking had enough of career bureaucrats thinking that Republican appointees will act in good faith.
Ed Rendell is for Bass, which means you should definitely oppose her. That asshole has been a pox on Democratic politics for twenty years.
/sigh I used to like Ed, briefly, in 2004, because for the hot minute that I was an officially elected member of the Ohio dem party*, I ended up in line for the bar behind him at the Ohio Jeff-Jack** dinner (he was a guest speaker that year) and was star struck
*I got to see my name on the same primary ballot as such dem luminaries as John Edwards and Joe Lieberman! I moved 2 weeks later and abandoned my precinct!
**its an enormous embarrassment that Dems proudly claim their political heritage back to these two...but like my lack of awareness about how useless Rendell was/is, I also didn’t know how shitty it was to claim this political heritage back then
Many/most of the Jefferson Jackson dinners have been renamed in the last 5 years or so which is nice.
Things are not going great for Rendell after his anti Harris comments
Politico writer:
Similar things from senior Obama folk, senior Hillary folk, Connie Shultz (prominent columnist who Sherrod Brown is married to) , lots of activists etc
Karen Bass and her comments about Scientology are starting to get around social media and people aren't happy about it.
Candidates should absolutely do their own private and thorough vetting, but leaking somebody as a front runner or as being considered to the media and letting a ton of reporters and internet sleuths go digging through every appearance (s)he's ever made might be smart too, heh
In recent weeks, the Senate majority leader has become so concerned over Republicans losing control of the Senate that he has signaled to vulnerable GOP senators in tough races that they could distance themselves from the President if they feel it is necessary, according to multiple senior Republicans including a source close to McConnell.
That could mean breaking with Trump on the administration's response to the coronavirus pandemic and the continued efforts by the President to paint an optimistic picture despite rising cases and deaths across parts of the country, especially in many Republican states in the South and Midwest.
While this may give some senators the flexibility to draw a distinction between themselves and the President, it also forces them to walk a tightrope. Trump remains enormously popular with the Republican base, and any attempts to undercut him risks alienating those voters.
"These vulnerable senators can't afford to explicitly repudiate Trump," said one senior Republican on Capitol Hill. "They just need to show they are independent on issues important in their states."
Photosaurus on
"If complete and utter chaos was lightning, then he'd be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and shouting 'All gods are bastards'."
+35
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited August 2020
If that actually happens I can't wait to see the huge diaper filling tantrums Trump is going to have going up to election day.
At the very least it will loose him allies on his bullshit about trying to say the election results are illegitimate.
Edit - Calling it here and now; when the distancing becomes obvious & public and Trump starts throwing a fit, he's going to insist Republicans wouldn't have their jobs "if it weren't for him."
It wouldn't surprise me. I'm not as familiar with Rendell but in addition to conceding the election to Bush Jr would have put a shitload of people that were expecting White House/governmental jobs out looking for less glamorous work that I bet hold grudges.
Announcement for VP has been pushed back a week. It could be the pick was leaning to Bass and the scientology stuff made people scramble, but a weird thing for them not to pick up on.
I said it before the various VP picks are No please NO I am asking you No
I really had no idea who Bass was until today and felt it was a poor choice. Harris is still a damned if you do damned if you don't. Abrams is still a interesting choice but I still only am working with what rumors are out there
Bass is a member of the Coalition for Autism Research and Education, which includes these as major points in their approach to autistic issues:
Bringing together public, private, and government entities to pursue
legislative initiatives that will help facilitate advanced treatments—and
ultimately a cure—for autism spectrum disorders.
• Promoting all means to ease the burdens of families and loved ones
affected by autism
The "search for a cure" narrative is a toxic one, rejected by many (most?) in the autistic community. Add to that a focus on treating autists as a burden and prioritizing the easing of that burden on others (instead of easing the burden of discrimination on actual autists) tell me I'm not enthused about Karen Bass.
That said, I'm not a single-issue voter, but this sucks.
