Election 2020

Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy

"There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

|

Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris provided narration for a short animated clip that appeared on her Twitter feed Sunday. In the clip, Harris gives voice to a leftist-progressive narrative about the importance of equity—equal outcomes—rather than mere equality before the law.

"There's a big difference between equality and equity," says Harris. "Equality suggests, 'Oh, everyone should get the same amount.' The problem with that, not everybody's starting in the same place."

Harris contrasted equal treatment—all people getting the same thing—with equitable treatment, which means "we all end up at the same place."

This may seem like a trivial difference, but when it comes to public policy, the difference matters. A government should be obligated to treat all citizens equally, giving them the same access to civil rights and liberties like voting, marriage, religious freedom, and gun ownership. The government cannot deny rights to certain people because they are black, female, Muslim, etc.—this would be unequal treatment.

A mandate to foster equity, though, would give the government power to violate these rights in order to achieve identical social results for all people. In accordance with this thinking, the authorities might be justified in giving some people more rights than others. Indeed, this would arguably be strictly necessary, in order to create a society where everyone ends up in the exact same situation.

Conservatives swiftly condemned Harris's tweet in characteristically dramatic fashion: Rep. Liz Cheney (R–Wyo.) accused Harris of sounding "just like Karl Marx." Harris probably isn't a committed Marxist—if anything, her core ideology seems to be whatever the current political moment calls for—but it's probably true that the people on her staff who helped make this video are well-informed about the sort of lingo that appeals to young progressive activists. This cohort is certainly interested in radical ideas like using wealth redistribution to engineer leftist social outcomes.

If the Biden-Harris ticket triumphs on Election Day, expect some of these people to find themselves staffing the vast federal bureaucracy, taking jobs in the Departments of Education, Labor, Housing, and elsewhere. There are a million different ways for these bureaucrats to make marginal, under-the-radar policy changes that support an equity-over-equality worldview. That's a far greater danger than Harris's earnest and clumsy attempts to woo the wokest of the woke.

NEXT: Make Elections Not Matter So Much Again

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. How did she get elected then, and not me and thee and everybody else?

    Make my pay match hers, then we’ll see what else is unequal about her outcomes.

    Fuckin’ hypocritical politician. But I repeat myself.

    1. I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this i have earned FGH easily $15k from this without having online working skills.

      This is what I do….. USA JOBS VISIT HERE

      1. I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out qwg problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h… someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me, so now i m hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink…

        ================►HOME WORK PROFFIT

        1. I quit working at shop rite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now Ie couldn’t be happier So i try use.
          Here’s what I do……. WORK 24

    2. Fuck making my pay equal hers. Make her pay equal mine and cut her perks till they match mine. This bullshit will last 5 seconds. This twit is talking out of her ass, and she and everyone but the most ‘ignant’ know it. But hey, they vote too and that’s her appeal.

      We are well settled into the idea that the vast majority of Americans have learned they can vote themselves substantially from the public treasury, which means the Republic can only stand till the weight of debt comes crashing down and the powers that be can no longer hold back the massive inflation.

      There’s a reason why progressivism largely afflicts the young voter. They are the ones that think they are entitled to be handed an equal share in the economy just because they breathe, and that it is not a matter of time, skill, paying the dues, and hard work. Also, it sounds great in theory till one actually has to internalize it and be on the paying end of things.

      1. So, comments apparently aren’t working on the Gillespie article…
        The Ds have gone full totalitarian, I get that. Green New Deal, court packing, equity not equality, etc. Seems fair to describe that as extremist.
        But I’d like to see the argument for what makes the republican party leaders “extremists”, and what that consists of.

        This equity not equality thing is straight totalitarianism. It is an idea diametrically opposed to the concepts of liberty, meritocracy, and personal agency.

        1. If these people take charge and try and make this shit a reality, then I con only pray for an uprising to kick their ass out of power.

          1. I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out qwe problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h… someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me, so now i m hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink…

            ================►Hone Work Profit

      2. You forget that some people are more equal than others.

        And those young people you refer to? Well, they ARE entitled, because they have been taught to feel that way. Do not blame them for their ignorance. Blame academia, that today is largely socialist/Marxist in inclination.

        Luckily, a good share of the young will one day realize the bankruptcy-moral and economic- of those from whom they learned. But we could short circuit to process by separating school and state.

        1. I quit working at shop rite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on ast something new after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now, I couldn’t be happier So i try use.
          Here’s what I do…….WORK 24

    3. There’s a reason Harris got 2% of the primary vote. Even Dems don’t like her. Biden went with the candidate with the best hair who checked the two key boxes.

      1. Exactly. The only great thing that Democrats have done in the last four years is kick her to the fucking curb.

        So OF COURSE she shows up as VP for the guy who will never last 4 years.

        How many ways does the DNC have to tell Democrats to go fuck themselves before people stop voting for their candidates?

        1. last 4 years? I doubt he lasts 4 months. An accident or maybe he takes the wrong pills, a feathe falls on him, and he will be gone. Failing that, I see a good chance that the 25th amendment will be invoked-quite possibly by DEMOCRATS!

    4. Weird how many libertarian writers think that THIS ticket is the lesser of two evils, ain’t it?

      1. I am unaware of any actual Libertarian writers who think that.

        1. Yeah, recent article indicated most of them are voting for Jorgensen, but Shikha is for Biden/HARRIS

          1. So no Libertarians at all then.

          2. No, you see, according to all the maga-hats in the comment section, they are all lying about voting for Jo and are all secretly voting for Biden.

            1. No sides Chipper everyone!

            2. I’m assuming the 6 of them that said they are voting for Biden are telling the truth.

      2. I’m not sure who all those writers are, but if true, that tells you how stinking stupid-awful Trump has been.

        1. The fact that Trump won the first time shows you just how hideous Hillary Clinton was.

          While Obama could not legally seek a third term, his hand-picked proxy Hillary Clinton, about whom he proclaimed “I can say with confidence there has never been a man or a woman, not me, not Bill, nobody more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America.” dropped the election to a problem-riddled political rookie who was denounced by many in his own party!

          Obama campaigned extensively for Hillary, and she outspent Trump by about 4:1.

          And she *still* lost to Trump, losing 5 states that Obama had carried twice.

          How bad was she?!

    5. How did she get elected then, …. else?

      She was selected by the rulers, not elected. CA is a one-party state. Her opponent for the senate was another democrat, the dingbat Lorretta Sanchez. You had to vote for Harris to keep the dingbat from winning. Same with Feinstein. You had to vote for Feinstein to keep the Chavista, Kevin de Leon, from winning.

      This is what the Democrats want for the whole country. They will field two candidates for you to pick from to make it look you still like you live in a democracy. But it’s all for show.

      1. They will field two candidates for you to pick from to make it look you still like you live in a democracy.

        This describes a lot of my local choices – garden-variety machine Democrat vs. totally unhinged whacko borderline-homeless person.

