Kamala Harris’ office rife with dissent

[Anonymous]

!

You can play the same game for Kamala in a identity politics neutral way as well:

Kamala was picked: 1.) because she is one of the most progressive voting senators and Biden the "moderate" needed to shore up support across the party (2.) because she is young and Biden needed an energetic-seeming running mate to counteract claims that he is old and frail and 3.) because she came at the recommendation of Obama to whom Biden owed much of his political fortunes.

Identity politics is the explanation of first impulse for Kamala whereas the neutral ones are the explanation for Biden. Ask yourself why? Why is the explanatory power of id pol for perceived deficiencies so natural and reflexive in the one instance and not the other? Yes, part of it is statements Joe made and his political calculus. But then again those statements and assumptions don't even need to be spoken in the context of picking someone like Joe because it is already back into the cake and normalized. He has always been the default.

I don't think either of them are particularly gifted politicians, but that "impulse" and the weighting of identity politics is what Kamala defenders are pointing to.


Bruh. Joe said he picked her because she is a black woman and her own WH page is all about how she's intersectional multiracial blasian bicultural daughter of immigrants. That's how she presents herself, with her demographic identity front and center. You can't reduce yourself to stereotypes and then be stunned when people feel like they don't know you. Maybe she should cut back on the tropes and let us see what she's got.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Joe would have won with Michigan gov. Gretchen Whitmer. And Gretch would have been grinning ear to ear in Washington, not constantly trying to be the star of the show and kick Joe into a retirement home like conniving Kamala.

I think Joe's camp dumps Kamala for Stacey Abrams. Stacey is genuinely sharp and charming, Kamala is genuinely a documented idiot who makes my skin crawl.

Stacey Abrams will not admit she lost her election. Still. Kind of reminds me of someone, but Dems seem to support her “Big Lie.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joe would have won with Michigan gov. Gretchen Whitmer. And Gretch would have been grinning ear to ear in Washington, not constantly trying to be the star of the show and kick Joe into a retirement home like conniving Kamala.

I think Joe's camp dumps Kamala for Stacey Abrams. Stacey is genuinely sharp and charming, Kamala is genuinely a documented idiot who makes my skin crawl.

Stacey Abrams will not admit she lost her election. Still. Kind of reminds me of someone, but Dems seem to support her “Big Lie.”

Gosh what I would pay (as a republican) to have Stacy Abrams on the dem ticket, in ANY capacity. My dog is smarter than her, and that’s not an exaggeration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:!

You can play the same game for Kamala in a identity politics neutral way as well:

Kamala was picked: 1.) because she is one of the most progressive voting senators and Biden the "moderate" needed to shore up support across the party (2.) because she is young and Biden needed an energetic-seeming running mate to counteract claims that he is old and frail and 3.) because she came at the recommendation of Obama to whom Biden owed much of his political fortunes.

Identity politics is the explanation of first impulse for Kamala whereas the neutral ones are the explanation for Biden. Ask yourself why? Why is the explanatory power of id pol for perceived deficiencies so natural and reflexive in the one instance and not the other? Yes, part of it is statements Joe made and his political calculus. But then again those statements and assumptions don't even need to be spoken in the context of picking someone like Joe because it is already back into the cake and normalized. He has always been the default.

I don't think either of them are particularly gifted politicians, but that "impulse" and the weighting of identity politics is what Kamala defenders are pointing to.


Bruh. Joe said he picked her because she is a black woman and her own WH page is all about how she's intersectional multiracial blasian bicultural daughter of immigrants. That's how she presents herself, with her demographic identity front and center. You can't reduce yourself to stereotypes and then be stunned when people feel like they don't know you. Maybe she should cut back on the tropes and let us see what she's got.

She’s got nothing. That’s why she has to hide behind the identity politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:!

You can play the same game for Kamala in a identity politics neutral way as well:

Kamala was picked: 1.) because she is one of the most progressive voting senators and Biden the "moderate" needed to shore up support across the party (2.) because she is young and Biden needed an energetic-seeming running mate to counteract claims that he is old and frail and 3.) because she came at the recommendation of Obama to whom Biden owed much of his political fortunes.

Identity politics is the explanation of first impulse for Kamala whereas the neutral ones are the explanation for Biden. Ask yourself why? Why is the explanatory power of id pol for perceived deficiencies so natural and reflexive in the one instance and not the other? Yes, part of it is statements Joe made and his political calculus. But then again those statements and assumptions don't even need to be spoken in the context of picking someone like Joe because it is already back into the cake and normalized. He has always been the default.

I don't think either of them are particularly gifted politicians, but that "impulse" and the weighting of identity politics is what Kamala defenders are pointing to.

Bruh. Joe said he picked her because she is a black woman and her own WH page is all about how she's intersectional multiracial blasian bicultural daughter of immigrants. That's how she presents herself, with her demographic identity front and center. You can't reduce yourself to stereotypes and then be stunned when people feel like they don't know you. Maybe she should cut back on the tropes and let us see what she's got.