Fuck this shit so much. I don't need to be cured. My son doesn't need to be cured. Far as I'm concerned, she needs to be politically stuffed in an oil drum and buried beneath a mountain cause that shit is toxic.
Haven't logged in in like 5 years, get pointed over here for the Epstein stuff today, and see this fucking horseshit.
Autism isn't a fucking lifestyle. It is a fucking crippling, devastating, disorder that prevents us from actually being able to live our life or even have relationships with people.
This attempt at trying to vilify a cure is fucking atrocious horseshit by people who are either self diagnosed or can pass close enough to NT that they can actually engage in society, and want something in their life to feel special about.
+3
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
Bass is a member of the Coalition for Autism Research and Education, which includes these as major points in their approach to autistic issues:
Bringing together public, private, and government entities to pursue
legislative initiatives that will help facilitate advanced treatments—and
ultimately a cure—for autism spectrum disorders.
• Promoting all means to ease the burdens of families and loved ones
affected by autism
The "search for a cure" narrative is a toxic one, rejected by many (most?) in the autistic community. Add to that a focus on treating autists as a burden and prioritizing the easing of that burden on others (instead of easing the burden of discrimination on actual autists) tell me I'm not enthused about Karen Bass.
That said, I'm not a single-issue voter, but this sucks.
Fuck this shit so much. I don't need to be cured. My son doesn't need to be cured. Far as I'm concerned, she needs to be politically stuffed in an oil drum and buried beneath a mountain cause that shit is toxic.
Haven't logged in in like 5 years, get pointed over here for the Epstein stuff today, and see this fucking horseshit.
Autism isn't a fucking lifestyle. It is a fucking crippling, devastating, disorder that prevents us from actually being able to live our life or even have relationships with people.
This attempt at trying to vilify a cure is fucking atrocious horseshit by people who are either self diagnosed or can pass close enough to NT that they can actually engage in society, and want something in their life to feel special about.
I respect that this is your experience of autism, but I would disagree with your attempt to categorize those with different experiences as somehow insufficiently autistic. In particular, I don't think it's especially good practice to take such a dismissive perspective on self-diagnosis, given the various issues which can make healthcare and access to it a nightmare in the USA.
Bass is a member of the Coalition for Autism Research and Education, which includes these as major points in their approach to autistic issues:
Bringing together public, private, and government entities to pursue
legislative initiatives that will help facilitate advanced treatments—and
ultimately a cure—for autism spectrum disorders.
• Promoting all means to ease the burdens of families and loved ones
affected by autism
The "search for a cure" narrative is a toxic one, rejected by many (most?) in the autistic community. Add to that a focus on treating autists as a burden and prioritizing the easing of that burden on others (instead of easing the burden of discrimination on actual autists) tell me I'm not enthused about Karen Bass.
That said, I'm not a single-issue voter, but this sucks.
Fuck this shit so much. I don't need to be cured. My son doesn't need to be cured. Far as I'm concerned, she needs to be politically stuffed in an oil drum and buried beneath a mountain cause that shit is toxic.
Haven't logged in in like 5 years, get pointed over here for the Epstein stuff today, and see this fucking horseshit.
Autism isn't a fucking lifestyle. It is a fucking crippling, devastating, disorder that prevents us from actually being able to live our life or even have relationships with people.
This attempt at trying to vilify a cure is fucking atrocious horseshit by people who are either self diagnosed or can pass close enough to NT that they can actually engage in society, and want something in their life to feel special about.
I respect that this is your experience of autism, but I would disagree with your attempt to categorize those with different experiences as somehow insufficiently autistic. In particular, I don't think it's especially good practice to take such a dismissive perspective on self-diagnosis, given the various issues which can make healthcare and access to it a nightmare in the USA.
You are literally telling me and people like me to just suck it up and fucking suffer, for our entire life.
Because some people might feel like their "identity is being erased" if there was a cure.
+5
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
Bass is a member of the Coalition for Autism Research and Education, which includes these as major points in their approach to autistic issues:
Bringing together public, private, and government entities to pursue
legislative initiatives that will help facilitate advanced treatments—and
ultimately a cure—for autism spectrum disorders.