    6. The Pittsburgh Post Gazette has endorsed Trump. The last time they endorsed a Republican Pres. candidate…1972!

      About he time Joe went to Washington and began his career of making Delaware a haven for banks and credit card companies.

    7. Kamala Harris..Harrison Bergeron. Maybe she thinks it’s a how-to guide written for her.

      1. “Kamala Harris..Harrison Bergeron. Maybe she thinks it’s a how-to guide written for her.”

        +1, That’s exactly what I was thinking.

    8. the Trump’s M.A.G.A., KKK groups gangs are ready with their weapons for attact is Trump looses the battle,this people are armed & dangerous Trump’s fans followers the M.A.G.A. gangs Republicans against Trump…….VISIT HERE FULL DETAIL.

  2. No characteristic bUt BoTh SiDeS! take?

    If Biden and Harris win, we can point to Reason as one of the outlets that hyped nonsense about trade and immigration impacts. Reason couldn’t be bothered to praise no new wars for four years. Reason was always there to downplay deregulation instead of highlighting the freedom of the people no longer under regulatory thumbs.

    1. Robby should be the new Editor in Chief.

      1. Reason could do a hell of a lot worse. And have.

        Great job, Soave.

      2. I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this i have earned FGQ easily $15k from this without having online working skills.

        This is what I do….. USA JOBS VISIT HERE

      3. It’s interesting how the commentariat’s views on Robby have shifted over the past few years. In 2017, he was a liberal-libertarian who constantly pushed both sides arguments to excuse the left when he had to write about their excesses. Now he’s a liberal-libertarian more willing to call bullshitters on their bullshit, whether or not he leans in that direction politically. Consequently, the commentariat has gone from regarding him as a quasi-liberal without any backbone to one of the better writers here.

        1. Is it because he changed or that the others revealed their true positions.

          It blows my mind that someone who claims to be a libertarian and then say they are voting or would vote for Biden/Harris who have proposed nothing that is of a libertarian position.

    2. He got his licks in on Republicans for criticizing followed by a defense of Kamala’s comments (must have been those darn staffers).

    3. While he has slowed the growth of regulation, he’s done nothing impressive with deregulation like Carter did. Am I wrong?

      Trump didn’t start new wars, but he didn’t end any either. With everything still in place, expect Biden-Harris to simply turn up the dial.

  3. Interesting, and probably telling that she says that equality means “everyone gets the same amount”, rather than something like “everyone is treated equally” or even “everyone is allowed the same opportunity”. Even her view of equality is distressingly linked to people being given what they “need”.

    1. The great irony of those who like to sling around words like “racist” and “homophobe” is that they are the ones who want to give different people different treatment based upon some adjective. If you want to treat everyone the same then you’re a bad person. It hurts my head to think that way.

      1. Some adjective… like calling anyone who disagrees with you a trump cultist?

        1. Get over it and pretend to be an adult.

          1. Says the guy who cries every single day in here when he isn’t making hyperbolic strawmen arguments?

            1. Waaaah! The cool kids don’t like me! Waaaaaah!

              Like that?

        2. This is why I’ve concluded that you don’t argue in good faith. Even when you agree with me you have to be an asshole.

          1. That’s JesseSPAZ for ya! Fish gotta swim; JesseSPAZ has to be an asshole!

            1. Doesn’t it get lonely replying to yourself ?

              1. that was thoughtful and original

                1. I was talking to SQRLSY dude… hey, wait a sec…

            2. Take the high road and treat him like a gnat. Swat at him, but don’t give him any more attention than that. At least that’s what Ken would say.

              1. And yet you…cry at him.

          2. I know being a victim is kind of your thing…

            but you start the daily drama. See your timestamps from earlier sweetie.

            And you never make actual arguments. Again, see earlier thread.

            1. Liar, liar, pants on fire!

              Readers, beware! Do not be deceived by JesseAZ! JesseAZ does NOT believe that LIES are bad in ANY way! Only ACTIONS matter, ethically or morally! See https://reason.com/2020/01/01/trumps-inartful-dodges/#comment-8068480
              “Words are words dumbfuck. Actions are where morals and ethics lie.”, says JesseAZ. When confronted with offers of hush money, illegal commands (from a commanding military officer), offers of murder for hire, libel, slander, lies in court, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, inciting riots, fighting words, forged signatures, threatening to kill elected officials, false representations concerning products or services for sale… these are all “merely” cases of “using words”. Just like the Evil One (AKA “Father of Lies”), Jesse says lies are all A-OK and utterly harmless! So do NOT believe ANYTHING that you hear from JesseAZ!

              Also according to the same source, JesseAZ is TOTALLY on board with dictatorship (presumably so long as it is an “R” dictator that we are talking of).
              With reference to Trump, JesseAZ says…
              “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”

              I say again, this is important…
              “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”
              We need a BRILLIANTLY persuasive new movie from JesseAZ to “Wake Up, America!”, to flesh out the concept that “The Triumph of The Will of The Trump, Trumps All”! Including the USA Constitution. In fact, USA military personnel should start swearing allegiance to Trump, NOT to some stupid, moldering old piece of paper!
              Previous Powerful People have blazed a path for us to follow here, slackers!!!

              1. He is here to argue people, not ideas. So ignore him. He has absolutely nothing of substance to add to any conversation.

                1. No. You two assholes act like complete shitbags here and then cry when Jesse and the rest of us don’t put up with your inanity. Neither of you has the moral high ground, and never will.

                  In fact, it would be best if you went far away, and Squirrelly committed suicide.

    2. From each according to his ability…

      1. From each regardless of ability, perhaps.

        It is the ultimate in authoritarianism. Government controls all so it can ration everything.

    3. She specifically says the opposite. She thinks equality is bad and wants equity

      1. Yes, I get that. My point is that even her idea of equality is kind of fucked.

        1. She doesn’t want equality or equity. She wants to be in charge. Telling people you can give them these things (without unintended consequences!) gets people’s support. It may be as absurd as the idea that a government can control a virus if they just have enough total control over everyone’s lives, but people never stop falling for it.

    4. Of course, it’s up to the people in government to decide what people “need” and that will ultimately be based on how useful they are to those same people in government.

  4. Yeah, but does she say mean things? That’s the important part.

    1. As long as she says equally mean things about everybody.

      1. I think there’s a record of her saying that people of the opposite sex didn’t mind when she grabbed their privates.

        Or something like that

  5. Harris core ideology is totalitarian fascism with her in compleate power all the time.
    She falsified evidence and confessions because she believes she should be allowed to steal rape and murder, like all socialists in power. A quick search reveals another example that I did know of before.
    https://observer.com/2015/03/california-prosecutor-falsifies-transcript-of-confession/

    1. She was boning-up and practicing for a position in the Executive Branch.

      1. She was boning-up…

        These euphemisms…

        1. Who says it a euphemism?

          1. More like a double entendre.

            1. Or double ender…

              1. Double Penetration…

                1. Both sides get a fuck’n

                2. Her alibi was air-tight.

                  1. As was she.

  6. Equity means Robby write as badly as his colleague, ENB.
    You’d get paid the same but no menstrual leave for the patriarchy.

