anindefinitearticle

It’s not about taking the moral high ground against them, it’s about not disenfranchising and alienating large portions of her base so she can win, and it’s about not using an attack that frankly is more applicable to her candidacy than to his.

She’s the weird one! That’s why I’m voting for her! Trump is just more of the dark side of America that has always been present. Nothing weird about him. Plenty weird and unique and novel and different about Kamala. I’m voting for the weird candidate.

I can get behind that. Total creeps.

I hate this messaging because I’m proudly weird. It’s a rhetorical step towards ostracizing and othering those who are different. I think this is a really bad move that can and will backfire, especially when the opponent is fascism.

Weird is just anything you aren’t used to. Kamala is “weird” to trump supporters who aren’t used to seeing women or POCs in positions of power. Compared to every president before her, she stands out as a lot weirder than Trump.

“You’re weird!” Is a really bad strategy. Queer and weird were once synonyms, and mostly still are. Don’t disenfranchise your base.

designed to penetrate body armor

wrong gun to carry for personal defense

Depends on what you’re defending against! Only people wearing kevlar body armor are cops, militants, and ice hockey goalies. I don’t know much about guns, but from the description you’re replying to this sounds like the right one for personal defense against wannabe fascist militias and overfunded/overarmed police forces. I agree it’s the wrong gun to defend against the defenseless, but shooting the defenseless is not what I think of when someone says “personal defense”.

I didn’t say I was optimistic, just that we are at a time in our history begging for amendments and reform.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress

An amendment needs to be proposed by 2/3 of both houses of congress, or 2/3 of states can call a convention where any amendments can be proposed. Then an amendment needs to get 3/4 of states to ratify.

If I’m reading this right, that is.

So we need 2/3 of both houses of congress and 3/4 of state legislatures to agree. A large hurdle, but doable and necessary for our democracy. We’ve done it before, and now is a time in our history begging for amendments/reform.

Which isn’t always plausible to do in a country lacking social safety net, public healthcare, etc.

The 2019 plan is moot now. She needs a project climate 2025.

Reclamation of the word ´anarchism´ is the biggest change since the 90s on this front, so this is probably the best answer. Thanks for feeding people.

True, but the playing field surely influenced the decision of Biden to drop out at this point. This was a great move by him. His debate performance, intentionally bad or not, set this up. He stayed in through the joke of a primary to avoid divisiveness and in-fighting. He didn’t prepare for the debate because he’s too old to both campaign and govern properly. Unity in the party intact, and all Republican attacks focused on Joe The Man, Joe was easily pulled out from in front of the charging media machine with unity and the party intact to regroup against the overcommitted enemy.

The replacement, hand picked by Biden 4 years ago, is a prosecutor ready to carry out the American Dream of locking up the “bad guys”. Most of the country agrees that there is a major corruption issue in our government. I hope Kamala has a clear plan for fixing it that goes beyond the standard punishment fetish of the criminal justice system of which she was an agent. To get systemic change, we need to change the system. I want to hear what upgrades she has in mind. We need a more sophisticated system of checks and balances.

The stories of giving up power for the good of all is a solid subset of the good impacts this country has had in the world. We haven’t always done it. We have done and are doing a lot of bad in the world. But when we do good, the story of giving up or sharing power is an American classic.

He answered the Roe V Wade question by talking about migrant crime, and handed Trump an easy response/diversion on his hardest question. Total flag maneuver. He threw the debate and hammed it up. Let Trump’s head get big and let the Republicans overcommit and overspend against the straw man before saying psyche.

A subversion of the “democratic” primary process, perhaps, but those have been a joke the past few cycles anyway. Not to mention “Superdelegates”. We need a constitutionally protected primarying and election process that isn’t run by the largest parties. I hope that it gets included in Kamala’s electoral reform package. Europe can hold snap elections, why can’t we? Europe has a sane system of parties that form alliances instead of an artificial binary choice. We need to upgrade our democracy to the 20th century advancements that we promoted elsewhere, and add further 21st century enhancements like ranked choice voting.

I am not saying it was orchestrated as much as navigated well.

Because he and many lazy outlets are reporting he was definitely shot or hit by a bullet.

This is newsworthy because it’s clarifying a misconception that is going around and is being amplified by the trump team because it makes him seem more “badass” and “hard to kill”.