• Promoting all means to ease the burdens of families and loved ones
affected by autism
The "search for a cure" narrative is a toxic one, rejected by many (most?) in the autistic community. Add to that a focus on treating autists as a burden and prioritizing the easing of that burden on others (instead of easing the burden of discrimination on actual autists) tell me I'm not enthused about Karen Bass.
That said, I'm not a single-issue voter, but this sucks.
Fuck this shit so much. I don't need to be cured. My son doesn't need to be cured. Far as I'm concerned, she needs to be politically stuffed in an oil drum and buried beneath a mountain cause that shit is toxic.
Haven't logged in in like 5 years, get pointed over here for the Epstein stuff today, and see this fucking horseshit.
Autism isn't a fucking lifestyle. It is a fucking crippling, devastating, disorder that prevents us from actually being able to live our life or even have relationships with people.
This attempt at trying to vilify a cure is fucking atrocious horseshit by people who are either self diagnosed or can pass close enough to NT that they can actually engage in society, and want something in their life to feel special about.
I respect that this is your experience of autism, but I would disagree with your attempt to categorize those with different experiences as somehow insufficiently autistic. In particular, I don't think it's especially good practice to take such a dismissive perspective on self-diagnosis, given the various issues which can make healthcare and access to it a nightmare in the USA.
You are literally telling me and people like me to just suck it up and fucking suffer, for our entire life.
Because some people might feel like their "identity is being erased" if there was a cure.
Nah, that wasn't what I said. But we'd need a Goddamn Separate Thread to get into it.
Depends on how much traction the "But Benghaaaaaazi" counter-attacks will get. Because you know it's coming, and you know it'll be relentless.
Doesn't matter that it's a bullshit attack. But if they're not prepared for it (unlikely) or if the media bite on it hard (likely), it could be problematic.
Cause as I see it, this comes down to a turnout game. Neither MAGAts or leftists are going to give a shit. But if this has people who weren't going to turn out vote, or make people on the fence about Biden not vote, that's a problem.
Not saying they shouldn't pick Rice. But they better have a plan for the most obvious fucking strategy the Trump campaign will launch in response, and an idea of how to control the media narrative.
But if this has people who weren't going to turn out vote, or make people on the fence about Biden not vote, that's a problem.
Do these people really exist at this point? If someone wasn't planning to vote given the current circumstances, I'm not sure any choice of VP would induce them to do so.
But if this has people who weren't going to turn out vote, or make people on the fence about Biden not vote, that's a problem.
Do these people really exist at this point? If someone wasn't planning to vote given the current circumstances, I'm not sure any choice of VP would induce them to do so.
I don't know. In a normal election, where the only thing being risked is wasting a couple hours, probably not. In an election where Covid is fucking everywhere, if people are on the fence, maybe?
Honestly, I've given up trying to predict how people will react, because I can't see how Trump is polling as well as he is. How he's not already at the crazifaction factor (~27%) yet, how the crazifaction factor is so high, how anyone can listen to his voice and not reflexively cringe, or see the entire party as complicit and corrupt, I just do not understand. That it took a pandemic AND a botched response leading to an economic catastrophe to have Biden up less than double digits is just JackieChanMindBlown.gif to me.
But I do know that the media and campaign ads do work, and it is a concern. I worry about fucking EVERYTHING.
She has never held elected office and it is rare for someone to jump directly to VP. Generally you have someone who st least has a statewide office in part so you get vetting. Among with never being in a debate or campaigning for anything that means she hasn't been vetted like office seekers are (see Bass and scientology today for instance)
She brings little domestic policy or legislative experience. She does have executive branch and foreign policy experience but that's more of an argument for Secretary of State
How can any Republican even attempt to distance themselves from Trump when the last four years was basically a contest to see which one of them could shamelessly kiss his ass the most?
How can any Republican even attempt to distance themselves from Trump when the last four years was basically a contest to see which one of them could shamelessly kiss his ass the most?