  7. Is this where the “some animals are more equal than others” line goes? Because I think somehow if Kamala gets the prize she’ll have more power, money, staff and bodyguards than me. In fact she already does. And that’s not fair!

    1. Hey, hey, hey now! There’s just no call for that kind of thinking. Everyone knows that when the elite are talking about equity, they do not include themselves. And the rare occasion when you actually get a Prog to address the elephant in the room, they will quip that they are happy to donate “a few extra bucks a year so that poor people eat”.

      Like the Prog I know who lives by himself in a 3000 sq ft 4 BR ranch house and has a $120K income. Under his own theory, he should be living in a 1-BR 500 sq ft apartment on a $30K income, but he doesn’t see progressivism ever actually applying to him.

      1. If he’s sufficiently proggy he’d gladly move into that small apartment and live off that meager income if it was forced upon everyone else as well. Remember that progressivism is all about forced equality.

        1. “…progressivism is all about forced equality.”

          What other kind of equality [of outcomes] is there? If every person in spite of and contrary to their differing abilities, motivations, and goals is going to be the same, it will have to be forced.

          1. Never was, never will be a ‘New Soviet Man’.

            1. Yup. If your ideology requires you to ignore human nature, its not even as useful as horseshit

      2. Under his own theory, he should be living in a 1-BR 500 sq ft apartment on a $30K income, but he doesn’t see progressivism ever actually applying to him.

        In my experience, this sort of progressive sincerely believes that everyone could be living by themselves in a 3,000 square foot 4 bedroom ranch house, if not for Capitalism.

        1. This +1000. This right here is the exact problem when these “progressive” ideas are had by people who live in a hyper-first world country and hyper-first world situation. They actually think imposing equality of outcome means we all get a yacht and an island in the Caribbean.

  8. I would not be surprised to learn she has old soviet style posters hanging in her house. You don’t have to be “committed” to be a marxist. You just have to love materialism and power.

    1. I would not be surprised to learn she has old soviet style posters hanging in her house.

      I’m sure she has the new style.

      I’ve always found it interesting to note that the guy who designed that poster, which has become the new design paradigm for Democrat campaign posters, was the guy who was doing those similarly-styled “OBEY” posters of Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney back in the mid ’00s.

      Those posters were satirical implications that Bush and Cheney were totalitarians. But once the artist was commissioned to do a campaign poster for Obama, he used the exact same style, but without the irony.

      1. It was also a ripoff of they live

  9. Equality of outcome is the lowest common denominator.

  10. I believe in equality of outcome; I should have the same amount of power as the President of the United States.

  11. The Hunter Bidens of the world will always make more $$ than we will. They will regulate large businesses to cement their position at the top and destroy small businesses.

  12. “There’s a big difference between equality and equity,”

    And she is talking about neither of those, she is talking about egalitarianism. The fact that she does not understand the difference, the fact that she thinks the government has either the moral or constitutional authority to produce this outome and the fact that she thinks a system that punishes effort and rewards sloth will generate a positive outcome is proof positive she is manifestly unqualified to act in any capacity of governance.

    1. She thinks none of that. She’s buying votes, and that’s all. Don’t confuse personal opinion and thought with pandering to the greed and entitlement of self-proclaimed victims who aren’t getting what they haven’t earned in exchange for personal power.

  13. Good to know that roughly half of the “libertatians” of Reason are supporting this fresh view of liberty straight out of 1900’s Russia.

    1. I assume that means that there are zero “libertarians” because I saw zero endorsements, and half of zero is still zero.

      1. Look, if you don’t sufficiently condemn and insult a candidate, it means that you whole-heartedly endorse every position they have ever taken.

        1. Oh yeah, I forgot.

        2. Silence is violence.

        3. Don’t forget to mess with their names, like Drumpf, Cameltoe, Obummer, because that means you’re really smart, and can identify non-libertarians by who don’t see that as funny.

          1. It’s O’Bummer dude. He’s black Irish.

      2. It’s not half, but a sizable portion of the staff here are voting for Biden, and a vote for Biden is really a vote for Harris.

        What would you call it?

        1. I misread and thought he was referring to the comments, not the staff. My bad.

          And I do see your point. However I suppose most people who vote for Biden are, in their minds, voting against Trump. I can’t understand how anyone could vote for either of them. Against I can understand.

        2. The staff voting for Biden are quite disappointing. But those are anti-Trump votes, not endorsements of every part of the Democrat platform or everything that comes out of the mouth of the candidates.

          1. Dude, every libertarian who votes against Trump’s trade war and immigration policy is actually a closet communist who wants Harris to be president. Don’t you read the comments?

            1. not closet communists, but okay with wasting a few trillion bucks bailing out blue state pension plans and burning a few trillion more on feel-good Green Raw Deal plans which at best will funnel money to some Green new tech companies, and at worst will set the economy back a couple of centuries.

              1. Yep, and every Trump voter wants to overturn RvW.

                Straw men are made of straw.

                1. He thinks it’s a straw man.

                  *facepalm*

                  1. Dude, you’re dumb if you think every Republican voter supports their entire platform and every Democrat voter supports their entire platform. Seriously. Most voters aren’t voting for/i> someone as much as they’re voting against the other guy.

                    But your straw man is much easier to argue against.

                    1. Wonder if you know you talking about stramen is ironic or not.

                    2. “Dude, you’re dumb if you think ”

                      Ran out of arguments then.

                    3. The difference, Jesse my dear, is that you’re absolutely serious and believe the straw men that you put forth. Which is why your head explodes when you read my comments, because you assume that I am as serious as you. You’re fucking retarded. That’s all I can concluded.

                    4. I can’t speak for Jesse but the rest of us just assume you’re an attention seeking idiot.

                    5. I remember that it was a weekend when fake sarcasmic was posting.

                    6. You’re fucking retarded. That’s all I can concluded.

                      Kare wa hazukashi-sō ni okotte imasu

                    7. “I can’t speak for Jesse but the rest of us just assume you’re an attention seeking idiot.”

                      Says the troll who posts an insulting response to most of my posts.

                    8. You said you don’t vote. Yet you’re in here seeking attention for your opinion on voting.

                      QED.

                    9. last word

                    10. Sarcasmic, have you ever tried making an actual rational argument here? Earlier you dismissed 2 countering articles without even bothering to read them because anything I post must be partisan. You want to talk about good faith argumentation? I actually read the groups reports in other years. You haven’t. You just blindly accepted it because it agreed with your preconcieved notions.

                      And you want to talk about me doing strawmen? 80% of what you do is wander into a thread and spew hyperbole of arguments nobody is making. When called out you yell “comedy, cha cha cha”.

                      You’re broken dude.

                    11. I see that everything you say Jesse is serious. You don’t joke, you don’t exaggerate, you don’t hyperbole, you don’t reductio ad absurdum, you don’t imitate, you don’t mock, you don’t make jokes, you’re fucking serious all the fucking time.

                      I get it.

                      And I pity anyone who is ever within six feet of you.

