New Kamala interview

[tallslenderguy]

A moment of  emotional transparency for me. When it comes to politics and our politicians, trust is probably one of the biggest issues with me, and i am hearing this addressed in this interview. So tired of being lied to by politicians who want to keep power. Weirdly, the only politician in the republican party i feel a modicum of trust for right now is MGT.  i don't agree with her politics, and she comes off as a bit crazy to me, but i'm hearing some honesty mixed in from her.   i like Kamala, i like so much of what she is saying... it resonates, and i want to trust her. i do trust Jon. All emotional responses, i know, with some rational reason behind it all, but still, lots of emotion.  

Meanwhile, i think there's some great content here.  

 

[hntnhole]

4 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

Weirdly, the only politician in the republican party i feel a modicum of trust for right now is MGT.

I too am surprised by what appears to be a streak of courage running down her back.  I wouldn't go so far as to use your choice of noun regarding her, but then you're a most generous guy.  I like that old saying "trust, but verify", and while she's definitely on the right track lately, I haven't forgotten how she's been beating the wrong drum for so long.  

Question:  just how small is a "modicum" ?  If it could fit in a thimble, maaaybe I could say I "trust (but verify)" her ... depending on when she's up for re-election. 

Thanks for sharing that clip; I'd only seen bits and pieces in the major media so far.  

[tallslenderguy]

17 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

I too am surprised by what appears to be a streak of courage running down her back.  I wouldn't go so far as to use your choice of noun regarding her, but then you're a most generous guy.  I like that old saying "trust, but verify", and while she's definitely on the right track lately, I haven't forgotten how she's been beating the wrong drum for so long.  

Question:  just how small is a "modicum" ?  If it could fit in a thimble, maaaybe I could say I "trust (but verify)" her ... depending on when she's up for re-election. 

Thanks for sharing that clip; I'd only seen bits and pieces in the major media so far.  

"Trust, but verify,"  has a funny and ironic history turns out.  Often attributed to Regan, who popularized it, but was quoting a Russian proverb to the communists. 

[think before following links] https://www.rbth.com/lifestyle/330521-reagan-trust-but-verify-chernobyl

And i found this usage of modicum that also turns out to be fun... and in keeping with the situation:

Mod·i·cum

/ˈmädəkəm/

noun

1.a small quantity of a particular thing, especially something considered desirable or valuable:

"his statement had more than a modicum of truth"

my take on MGT is she is republican through and through, and that she is also a politician angling for power.  i think she's doing a pretty good job of appearing to be loyal to trump by blaming his advisors for things she disagrees with, so she can play both sides, and preserves support of her constituency.  i attribute most of her 'trustworthiness' to her play to preserve and advance her own power. Kinda cynical of me, but i trust she is doing some of what's right because she wants to be in it for the long haul and knows trump and those who support his  policies are going hurt a lot of her voters.  

[tobetrained]

@tallslenderguy I tried, I really really tried to watch. Twice, actually. I just can't do it. This is in no way a complaint about you posting it, just commentary on her.

There's a complaint-first nature to Democrats. Early on, her response to 107 days, she complains about the task at hand. But doesn't acknowledge avoiding a bruising primary, billions of $ in support, or a limited time frame with the press for them to dig out dirt and contradictions. Maybe elsewhere she does?

Part of my issue with her as leader is demonstrated in the convo during the 10-min mark. She doesn't understand people or roles in her own organization (campaign). She probably had 50 people doing voter/people research... which was what she was demanding in the Stewart convo. That research work, combined with her campaign analytics team, would send people out to strong Dem precincts and blocks. Those people, GOTV crews, are there to execute plans -- she was complaining these execution teams were not doing the upstream research work.

The important thing here isn't the good insights those GOTV people could possibly find out - but their limitations and slowdown of the execution process:

• Limitation. The GOTV crew reaches only a small and intentionally biased group of people... very likely Dem voters, based on the geo-selection of the analytics team informed by the research team. It was her own research team who would be trying to understand everybody and distill the salient points. She should have probably talked with them.
• Slowdown. The GOTV crews are incentivized by volume of door-knocks. They don't interpret. If they did, it slows them down. And, importantly, there are others -- as noted above -- doing the interpretive work.