Their voting base doesn't exactly have a long-term memory. They're very in the moment and spin on a dime about shit.
+13
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Harris has some bad stuff in her history but so far she has been saying the right things and backing the right people to allay any concerns. It appears to not be just pandering. She's politically putting her money where her mouth is. I have no reason to expect that she's lying and if she gets the big chair she will suddenly flip and go all "law and order on us". While it is rare and I'm always sceptical at first, people can change.
Also, truth be told, I'm a bit more pro Harris now just to spite the "too ambitious" nitwits. Irrational, but I'm only human.
My take is that it's entirely possible that her entire national career has been about cynically doing things that she knows will make her more popular and not really caring about anybody on a personal level. Like, maybe she doesn't regret a single thing she ever did as DA. Maybe she's like, "Fuck all those dumb people I screwed over" and she goes home at night and plays recordings of the weeping of the underpriviliged while smiling and sipping champagne.
But everything she's done the past half decade has been the stuff I would want her to do anyway. She pushes policies I like and says things I like and supports people i like. If her evil plan is to do a bunch of good progressive shit so she can become president and do more good progressive shit to trick people into thinking she's a good person, like, okay? I think I'm fine with that?
I want my girlfriend to have a good and pure secret heart. I just want my president to enact good policy; they can go wank it to puppy snuff films all night long if they feel like it, I don't care.
Pretty much where I am at. But the puppy snuff film thing would definitely cost them my vote.
How can any Republican even attempt to distance themselves from Trump when the last four years was basically a contest to see which one of them could shamelessly kiss his ass the most?
You can fool some of the people all of the time...
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
How can any Republican even attempt to distance themselves from Trump when the last four years was basically a contest to see which one of them could shamelessly kiss his ass the most?
A substantial portion of the electorate has the political memory of a goldfish.
I almost got roped into a debate with someone who was trying to justify Trump's reduction of troops in Germany by claiming he ran on a platform of reducing military spending. And I have no doubt that they were genuinely convinced of that.
Bass is a member of the Coalition for Autism Research and Education, which includes these as major points in their approach to autistic issues:
Bringing together public, private, and government entities to pursue
legislative initiatives that will help facilitate advanced treatments—and
ultimately a cure—for autism spectrum disorders.
• Promoting all means to ease the burdens of families and loved ones
affected by autism
The "search for a cure" narrative is a toxic one, rejected by many (most?) in the autistic community. Add to that a focus on treating autists as a burden and prioritizing the easing of that burden on others (instead of easing the burden of discrimination on actual autists) tell me I'm not enthused about Karen Bass.
That said, I'm not a single-issue voter, but this sucks.
Fuck this shit so much. I don't need to be cured. My son doesn't need to be cured. Far as I'm concerned, she needs to be politically stuffed in an oil drum and buried beneath a mountain cause that shit is toxic.
Haven't logged in in like 5 years, get pointed over here for the Epstein stuff today, and see this fucking horseshit.
Autism isn't a fucking lifestyle. It is a fucking crippling, devastating, disorder that prevents us from actually being able to live our life or even have relationships with people.
This attempt at trying to vilify a cure is fucking atrocious horseshit by people who are either self diagnosed or can pass close enough to NT that they can actually engage in society, and want something in their life to feel special about.
I respect that this is your experience of autism, but I would disagree with your attempt to categorize those with different experiences as somehow insufficiently autistic. In particular, I don't think it's especially good practice to take such a dismissive perspective on self-diagnosis, given the various issues which can make healthcare and access to it a nightmare in the USA.
You are literally telling me and people like me to just suck it up and fucking suffer, for our entire life.
Because some people might feel like their "identity is being erased" if there was a cure.
Nah, that wasn't what I said. But we'd need a Goddamn Separate Thread to get into it.
Hi yes just confirming that this tangent is so not even close to on-topic.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'm fine with Harris (#1) or Rice (good second choice).
Love Warren, really do. Her before Biden for the nomination. Didn't pick her on 3/10 just because it was already Bernie vs. Biden.