                2. Bidens plans are strawman? The ones on his website totalling 11 trillion?

                  Broken.

                  1. You’re a fucking idiot if you think most Biden voters support, or have even read his plans.

                    They’re not voting for anything. They’re voting against the guy on that poster above your bed.

                    1. Yes we understand, you’ve asserted your mind reading powers several times in this thread already.

                    2. I take it you’ve never had a conversation with anyone outside your echo chamber, or you’d know the truth in what I’m saying. Fuck, there’s even been a few articles about exactly that on this site. The mind readers are the disingenuous assholes who claim that anyone voting against Trump is voting for Harris. Yet I’m the mind reader. Yeah, sure. Whatever gets you off.

                    3. People are voting, but not voting for anything.

                      You go with that.

                    4. By the way, it is so cute that you blame others of echo chambers when we literally have you refusing to read links that disagree with you earlier this morning. So precious.

                    5. “People are voting, but not voting for anything.

                      You go with that.”

                      Yeah. I will. Outside nutty Trump supporters like you and nutty Biden Democrats, most people are voting against the other guy.

                      Go ahead and keep calling me names. It makes your case soooo much stronger.

                    6. “I take it you’ve never had a conversation with anyone outside your echo chamber, or you’d know the truth in what I’m saying.”

                      The ‘everybody knows’ attempt at evidence.
                      Hint: It ain’t.

          2. They may well not be “endorsements”, but that doesn’t mean you don’t get the part that you don’t endorse. Grown-ups understand that it comes as a package deal, so at the very least, it is consent.

            1. “Grown-ups understand that it comes as a package deal,”

              Which is how you end up with Zeb and sarc not understanding it.

              1. I understand it just fine. You are failing to understand how many people decide who to vote for. A lot of people reluctantly choose the person they find least offensive. That’s all we are saying.

                1. Forget it Zeb, he’s not being honest.

                  1. But I’m totally honest!

                  2. You’re going to choke on the irony pills at this rate sweetie.

                    1. Says the retard who assumes everyone is serious about everything all the time.

                      Or the dishonest fuck who understands that perfectly but takes things out of context to make a case against the person, because he certainly can’t compete in the arena of ideas.

                2. how many people decide who to vote for

                  No you clearly don’t unserstand it. That isn’t even the subject of the discussion. We are discussing what you endorse when you vote.

                  1. They are closely related subjects. You don’t endorse anything when you vote. You simply cast your vote for an individual who is running for office. Endorsement is a separate thing. I don’t know how this is controversial. Lots of people vote for the perceived lesser of two evils. That can hardly be described as an endorsement of the candidate’s entire platform. They are literally calling the candidate evil. That’s not endorsement.

                    1. You don’t endorse anything when you vote

                      Huh?

                      You simply cast your vote for an individual who is running for office. Endorsement is a separate thing.

                      I see, you’re doing that thing progressives do when they’re wrong, make up new defintions and insist words mean different things.

                      Gaslighting I think?

                      Regardless, if your argument begins with “voting isn’t an endorsement” you’re lying or an idiot.

                    2. “  They are literally calling the candidate evil. That’s not endorsement.”

                      Is there an argiment in there? Because it IS endorsement, you just don’t like them.

                    3. OK, how do you define endorsement? I take it to be a public statement of support for something in your own name. Voting is private. You don’t have to disclose your vote. You don’t have to explain your vote.
                      If your definition differs, fine, but I don’t think mine is unreasonable.

                      I am just baffled that this is controversial. Sometimes people vote for someone for reasons other than actual support for their positions. It may be irrational or silly to do so, but it happens. A lot. Do you seriously disagree with this?

                    4. Nothing is controversial, you just continue to mistake an opinion for a vote.

                    5. **I take it to be a public statement of support for something in your own name.**

                      So your argiment is that it would be an endorsement id it were plublic, but isn’t because it’s not?

                      I’m not sure how that means you don’t support the entire platform. Was that suppsed to be perauasive?

                    6. So, do you support the entire platform of everyone you vote for?

                    7. “So, do you support the entire platform of everyone you vote for?”

                      Of course not. Their opinions are nuanced. Only their opponents support the entire platform. Duh.

                3. I think that mentally, perhaps, one can hold those disctinctions, but the voting process as contructed doesn’t allow for that. It’s an all or nothing thing, voting.

                  1. Right, you can’t vote for exactly the things you want. That’s my entire point. People vote for all kinds of reasons. Very rarely is it complete agreement with the candidate they choose.
                    And fortunately, it’s not an all or nothing thing. At least some of the checks and balances built into the system are still somewhat functional. We aren’t voting for a dictator.

                    1. “Right, you can’t vote for exactly the things you want. That’s my entire point.”

                      Right but you don’t seem to understand YOUR POINT IS THAT YOU VOTE FOR ALL OF IT WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT but you keep arguing otherwise.

                    2. People vote for all kinds of reasons. Very rarely is it complete agreement with the candidate they choose

                      Which in no way changes that their actual vote endorses the entire platform and individual.

                      There is no mechanism for the distinction you hold in your head. Reality doesn’t allow for it.

                    3. But you don’t vote for all of it. You vote for a candidate. Who, based on past experience, is unlikely to get most of what he campaigned on put into policy.
                      This is a really silly argument.

                    4. But you don’t vote for all of it

                      No I vote for a person who has themselves said they will do all of it.

                      What mechanism exists for me to endorse only part of it? Or only partially vote for a person?

                      Not a vote. That’s not what a vote is.

                    5. “Who, based on past experience, is unlikely”

                      Moooove those goalposts!

                      You’re literally admitting that you do vote for all of it, but probably shouldn’t expect it to happen.

                      Which I actually don’t disagree with. But pretending you don’t endorse a cnadidate in their entirety because history has shown them to be liars is a bullshit argument. You’re just relying on their dishonesty to save you from yourself.

                4. You think all those thousands engaging in boat parades, caravans and Trump rallies are only showing up because they’re voting against Biden? There are already indications of Biden early voters wanting a redo.

            2. And by voting in the election, you give your tacit consent to whoever wins to do what they do.
              I more or less agree with you, but you don’t go far enough. I won’t vote for someone who I wouldn’t endorse. Which is why I usually don’t vote. But that’s not how most people think of their votes or decide who to vote for.

            3. Because there are no single-issue voters and nobody voting against the other guy. Everyone who votes for someone has studied their entire platform and agrees with it 100%. Yeah. Sure.

              1. See class, THAT is how you straw man.

                1. Just rephrasing what the “grown up” said.

                  1. >>Just rephrasing

                    that was the straw man

              2. I like how sarcasmic’s entire point in this thread is:

                “Hey guys, I’m ignorant about most things, so most people are as well.”

                Classic sarc.

            4. Grown ups also understand that you will never get things exactly the way you want them and everything is a compromise.

              1. We’re talking about a vote and what it endorses.

                1. Yes, we are. So why are you trying to cut off any debate on the issue? It’s an interesting topic with no obvious answer.