She’s got nothing. That’s why she has to hide behind the identity politics.

THIS ENTIRE THREAD SMACKS OF RACISM AND MISOGYNY AND JEFF NEEDS TO DELETE IT RIGHT NOW!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:!

You can play the same game for Kamala in a identity politics neutral way as well:

Kamala was picked: 1.) because she is one of the most progressive voting senators and Biden the "moderate" needed to shore up support across the party (2.) because she is young and Biden needed an energetic-seeming running mate to counteract claims that he is old and frail and 3.) because she came at the recommendation of Obama to whom Biden owed much of his political fortunes.

Identity politics is the explanation of first impulse for Kamala whereas the neutral ones are the explanation for Biden. Ask yourself why? Why is the explanatory power of id pol for perceived deficiencies so natural and reflexive in the one instance and not the other? Yes, part of it is statements Joe made and his political calculus. But then again those statements and assumptions don't even need to be spoken in the context of picking someone like Joe because it is already back into the cake and normalized. He has always been the default.

I don't think either of them are particularly gifted politicians, but that "impulse" and the weighting of identity politics is what Kamala defenders are pointing to.

Bruh. Joe said he picked her because she is a black woman and her own WH page is all about how she's intersectional multiracial blasian bicultural daughter of immigrants. That's how she presents herself, with her demographic identity front and center. You can't reduce yourself to stereotypes and then be stunned when people feel like they don't know you. Maybe she should cut back on the tropes and let us see what she's got.

She’s got nothing. That’s why she has to hide behind the identity politics.

+1000. The little girl pretense is getting old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:!

You can play the same game for Kamala in a identity politics neutral way as well:

Kamala was picked: 1.) because she is one of the most progressive voting senators and Biden the "moderate" needed to shore up support across the party (2.) because she is young and Biden needed an energetic-seeming running mate to counteract claims that he is old and frail and 3.) because she came at the recommendation of Obama to whom Biden owed much of his political fortunes.

Identity politics is the explanation of first impulse for Kamala whereas the neutral ones are the explanation for Biden. Ask yourself why? Why is the explanatory power of id pol for perceived deficiencies so natural and reflexive in the one instance and not the other? Yes, part of it is statements Joe made and his political calculus. But then again those statements and assumptions don't even need to be spoken in the context of picking someone like Joe because it is already back into the cake and normalized. He has always been the default.

I don't think either of them are particularly gifted politicians, but that "impulse" and the weighting of identity politics is what Kamala defenders are pointing to.

Bruh. Joe said he picked her because she is a black woman and her own WH page is all about how she's intersectional multiracial blasian bicultural daughter of immigrants. That's how she presents herself, with her demographic identity front and center. You can't reduce yourself to stereotypes and then be stunned when people feel like they don't know you. Maybe she should cut back on the tropes and let us see what she's got.

She’s got nothing. That’s why she has to hide behind the identity politics.

THIS ENTIRE THREAD SMACKS OF RACISM AND MISOGYNY AND JEFF NEEDS TO DELETE IT RIGHT NOW!

Wow, PP shows why many at DCUM and many professional Democrats love identity politics. It makes it easy to duck criticism of their world. Kamala isn’t even vaguely progressive or populist: she’s an establishment Democrat with melanin and a woman’s body. When did she ever side with little people over the powerful? When choosing not to prosecute Mnuchin? When choosing to ruin the lives of blacks charged with marijuana offenses? When kicking off her campaign in the Hamptons?

I’d agree that we need to need to be harsher on the big time Democrats who proceeded her: the Clintons, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, Gore, etc deserve much more criticism. But the plan fact is Kamala isn’t a substantive improvement on that world, instead she’s even more inept than those folks were and substantially more reliant on using identity politics to justify failures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We really don't need 36 pages of discussion to state the obvious:. Harris sucks and is a huge liability for the Democrats.

But even at 36 pages most of you don’t want to see that she’s a product of a failed culture in the Democratic Party. Criticism of her makes much sense if we face the awfulness of HRC, BHO, Pete, etc.: she’s similar to them, but with even less artfulness.

[Anonymous]

She's a product of sleeping with Wille Brown.

[Anonymous]

She is the first female president of the united states, by virtue of having transferred power today during Biden's colonoscopy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She is the first female president of the united states, by virtue of having transferred power today during Biden's colonoscopy.

ACTING president. And, that is what she does. Acts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She's a product of sleeping with Wille Brown.

She absolutely slept her way to the top. What a great role model for young girls everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:!

You can play the same game for Kamala in a identity politics neutral way as well:

Kamala was picked: 1.) because she is one of the most progressive voting senators and Biden the "moderate" needed to shore up support across the party (2.) because she is young and Biden needed an energetic-seeming running mate to counteract claims that he is old and frail and 3.) because she came at the recommendation of Obama to whom Biden owed much of his political fortunes.