Anyone on here knows I'm the pulse of suburban white with a progressive streak, and my wife is hardcore 'educated white suburban woman'.
We are fine with whomever Biden picks and unless its like..Sheriff Joe or some shit, doesn't matter. Because it's either Trump or <not Trump> and we are going all in on getting that fuckwr out of office.
Which is what every last suburban white I know from 30 - 60 will say. Even if they are a sorta racist Karen, they are all Fuck Trunp and they vote
Best of the potential picks is Warren -> Harris -> Abrams, tbh.
Big, big concern with a Warren VP slot is her age. The last thing that Biden needs is a VP that is also over the 70 line. I don't think that Warren makes the cut for that, sorry.
+11
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Bass is only five years younger than Warren, i found out today.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Best of the potential picks is Warren -> Harris -> Abrams, tbh.
Big, big concern with a Warren VP slot is her age. The last thing that Biden needs is a VP that is also over the 70 line. I don't think that Warren makes the cut for that, sorry.
Age, race, and geography are suboptimal IMO. Plus Warren's biggest strength as a hypothetical candidate were her plans which become largely irrelevant as VP.
Bass is only five years younger than Warren, i found out today.
Tbf' 65-66 to 70+ is a huge jump.
Not to be shitty about age but on average once you hit mid-60s five years makes a huge difference. I'm watching it with my parents and then the past 15 years with my remaining grandparent(in law).
Of the frontrunners, only Abrams excites me. That said, I think it'll be Harris. Everyone else has too many cons. Harris isn't particularly strong with any particular demographic, but she's only particularly weak with progressives--and anyone willing to vote for Biden is unlikely to be turned away by Harris alone.
I still wish Duckworth had run. The race might've been very different if the other moderate candidates hadn't been Lex Luthor, Evil Ben Wyatt, and Ambitious Prosecutor #38.
When it comes to the debates, people have said the media will softball Trump for ratings/horserace narrative as usual, but I'm not so sure. If Fox News is calling Trump out in the middle of a White House interview--and doing so repeatedly--I can't imagine he'll get a friendlier reception from the other networks.
Of the frontrunners, only Abrams excites me. That said, I think it'll be Harris. Everyone else has too many cons. Harris isn't particularly strong with any particular demographic, but she's only particularly weak with progressives--and anyone willing to vote for Biden is unlikely to be turned away by Harris alone.
I still wish Duckworth had run. The race might've been very different if the other moderate candidates hadn't been Lex Luthor, Evil Ben Wyatt, and Ambitious Prosecutor #38.
When it comes to the debates, people have said the media will softball Trump for ratings/horserace narrative as usual, but I'm not so sure. If Fox News is calling Trump out in the middle of a White House interview--and doing so repeatedly--I can't imagine he'll get a friendlier reception from the other networks.
I hope the media realizes that people will tune in more for the spectacle of them ripping a sitting president to shreds on national TV than they will for whatever BS show Trump can put on.
Cause he story of him throwing a temper tantrum and marching off in a huff is a lot more interesting and entertaining than any bullshit he could spew at the podium.
Go full TMZ on every aspect of him and his history.
+5
Options
JeanHeartbroken papa bearGatineau, QuébecRegistered Userregular
Bass is only five years younger than Warren, i found out today.
Tbf' 65-66 to 70+ is a huge jump.
Not to be shitty about age but on average once you hit mid-60s five years makes a huge difference. I'm watching it with my parents and then the past 15 years with my remaining grandparent(in law).
I sadly have to agree on that. My mother's 74 and I can... see the decline in her physical capacities
"You won't destroy us, You won't destroy our democracy. We are a small but proud nation. No one can bomb us to silence. No one can scare us from being Norway. This evening and tonight, we'll take care of each other. That's what we do best when attacked'' - Jens Stoltenberg
Posts
Nothing about Harris' positions have ever really struck me as inconsistent. She bends with the politics of the time like every politician but I think sometimes there's a confusion between not agreeing with a particular nexus of positions and said nexus of positions not being valid or coherent or honest.