                  1. Why are you lying and claiming I’m cutting off debate?

                    Because you’re wrong and need to move away from discussing what a vote is and what it endorses whether you like it or not.

                    1. Sorry if I mistook your intentions.

                      I am saying that a vote doesn’t endorse anything. See the definition I propose for endorsement somewhere on this thread. If you disagree with that definition, fine. But that’s what I’m trying to say.

                    2. “See the definition I propose”

                      I reject it.

                    3. OK, fair enough. But that’s what I was saying and the definition I was using. If endorsement means something else to you, then your argument probably makes sense.

                    4. Several dictionaries seem to agree with my definition of endorse, FWIW.

          3. The one that dropped my jaw was Ilya Somin on Volokh saying Trump’s spending was more dangerous than Biden’s. I lost all respect for him right then.

          4. “But those are anti-Trump votes, not endorsements of every part of the Democrat platform ”

            The ass covering begins.

            1. It’s just true. I think it’s dumb, but it is what it is.

              1. And it is ass covering.

                1. How so? Whose ass am I covering?

                  1. Who said it was YOUR ass covering? Did you vote for Biden?

                    1. No, I did not and will not vote for Biden.

                      But you were responding to what I said when you said “the ass covering begins”, so it seems reasonable to assume that you were referring to something I said.
                      If you think I made an incorrect statement, then make that point. I don’t want to go around being wrong.

                    2. ” so it seems reasonable to assume”

                      I see now where you fucked up.

                      For future reference, I know how to use the word “your”

            2. So you endorse every part of the Republican platform?

              1. Jo isn’t a Republican.

                1. Oh, so you’re a stoned anarchist. To each their own.

                  1. Jo isn’t an anarchist either, but that does explain why you’re so bad at Libertarianism.

                    1. last word

            3. so Zeb and sarcasmic early voted for Biden

              1. I don’t vote, retard.

              2. I hope that was intended as a joke.
                I don’t know how you can look at anything I write here and come to the conclusion that I’m a likely Biden voter.

                1. You’re not a Trump fanboy. Therefor you want Harris for president. Q.E.D.

                  1. Your attention seeking continues.

                    1. #sad

                2. “But those are anti-Trump votes, not endorsements of every part of the Democrat platform ”

                  1. Outside of being anti-people-who-think-they-should-have-political-power, I’m really not particularly anti-Trump.
                    FWIW, I think Trump winning is the more desirable of the likely outcomes of the presidential election. If I were making a lesser of two evils vote, it would be for Trump.

                    1. You asked how someone could think something and I gave a quote that would allow them to think that, that is all I did.

                    2. OK, fair enough. There are a lot of assholes around who would leap to unreasonable conclusions based on some statements I make. I need to stop assuming that people are reasonable and mean to argue in good faith.

                    3. ” If I were making a lesser of two evils vote, it would be for Trump.”

                      Agreed. But I can’t do it. I pulled McCain’s lever and felt dirty after. I can’t do the same for Trump.

                    4. Yes Zeb it’s everyone else’s fault you’re “misunderstood”.

                    5. There are a lot of assholes around who would leap to unreasonable conclusions based on some statements I make. I need to stop assuming that people are reasonable and mean to argue in good faith.

                      Passive aggressive much?

                    6. Passive aggressive much?

                      Nah. Only occasionally.

                    7. I understand Zeb. I also understand the words to “A Horse with no Name.”

                    8. I always knew Sarc was a trump cultist too weak willed and informed to make a decision.

  14. Harris probably isn’t a committed Marxist—if anything, her core ideology seems to be whatever the current political moment calls for…

    Indeed. We can safely remove the “committed” part. And on the plus side, I imagine they’ll follow through with only the campaign planks approved by the establishment.

    1. She got picked for the spot precisely because her only commitment is to moving in lockstep with the party establishment with zero resistance.

  15. “Harris contrasted equal treatment—all people getting the same thing—with equitable treatment, which means “we all end up at the same place.”

    So when do I get to be the VP candidate of a major political party?

    1. I mean, we all do end up in the same place. 6 feet under.

  16. Two posts in forty minutes?

    Rico, stop mainlining cocaine, comb your hair, and get back to plotting evil like a good libertardian.

  17. This is the exact reason why there are CRT single-issue voters. It’s very bad that the likely 47th POTUS is a full-on CRT supporter.

    These people are horrible.

    1. Cathode ray tube supporters are antiquated not horrible.

    2. Phosphorus lives matter

  18. “There’s a big difference between equality and equity.”

    Fuck you, Kamala Harris!

    1. Joe Biden is a crook.

    2. Is that you Willie?

    3. al is not a big difference.

  19. Yeh I totes bet she would want icky deplorables making as much as her. We also can’t all slurp our way to the top honey.

    What a low-talented, middling, quarter-wit who oozes inauthenticity this woman is.

    1. I can’t tell if she’s spouting femonomics or ebonomics? Has she ever denounced her mother’s caste system?

  20. Equity is the new buzzword of the left. Yeah sure, the government and corporations may treat all minorities equally, but are the outcomes FAIR?

    Here’s how it works in California, for one example:

    Gov. Tiresome has a multi-tier color system for reopening the state economy, based on number of new COVID-19 cases and percentage of positive tests. My county has “achieved” the case/test stats to move from the Orange to the Yellow tier, allowing some businesses to eke out a slightly better living and maybe make a profit to get taxed by California, but there’s just one catch!

    Some particular minority groups have been ignoring the social distancing guidelines and have a higher case rate, and aren’t getting tested unless they’re really sick so they have a higher percentage testing positive, so everyone else has to suffer with the crazy Orange level lockdown because “equity”.

    1. Here’s another crazy “equity” policy recently enacted in California (as Dave Barry says, I’m not making this up): Corporate boards now have to add at least one member of a disadvantage minority group, whether or not there is a qualified candidate available. The funny part is that LGBTQ+ is included as one of the disadvantaged groups for some reason, so any company could get around the equity/inclusion requirement by a board member saying he belongs to that group. Who is going to check? And how? Isn’t an inquisition the opposite of equity and inclusion?

      1. Everyone on our executive staff is Q+. They might all look like white males, but that is because you aren’t woke enough.

      2. To be accurate, it only applies to publicly-traded companies. Why? No reasons given.

    2. It’s really not a new buzzword. It just malleable, and a 10,000 ft high word that means whatever the listener interprets it to mean, and holds the speaker to absolutely nothing.

      1. yup, the word isn’t new. what’s new is the determination to enact new overreaching laws using it as a justification, after the COVID-19 lockdowns encouraged them to grab all the power they can.

      2. Equality is out because it is too definable.

        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

        That is far too simple a statement for the left. It doesn’t include a guarantee about the quality of that life, recognize the ways that my rights impede their liberty to take my property for the good of all, or acknowledge that their failures at things others succeed at are what makes them so unhappy.

        The Twitter is full of people in full support of Biden-Harris who sincerely believe that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are no longer viable and wish to see them supplanted. All they have to offer, however, is something that has been tried multiple times on massive scales and has inevitably lead to millions and millions of dead.