It would be like asking the people on an assembly floor to understand what buyers want in a car. The manufacturer has 100s of people doing that very thing, consumer research. The floor is about execution -- and they can't change the assembly line. If she can't even understand how her own campaign works, how could she possibly understand the Federal government?

Also, when I hear someone use the phrases "my voice," "my story," "my journey," something in me breaks. My bitch-claws come out and they want to scratch! 😃

[tallslenderguy]

2 hours ago, tobetrained said:

@tallslenderguy I tried, I really really tried to watch. Twice, actually. I just can't do it. This is in no way a complaint about you posting it, just commentary on her.

There's a complaint-first nature to Democrats. Early on, her response to 107 days, she complains about the task at hand. But doesn't acknowledge avoiding a bruising primary, billions of $ in support, or a limited time frame with the press for them to dig out dirt and contradictions. Maybe elsewhere she does?

 

Also, when I hear someone use the phrases "my voice," "my story," "my journey," something in me breaks. My bitch-claws come out and they want to scratch! 😃

What politician have you fully listened to that you do not have similar concerns with?  

i have maybe a similar response to mike johnson... his constant smirk and lies.  i can tell mike's gay and homophobic because trump constantly has his hand up mikes ass.  i do force myself to listen to them both though, trying to find content mixed in that i can maybe latch onto vs listening to what others say about them. So far, both just manage to nauseate me. 

You mention not liking Sanders. What is it about him that you dislike? 

[tobetrained]

@tallslenderguy re: Harris and Bernie

My issue with Harris is on the substance, generally, of what she says. Like with the example of "what to do" about the problem of her campaign. It didn't make sense, she didn't understand the operations of her own campaign and staff roles.

I have no problem with how politicians positioning themselves or their ideas. I do take issues with the ideas.

I'm not a supporter of Johnson nor Republicans, so I can't really comment from that direction.

On Bernie Sanders. I will limit myself to these lies and positions:

• In 2016, he said he would become a Democrat. Hmmm.
• In 1st debate with HRC in 2015, among his first responses was to blast the primary/general election system -- since it didn't specifically work for him -- and support a European parliamentary system. I believe his quote was about, "...like they have in Europe..." He doesn't want to lead but be the loudest opposition and in such systems a politician can gain glorious attention for doing nothing -- see: Melenchon. He wants to present easy solutions without developing them into a plan nor live with the consequences. He promised in 2016 to present his UHC healthcare plan and costs, and didn't then but he picked apart HRC for hers, as she actually put one together. When he finally did, in the 2019 Primary, it cost nearly our full national budget, according to the CBO.
• He's a purist and will rationalize anything on his purity-of-purpose. Example: he voted against Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2007 on one small issue. That massive bi-partisan bill included the DREAM Act in full and many other items. Anyone concerned about deportations today should be protesting on his doorstep too due to his failure of leadership and responsibility!
• He claims, like Trump, to be for the little guy. His wife and political advisor -- so fair game -- has ideas which bankrupt an organization. And so does his. This has nothing to do with the criminal issue which didn't move forward but the facts which closed the University due to her negligence of duty and both logical and ideological absurdity, and the ideas which he takes as input to his own. [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/feds-decline-bring-charges-against-bernie-sanders-wife-land-deal-n935856

I'll stop. Now I'm frustrated. It's time for Halloween candy self-medication. He's among the reasons I left the Democrats. With him involved, there's no rational future for them.

Edited 5 hours ago by tobetrained
user tag

[Letmeworshipit]

I would urge folks to read Kamala's post-election tome, 107 Days. It's an easy read, if deeply dispiriting for all the obvious reasons. But it shows her to be what many of us always thought her to be, bright, insightful, compassionate, driven, informed and strategic. The kind of real leadership skills you want in a POTUS. But sadly, America didn't support her, or Hillary before her. Two of the most profoundly capable, skilled, experienced individuals ever to run for our highest office. What does that say about the electorate, or at least a significant portion of them? And look where we are now. A toxic morass from which we may never recover.