Like, to use the above example, I can see how a ton of people would have a problem with her "It is not progressive to be soft on crime" quote but there's nothing weird about it. It's not dishonest or at odds with anything else I've seen from her. Hell, in context I wouldn't be shocked if it was mainstream. Especially at the time.
Great post. I love seeing someone trying to take a nuanced approach to a complex and often very personal subject.
My reaction comes from that for me, talking about "treating" "finding a cure" for autism is a harm and threat, directly and indirectly, to me and my family. If it's just some rando's opinion, I can talk to that. If it's an organization that says they advance the cause for people on the spectrum, then fuck them forever and always. They should know better, and they don't, which means they don't care about actual ASD.
To bring this back around, I expect a politician to be much more aware of who they support. That she isn't in this case does not speak well of her competence. Big no for VP for me.
None of the press releases on this page read as anything but compassionate:
https://doyle.house.gov/issues/autism-caucus
So this seems like an unearned amount of cynicism to apply to "ease the burdens of families and loved ones affected by autism," a phrasing that, necessarily, includes the people with ASD themselves.
Could they have emphasised the individuals better? Sure, and they do in the announcement celebrating the passage of their signature legislation:
But there's probably people out there who would interpret that emphasis as othering, and suggestive of division in their family unit. What are you gonna do.
All that said, I've never heard of this congresswoman, this caucus, or this law, so if there are other data points that lead you interpret the same words I'm seeing as a negative, I would definitely like to know them.
Well. Like is the wrong word, but I feel obliged to inform myself of them nonetheless, and would appreciate any assistance in that goal.
/sigh I used to like Ed, briefly, in 2004, because for the hot minute that I was an officially elected member of the Ohio dem party*, I ended up in line for the bar behind him at the Ohio Jeff-Jack** dinner (he was a guest speaker that year) and was star struck
*I got to see my name on the same primary ballot as such dem luminaries as John Edwards and Joe Lieberman! I moved 2 weeks later and abandoned my precinct!
**its an enormous embarrassment that Dems proudly claim their political heritage back to these two...but like my lack of awareness about how useless Rendell was/is, I also didn’t know how shitty it was to claim this political heritage back then
the problem (imo) to have with harris is less the general 'she's a cop' criticism and more that she had an 'every problem looks like a nail' approach when she was a prosecutor. School truancy a problem? Prosecute the parents! and etc.
I don't worry that she'd "go all law and order" in the nixon sense, but it should be a little concerning that she seemed to think that every issue had a solution that involved police power
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'm gonna nest this behind a spoiler because I think it's worth talking about re:Bass and the election, but some folks may not want it gumming up their feed.
There is a persistent trope in anti-autistic rhetoric which prioritizes the feelings and experiences of non-autistic family members over the feelings and experiences of autistic individuals. You'll hear stories from mothers who are heartbroken by their child's "condition", but nobody ever asks the child how they feel about their mother describing them in such dark and burdensome terms. You'll see resources dedicated to training autistic children to "act normal", but no resources dedicated to accommodating them when they don't. The organization Autism Speaks, which heads up the annual "Light It Up Blue For Autism Awareness" push, was (for a while -- I haven't check in on them lately) led by a board entirely composed of people who were not, themselves, autistic. How can you call your organization Autism Speaks when none of the people speaking are autistic?
This division in perspective has real consequences for autistic children especially, because it's how parents end up justifying heinous "treatments" like bleach enemas to try and "fix" their kids.
So to bring this back around to the CARE, let's look at their entire list of goals from here: https://www.aucd.org/docs/2018 Congressional Autism Caucus.pdf
With the context of this split in "families-first" vs. "individual first" rhetoric, I hope you can understand how an autist like me can look at that list and see not just a failure to acknowledge the issues people like me would prioritize, but a handful of red flags pointing to toxic narratives which endanger us -- autists as burdens, autism as disease in need of cure, etc. And that's before you get into the admittedly finicky issue of phrasing like "people with autism" vs. "autistic people".