        I am sure it will be different this time, though.

        1. Somebody needs to remind them that Das Kapital was written by a white man

    3. Does this mean that if the percentage of COVID deaths doesn’t match the population, we need to pick a few people at random from the underrepresented group and murder them? That is my definition of racial “equity”, and I’m sticking with it.

  21. Shit, she said the quiet part out loud.

    Fortunately for her, nobody is paying attention to what people are actually saying these days.

    1. nobody is paying attention to what people are actually saying these days

      Other than to say “please stop talking so I can vote for you.”

  22. Commie bitch….AYFKM?!

    1. PS: Joe Biden is corrupt AF!

  23. Is she Orange?

    No.

    Is she a man?

    No.

    I don’t see what the problem is. Reason gave us our criteria. “Orange man bad”. That is how we judge things ’round these parts. By that criterion, Harris is good to go!

    1. “Orange man bad”???

      Orange Man bad?!? He BAD, all right! He SOOO BAD, He be GOOD! He be GREAT! He Make America Great Again!

      We KNOW He can Make America Great Again, because, as a bad-ass businessman, He Made Himself and His Family Great Again! He Pussy Grabber in Chief!

      See The Atlantic article by using the below search-string in quotes:
      “The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet” or this one…

      https://reason.com/2019/09/02/republicans-choose-trumpism-over-property-rights-and-the-rule-of-law/

      He pussy-grab His creditors in 7 bankruptcies, His illegal sub-human workers ripped off of pay on His building projects, and His “students” in His fake Get-Rich-like-Me realty schools, and so on. So, He has a GREAT record of ripping others off! So SURELY He can rip off other nations, other ethnic groups, etc., in trade wars and border wars, for the benefit of ALL of us!!!

      All Hail to THE Pussy Grabber in Chief!!!

      Most of all, HAIL the Chief, for having revoked karma! What comes around, will no longer go around!!! The Donald has figured out that all of the un-Americans are SOOO stupid, that we can pussy-grab them all day, every day, and they will NEVER think of pussy-grabbing us right back!

      Orange Man Bad-Ass Pussy-Grabber all right!

      We CAN grab all the pussy, all the time, and NONE will be smart enough to EVER grab our pussies right back!

      These voters simply cannot or will not recognize the central illusion of politics… You can pussy-grab all of the people some of the time, and you can pussy-grab some of the people all of the time, but you cannot pussy-grab all of the people all of the time! Sooner or later, karma catches up, and the others will pussy-grab you right back!

      1. Wow. You just run around with that ready to copy/paste like that, huh?

        You’d think that having the time to consider, you’d put a in little more effort.

        1. Y’all stop posting this utterly empty-headed (and pro-empty-headedness) “Orange Man Bad”, and I will stop posting my response!

          “Orange Man Bad” as a summary from conservatives, of page after page after page, detail after detail, testimony upon testimony, of HOW and WHY Orange Man is a lying hypocritical narcissistic and corrupt, self-centered weasel, who is ruining the good reputation (for years if not decades) of the USA, internationally, shows the utter contempt that conservatives hold the rest of us in! “Here, dummy, I can summarize ALL of the encyclopedic knowledge that has been gathered concerning Der TrumpfenFuhrer, so that YOU (dumbshit) will NOT have to trouble your pretty little head, studying all that boring stuff! It just amounts to Orange Man Bad, end of story!”

          Don’t study medicine or boring medical texts… I will summarize it for you! “The human body is made of icky pus and smegma, slimy blood and mucus, and icky poop!”

          Law summary: “He or she who habeas the corpus, must take proper care of it.”

          Computers? Stop studying, you fool! “Learn to code; garbage in, garbage out; just be logical!”

          Electrical Hardware Engineering? “Don’t stick your diode in an anode! Sparks is as sparks does!”

          And then conservatives and other Trumptatorshit worshippers and ignorance worshippers have the NERVE to say, “We need more SKILLED AND TALENTED immigrants and fewer ignorant ones coming into the USA!”!

          1. Your “solution” to a small phrase of spam is several paragraphs of spam?

            That’s moronic.

            1. Wildlands firefighters fight fire with fire, using a “backburn”.

              Pro-ignorance poster post “Orange Man Bad” summaries for us, encouraging us all to to ignore the faults of THEIR favorite politicians! How often do you see “Senile Mackerel Snapper Bad” to “summarize” articles critical of Biden around here? THAT shows the commenters here are WAAAY heavily biased on one side!

              I “backburn” against pro-ignorance posters with some facts and a link! You have a BETTER way to get some more balance around here?

              1. “Wildlands firefighters fight fire with fire, using a “backburn”.”

                Unlike you Mr Firefighter (lol) who burns the whole forest down for a campfire like “orange man bad”

                1. Hey all of ye Reasonoid readers! Do NOT bother to read this here-above article about Kamala Harris! Do NOT bother to read (or read about) ANY links, facts, or logic contained in this article and-or video! Do NOT bother to trouble your pretty little heads about silly factual details gathered by useless Reason-writer eggheads!

                  Because I, the SMARTEST ONE, can “summarize” it ALL for you! Here it is, the above article summarized: “Mixed-Race Woman Bad”!

                  (/Sarc, revenge for moronic “summaries” about “Orange Man Bad”)

                  (Need some BALANCE around here!)

          2. Orenji-iro no otoko warui

            1. Kanpai! From 1 otaku, to, you.

              1. Chikoku o taberu tawagoto o seikō

      2. Lol this dude has never fucked. Just get some pussy bitch.

        1. I get fucked (fucked over) by Government Almighty over-reach (and statist busybodies who support said Government Almighty over-reach) all day every day! THAT is why I do not want ANY more pussy-grabbing from the Pussy-Grabber in Chief!

          1. “Lol this dude has never fucked.”

            “I get fucked (fucked over)”

            pfffff

  24. There would be far greater equality among Americans if everyone finishes high school, gets a job and marries before having children, and remains married until their children are out of school.

    Virtually all poor people in America come from broken homes and broken families.

    Left wing policies have destroyed tens of millions of families, and have created most of the inequality that now exists in America.

    1. Racist

      1. And a dog whistling racist at that!

      2. Most poor white hillbillies and rednecks also come from broken families.

        1. Hey, “Poor kids can be just as smart as white kids!”

          1. And sometimes they can be articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.

  25. This is basically what all Democrats believe nowadays. Obama certainly held this position. They need to be called out and called out accurately. They’re communists. Calling Obama and the Dems socialist is an insult to socialists.

    1. Socialism is just as evil as communism as it is a distinction without a difference. The socialists know they are evil that’s why they try to pull the “democratic socialism” word game that too many retards fall for. It’s very similar to progressives saying they are “liberal progressives” in the early 60s because they started getting trounced after people started to realize the progressives were closer to the fascists than any other group.