Identity politics is the explanation of first impulse for Kamala whereas the neutral ones are the explanation for Biden. Ask yourself why? Why is the explanatory power of id pol for perceived deficiencies so natural and reflexive in the one instance and not the other? Yes, part of it is statements Joe made and his political calculus. But then again those statements and assumptions don't even need to be spoken in the context of picking someone like Joe because it is already back into the cake and normalized. He has always been the default.

I don't think either of them are particularly gifted politicians, but that "impulse" and the weighting of identity politics is what Kamala defenders are pointing to.

Bruh. Joe said he picked her because she is a black woman and her own WH page is all about how she's intersectional multiracial blasian bicultural daughter of immigrants. That's how she presents herself, with her demographic identity front and center. You can't reduce yourself to stereotypes and then be stunned when people feel like they don't know you. Maybe she should cut back on the tropes and let us see what she's got.

She’s got nothing. That’s why she has to hide behind the identity politics.

THIS ENTIRE THREAD SMACKS OF RACISM AND MISOGYNY AND JEFF NEEDS TO DELETE IT RIGHT NOW!


It's a double standard to talk constantly about identity politics, to the exclusion of substantial national issues like the economy, national security, public health, etc, and then get pissed when the public joins in on the discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:!

You can play the same game for Kamala in a identity politics neutral way as well:

Kamala was picked: 1.) because she is one of the most progressive voting senators and Biden the "moderate" needed to shore up support across the party (2.) because she is young and Biden needed an energetic-seeming running mate to counteract claims that he is old and frail and 3.) because she came at the recommendation of Obama to whom Biden owed much of his political fortunes.

Identity politics is the explanation of first impulse for Kamala whereas the neutral ones are the explanation for Biden. Ask yourself why? Why is the explanatory power of id pol for perceived deficiencies so natural and reflexive in the one instance and not the other? Yes, part of it is statements Joe made and his political calculus. But then again those statements and assumptions don't even need to be spoken in the context of picking someone like Joe because it is already back into the cake and normalized. He has always been the default.

I don't think either of them are particularly gifted politicians, but that "impulse" and the weighting of identity politics is what Kamala defenders are pointing to.

Bruh. Joe said he picked her because she is a black woman and her own WH page is all about how she's intersectional multiracial blasian bicultural daughter of immigrants. That's how she presents herself, with her demographic identity front and center. You can't reduce yourself to stereotypes and then be stunned when people feel like they don't know you. Maybe she should cut back on the tropes and let us see what she's got.

She’s got nothing. That’s why she has to hide behind the identity politics.

THIS ENTIRE THREAD SMACKS OF RACISM AND MISOGYNY AND JEFF NEEDS TO DELETE IT RIGHT NOW!


It's a double standard to talk constantly about identity politics, to the exclusion of substantial national issues like the economy, national security, public health, etc, and then get pissed when the public joins in on the discussion.

It is equally a double standard to eschew it while simultaneously and historically benefiting from it and calling it something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:!

You can play the same game for Kamala in a identity politics neutral way as well:

Kamala was picked: 1.) because she is one of the most progressive voting senators and Biden the "moderate" needed to shore up support across the party (2.) because she is young and Biden needed an energetic-seeming running mate to counteract claims that he is old and frail and 3.) because she came at the recommendation of Obama to whom Biden owed much of his political fortunes.

Identity politics is the explanation of first impulse for Kamala whereas the neutral ones are the explanation for Biden. Ask yourself why? Why is the explanatory power of id pol for perceived deficiencies so natural and reflexive in the one instance and not the other? Yes, part of it is statements Joe made and his political calculus. But then again those statements and assumptions don't even need to be spoken in the context of picking someone like Joe because it is already back into the cake and normalized. He has always been the default.

I don't think either of them are particularly gifted politicians, but that "impulse" and the weighting of identity politics is what Kamala defenders are pointing to.

Bruh. Joe said he picked her because she is a black woman and her own WH page is all about how she's intersectional multiracial blasian bicultural daughter of immigrants. That's how she presents herself, with her demographic identity front and center. You can't reduce yourself to stereotypes and then be stunned when people feel like they don't know you. Maybe she should cut back on the tropes and let us see what she's got.

She’s got nothing. That’s why she has to hide behind the identity politics.

THIS ENTIRE THREAD SMACKS OF RACISM AND MISOGYNY AND JEFF NEEDS TO DELETE IT RIGHT NOW!

Wow, PP shows why many at DCUM and many professional Democrats love identity politics. It makes it easy to duck criticism of their world. Kamala isn’t even vaguely progressive or populist: she’s an establishment Democrat with melanin and a woman’s body. When did she ever side with little people over the powerful? When choosing not to prosecute Mnuchin? When choosing to ruin the lives of blacks charged with marijuana offenses? When kicking off her campaign in the Hamptons?

I’d agree that we need to need to be harsher on the big time Democrats who proceeded her: the Clintons, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, Gore, etc deserve much more criticism. But the plan fact is Kamala isn’t a substantive improvement on that world, instead she’s even more inept than those folks were and substantially more reliant on using identity politics to justify failures.


What is a plan fact?