Contrast that list of goals from CARE with the position statements page of the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network: https://autisticadvocacy.org/about-asan/position-statements/
Could it be that their hearts are in the right place? Apart from the cure narrative, maybe. But this kind of rhetoric has a rich context that tells me they are, at best, not listening to autistic people enough to understand it.
Entirely legit, but I am sympathetic to seeing a bunch of problems and only having one real lever to pull to effect change, even if I realize that the proper response in that situation was to just leave the damned lever alone.
More to the point, she seems to legit regret hammering on that single lever, and to understand why that was bad, and to have learned from that mistake. Which is a pretty rare quality in a politician.
But anyway, her power as veep is limited, and if she looks like a shitty person to have in power, it's not like we're obligated to install her as POTUS in 20XX.
Ultimately, I think assessing her as president is probably misguided. Assessing her as vice president, I think she'd be fine at messaging, great for optics, we wouldn't be losing anything huge in removing her from the Senate, and she'd be at least nominally capable as president.
"NEWS: Pelosi admonished top counterintel official Evanina during private briefing this a.m., accusing him of withholding info about Russia. Evanina ultimately acknowledged that Russia is trying to boost Trump’s reelection; Dems want him to say it publicly."
- Natasha Bertrand is a NatSec journo for Politico.
It's a multi tweet thread, and the third post has the gold.
"During the private briefing Evanina said he expected Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe to reveal more about the Russians' activity during the Worldwide Threats hearing, but whether that hearing will even happen is still in doubt."
Expecting Ratcliffe to do so, should be grounds for immediate dismissal of Evanina based on either a level of naivete or deceit that shouldn't be permissable by someone in his position.
Fucking had enough of career bureaucrats thinking that Republican appointees will act in good faith.
Many/most of the Jefferson Jackson dinners have been renamed in the last 5 years or so which is nice.
Things are not going great for Rendell after his anti Harris comments
Politico writer:
Similar things from senior Obama folk, senior Hillary folk, Connie Shultz (prominent columnist who Sherrod Brown is married to) , lots of activists etc
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Candidates should absolutely do their own private and thorough vetting, but leaking somebody as a front runner or as being considered to the media and letting a ton of reporters and internet sleuths go digging through every appearance (s)he's ever made might be smart too, heh
McConnell signal to Republican Senate candidates: Distance from Trump if necessary
At the very least it will loose him allies on his bullshit about trying to say the election results are illegitimate.
Edit - Calling it here and now; when the distancing becomes obvious & public and Trump starts throwing a fit, he's going to insist Republicans wouldn't have their jobs "if it weren't for him."
Announcement for VP has been pushed back a week. It could be the pick was leaning to Bass and the scientology stuff made people scramble, but a weird thing for them not to pick up on.
I really had no idea who Bass was until today and felt it was a poor choice. Harris is still a damned if you do damned if you don't. Abrams is still a interesting choice but I still only am working with what rumors are out there
Haven't logged in in like 5 years, get pointed over here for the Epstein stuff today, and see this fucking horseshit.
Autism isn't a fucking lifestyle. It is a fucking crippling, devastating, disorder that prevents us from actually being able to live our life or even have relationships with people.
This attempt at trying to vilify a cure is fucking atrocious horseshit by people who are either self diagnosed or can pass close enough to NT that they can actually engage in society, and want something in their life to feel special about.
I respect that this is your experience of autism, but I would disagree with your attempt to categorize those with different experiences as somehow insufficiently autistic. In particular, I don't think it's especially good practice to take such a dismissive perspective on self-diagnosis, given the various issues which can make healthcare and access to it a nightmare in the USA.
You are literally telling me and people like me to just suck it up and fucking suffer, for our entire life.
Because some people might feel like their "identity is being erased" if there was a cure.
Nah, that wasn't what I said. But we'd need a Goddamn Separate Thread to get into it.
Depends on how much traction the "But Benghaaaaaazi" counter-attacks will get. Because you know it's coming, and you know it'll be relentless.
Doesn't matter that it's a bullshit attack. But if they're not prepared for it (unlikely) or if the media bite on it hard (likely), it could be problematic.