      1. Socialism is just as evil as communism as it is a distinction without a difference

        History has already been revised to omit the clear lessons of what the Soviets did post-war to consolidate power in Eastern Europe. It is without question that they infiltrated socialist governments, assassinated political rivals and then slid those countries behind the Iron Curtain. They didn’t do anything different in the US, it has just taken an additional 70 years for the propaganda to become dissociated with the most murderous regimes in the history of the world.

        1. So should the US close borders or open them?
          How about, in the name of open and honest government we start with tRumps tax return?
          As for US becoming a murderous regime. Which murder are you talking about? Or are you just projecting a future?

          1. Con_fuse9 is a good tag for you. None of that was remotely related to what I wrote.

            the clear lessons of what the Soviets did post-war to consolidate power in Eastern Europe

            The murder I was obviously alluding to would be the 60 million dead citizens killed by Soviet government actions.

          2. Trump’s tax returns are private confidential documents that the NYT already proved idiots don’t understand. You have no right to them, neither does anyone else. The IRS is only granted the review to verify information. They are private so that people willingly provide said information.

      2. Define ‘evil’
        The label “communism” and “socialism” has been thrown around so much that its unclear WTF you are talking about.
        Everyone 100% agrees that we don’t want a Stalinist, Maoist or Pol Pot run country. But those were effectively dictatorships eliminating rivals and potential rivals.
        Are you saying one side is evil vs. the other side because one wants to tax at 40% and the other at 35%?
        Or are you saying you don’t like publicly funded schools – or only public funds for schools that teach your dogma? Need a bit more superstition in your kids education?
        Should we all pay for health insurance ourselves? $44,000 / year for family of 4.
        What about roads, 100% toll roads? Have a little box in you car that tracks which roads you drive on? Or can we come together and at least publicly fund those?

        1. Everyone 100% agrees that we don’t want a Stalinist, Maoist or Pol Pot run country. But those were effectively dictatorships eliminating rivals and potential rivals.

          You don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. None of those people came to power saying, “I promise to liquidate a significant portion of our population.” Yet they did.

          1. None of those people came to power saying, “I promise to liquidate a significant portion of our population.” Yet they did.

            ^ Pretty much exactly what I was going to way.

            Should we all pay for health insurance ourselves?

            Who do you think should pay for it?

            1. It is pointless to argue with people who can’t resist conflating health care and health insurance. Anyone spending $44k/year on healthcare is doing it wrong.

              1. US spends $11K per person, on average. Germany does as well, but they have 100% (or nearly so) coverage. The 44K was the family of 4 cost. Bottom line, you are paying those numbers or someone is paying them for you.
                Agree with your comment about costs vs. insurance. No one has been talking about reducing costs, everyone has been talking about who pays for it.
                If your employer is paying for it, you are paying for in lowered salary.

        2. I think it is evil if I demand you to give me your money, property, and effort for my personal prefrence, and if you refuse I get to kill you. There is a reason socialistic societies can exist within capitalist governments (the kibbutz in Isreal) but not the other way around

  26. Someone should point out that Californians aren’t necessarily as batshit insane as their representatives.

    For instance, there’s a proposition on the ballot over affirmative action. Take a look at the polls yourself, but opposing the initiative is the anti-affirmative action position, and the polls are showing that California’s voters will vote against affirmative action by a wide margin–double digits %.

    https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020)#Polls

    California’s government is controlled by a Democratic party machine that is batshit insane. California’s voters voted against gay marriage when that was on the ballot, too. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong–I’m saying that it doesn’t play to the stereotype. If I told you I was talking about a state that voted against gay marriage was voting against affirmative action, few of you would guess that I was talking about California. The media wants people to believe that Californians are a progressive monolith, but the media shouldn’t be believed–not even when they’re talking about California.

  27. How many bodies do we need to pile up this time before we learn for the third time this shit doesn’t work? Just tell us so we can get this over with.

    1. It didn’t work for Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, or Chavez, but this time it’s gonna be different–because Kamala Harris cares about people.

      1. Somebody needs to buy her a copy of harrison bergeron.

        1. She would take as a how to story, just as she has 1984 and Animal Farm.

      2. Every time is going to be “different.” That is why is keeps happening, and we do not somehow get a pass on this.

        1. Well, the others didn’t really care about people.

          Who cares if the economic system is inherently unsustainable and will necessarily lead to authoritarianism and declining standards of living?

          The important thing is 1) that you gotta believe and 2) those in charge need to care about people. Chavez cared about people, but Maduro doesn’t, so that’s why it failed in Venezuela.

          Kamala Harris cares about people, so this time, it’s gotta work!

          1. What happens when Kamala dies and we get her Maduro?

            1. Her name isn’t Maduro. It’s AOC, and she also cares about people, you racist!

      3. It didn’t work for Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, or Chavez

        They just didn’t kill enough people. Kamala says: “Yes, we can!”

        1. Yeah, maybe what we need is someone like Kamala, who really knows how to make an omelet.

          And all those white, blue collar, middle class eggs need to be broken anyway, don’t they?

    2. Surprise, Democrats are not advocating by for a totalitarian state. That would be Republicans.

      1. Democrats are not advocating by for a totalitarian state.

        Just one that regulates every aspect of your life and tells you what thoughts are acceptable and what thoughts aren’t. For Freedom.

        1. Well said but you’re wasting your time on that little troll of a bitch.

          1. I find him an amusing foil. I gave up on making any progress with him seven-eight years ago.

        2. More insane hyperbole. Your arguments that rely on this hysterical nonsense are your bad arguments. Get that?

          The only people being arrested for exercising their first amendment rights are leftists being shoved into vans by the Trump state.

          1. More insane hyperbole. Your arguments that rely on this hysterical nonsense are your bad arguments.

            Please clarify which aspects of my life that the current Democratic Party doesn’t want to regulate?

            When we speak of ‘hate speech’ and refusing to engage people with ‘hateful ideas’ and notions of controlling what does and doesn’t get said in the media for fear of how it influences people to think wrong things, who are we talking about? Don’t pretend we don’t all know.

            The only people being arrested for exercising their first amendment rights are leftists being shoved into vans by the Trump state.

            Right. All those leftists disappeared into vans just like happens in socialist South American paradises all the time. And all of those people are probably still rotting anonymously in some gulag somewhere, right? Right? And definitely they were arrested because of what they were saying and not what they were doing, right? Right?

            1. You’re the one implying a state action against you for your speech. Since that’s not happening or advocated on the left, I thought I’d point out an actual instance of what you’re worried about. Sorry it’s not the left. You’re just so used to conservatives dictating the terms of debate you don’t notice when they send the jackboots, I guess.

              Democrats and Republicans want to regulate you roughly the same, except you’ll provably more likely end up in prison under Republicans. That’s more of a local matter anyway, in all likelihood.

              Democrats do want to regulate corporations more than Republicans, and that’s for protecting natural resources, the environment, and workers rights. I don’t know why you hate those things.

              1. You’re the one implying a state action against you for your speech.

                I’m not implying anything. I am outright stating that only one of the two parties has spent the last decade arguing that speech they deem “hateful” is not protected by the Constitution, and it ain’t the Republicans.