Cause as I see it, this comes down to a turnout game. Neither MAGAts or leftists are going to give a shit. But if this has people who weren't going to turn out vote, or make people on the fence about Biden not vote, that's a problem.
Not saying they shouldn't pick Rice. But they better have a plan for the most obvious fucking strategy the Trump campaign will launch in response, and an idea of how to control the media narrative.
Do these people really exist at this point? If someone wasn't planning to vote given the current circumstances, I'm not sure any choice of VP would induce them to do so.
I don't know. In a normal election, where the only thing being risked is wasting a couple hours, probably not. In an election where Covid is fucking everywhere, if people are on the fence, maybe?
Honestly, I've given up trying to predict how people will react, because I can't see how Trump is polling as well as he is. How he's not already at the crazifaction factor (~27%) yet, how the crazifaction factor is so high, how anyone can listen to his voice and not reflexively cringe, or see the entire party as complicit and corrupt, I just do not understand. That it took a pandemic AND a botched response leading to an economic catastrophe to have Biden up less than double digits is just JackieChanMindBlown.gif to me.
But I do know that the media and campaign ads do work, and it is a concern. I worry about fucking EVERYTHING.
She has never held elected office and it is rare for someone to jump directly to VP. Generally you have someone who st least has a statewide office in part so you get vetting. Among with never being in a debate or campaigning for anything that means she hasn't been vetted like office seekers are (see Bass and scientology today for instance)
She brings little domestic policy or legislative experience. She does have executive branch and foreign policy experience but that's more of an argument for Secretary of State
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
yeah me too I'm weird like that
You can fool some of the people all of the time...
A substantial portion of the electorate has the political memory of a goldfish.
I almost got roped into a debate with someone who was trying to justify Trump's reduction of troops in Germany by claiming he ran on a platform of reducing military spending. And I have no doubt that they were genuinely convinced of that.
Hi yes just confirming that this tangent is so not even close to on-topic.
Love Warren, really do. Her before Biden for the nomination. Didn't pick her on 3/10 just because it was already Bernie vs. Biden.
Anyone on here knows I'm the pulse of suburban white with a progressive streak, and my wife is hardcore 'educated white suburban woman'.
We are fine with whomever Biden picks and unless its like..Sheriff Joe or some shit, doesn't matter. Because it's either Trump or <not Trump> and we are going all in on getting that fuckwr out of office.
Which is what every last suburban white I know from 30 - 60 will say. Even if they are a sorta racist Karen, they are all Fuck Trunp and they vote
Edit - phone posting autocorrect
Big, big concern with a Warren VP slot is her age. The last thing that Biden needs is a VP that is also over the 70 line. I don't think that Warren makes the cut for that, sorry.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Age, race, and geography are suboptimal IMO. Plus Warren's biggest strength as a hypothetical candidate were her plans which become largely irrelevant as VP.
If Biden serves one term and Harris then served two she would be almost exactly Bass's age
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Tbf' 65-66 to 70+ is a huge jump.
Not to be shitty about age but on average once you hit mid-60s five years makes a huge difference. I'm watching it with my parents and then the past 15 years with my remaining grandparent(in law).
I still wish Duckworth had run. The race might've been very different if the other moderate candidates hadn't been Lex Luthor, Evil Ben Wyatt, and Ambitious Prosecutor #38.
When it comes to the debates, people have said the media will softball Trump for ratings/horserace narrative as usual, but I'm not so sure. If Fox News is calling Trump out in the middle of a White House interview--and doing so repeatedly--I can't imagine he'll get a friendlier reception from the other networks.
I hope the media realizes that people will tune in more for the spectacle of them ripping a sitting president to shreds on national TV than they will for whatever BS show Trump can put on.
Cause he story of him throwing a temper tantrum and marching off in a huff is a lot more interesting and entertaining than any bullshit he could spew at the podium.
Go full TMZ on every aspect of him and his history.
I sadly have to agree on that. My mother's 74 and I can... see the decline in her physical capacities