                Since that’s not happening or advocated on the left, I thought I’d point out an actual instance of what you’re worried about. Sorry it’s not the left.

                When did you do that? Do you mean the rioters you mentioned who were picked up in Paddy Wagons, questioned, and released a few hours later?

                The Horror!!

                I get that visually on camera that closely resembled the sorts of things that happen in totalitarian leftist countries, and that you agree that we don’t want that sort of thing here. But what you saw happen here was not in fact, the sort of thing that happens in totalitarian leftist countries. It just resembled it enough that you feel comfortable lying about what actually happened.

                Democrats and Republicans want to regulate you roughly the same, except you’ll provably more likely end up in prison under Republicans.

                Democrats want to tell me what words I can and can’t use, what political positions I can and can’t have, when I can and can’t leave my house and where I can go when I do, how much money I’m allowed to work for, whom I’m allowed to pay to do things and whom I’m not allowed to pay to do things, whether I’m allowed to have a plastic straw or throw a piece of metal in the trash, whether or not I can smoke a cigarette in my own home, whether or not I can add on to my house or upgrade my electrical service. They want to dictate how my car runs, where I get my electricity from, and what sort of food I’m allowed to buy. They want to regulate where I’m allowed to live and where I’m allowed to work and how I get between them. They want to tell me what doctor I’m allowed to have and what doctor I’m not allowed to have; they want to tell me whether or not I’m allowed to settle for a nurse in a pinch, and whether or not I’m allowed to not buy insurance (I’m not) and they want to regulate what type of insurance I’m allowed to have.

                Am I a corporation?

                Democrats do want to regulate corporations . . . and that’s for protecting natural resources, the environment, and workers rights.

                You know because they say so! And look at all the “Progress” they’ve made!

                Wait . . . isn’t the world supposedly ending in a massive environmental disaster of worker exploitation?

                1. Hate speech is first-amendment protected. The Supreme Court has set that it stone. So you literally have nothing to worry about, even if you were correct that Democrats want to make laws about what you can say (they don’t).

                  It’s not my place to tell you that you are fixated on entirely the wrong priorities. I’m big on free speech too. But you’re not talking about something that’s real.

                  1. So you literally have nothing to worry about, even if you were correct that Democrats want to make laws about what you can say (they don’t).

                    I don’t support people who want to violate my rights even if they might not succeed. Because you saying Democrats don’t want hate speech laws is blatantly wrong.

                    The main reason it’s unlikely that they will succeed is because we have less people like Kagan on the court and more like Goresuch. Because while Goresuch values and respects liberty, Kagan values and respects Progress.

                    Remember what we agreed that “liberal” means?

                    It’s not my place to tell you that you are fixated on entirely the wrong priorities. I’m big on free speech too. But you’re not talking about something that’s real.

                    Weren’t you just now telling me that Republicans are disappearing people in unmarked vans for their speech?

                    I was merely asserting that the Democrats are actively threatening free speech, even if their threats are arguably empty.

                    Is there something actually happening that you feel my attention should be turned to?

                    I listed off a fair number of my gripes with Democrats. What, specifically, are Republicans going to do to me?

                    1. Nobody is going to have you arrested for your speech.

                      One caveat is that Republicans might throw you in a van if you’re attending a lawful protest. I’m just going by the evidence there, but i somehow doubt you’ll have to deal with that.

                      What you seem to be getting at is your discomfort over norms of politeness changing with more minority inclusion. That social pressure exists where it didn’t before that makes you have to think before you call someone a tranny or whatever.

                      Well, buck up snowflake, there’s no excuse for rudeness. You’re still not going to be arrested for it, so might I suggest you shift your focus to something that’s real and important?

  28. The artwork is even in a distinctly socialist style.

  29. By the way, that video is racist. Not joking.

    1. Why? Because the black guy couldn’t jump up on that little ledge?

  30. BTW did you guys see this?

    And guess what… the FBI is investigating this as ‘harassment’.

    1. Uhm, it is 100% intended as harassment. The only question is “Is it illegal?”

      1. Yeah, sorry, waving a flag for the opposing candidate in front of another candidate hardly qualifies as harassment.

    2. Defund the FBI?

    3. It was a peaceful protest.

  31. “Equality of outcome” = “To each according to their needs”

  32. Send her on a fact finding trip to develop her foreign an domestic policy, to North Korea and Venezuela.

  33. Yes? But she’s a moron.

  34. Can you just erase the history?
    Suppose someone got a Harvard education and another person got an elementary school one, now the government says, going forward, we will treat both individuals equally…. Good Luck!
    I would be willing to bet that the Harvard educated person would do overall better AND his/her offspring would also tend to do better.

    I’m not sure, without some outside (dare I say government) intervention the field would ever be level.

    1. I would be willing to bet that the Harvard educated person would do overall better AND his/her offspring would also tend to do better.

      I supposed if you define “better” as “having more money,” but I thought Social Justice types weren’t supposed to be venally greedy and materialistic like that.

  35. Speaking of communism, I don’t know how many of you have seen this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1u7XZ9c8fI

    It’s a treatment of opening of The Simpons–if it had been set in Russia (under communism?). You see Bart and Homer and Marge and Lisa all come together, but, you know, it’s a completely different society. I think it’s kind of ingenious. It takes the world and show we know and compares it to something we don’t–thank goodness.

    1. Wow, that’s . . . really dark.

    2. Only Lisa never shows up with the rest of the family…

      They really butched up Santa’s Little Helper too. Damn, that was depressing. But well done.

      1. Only Lisa never shows up with the rest of the family…

        It seems that little encounter with the authorities didn’t go well for her.

        1. Apparently playing a sax on a street corner is another form of “hooliganism.”

          And of course that could never happen here, right….?

          1. “Unlicensed Street Performer.” There are unionized musicians who need to eat, you know . . .

  36. BTW, the tax plan on Biden’s website is watered down tip of the iceberg bullshit. Cuomo let it slip around a month ago that Democrats need the Federal Government and the senate to push forward a wealth tax. Harris will make AOC look like a free market republican.

  37. Ha! That video…

    “Vote Biden/Harris. We’ll literally move the Earth and make everyone equal.”

    How the hell do people fall for politicians’ bullshit.

  38. Harrison Bergeron was not supposed to be a how-to book.

    1. Neither was Animal Farm, 1984, or The Communist Manifesto.

      Well, the last one was, but…

  39. “Conservatives swiftly condemned Harris’s tweet in characteristically dramatic fashion”

    So, they pounced?

  40. Great I will never have to lift a finger to work again, and be as rich as that good Democrat Jeff Bezos! (sarc)

  41. This is the same disingenuous horsecrap that made Jordan Peterson rich. Conservatives can only prove how stupid they are by talking about some ridiculous dystopian straw man of equal outcomes. That is not what she says, not what any progressive says, not even what Marx said, and if you don’t know that you’re stupid.

    The “same place” they end up is equal footing. She says it right in this clip. Equal footing when you START competing. This is a sentiment everyone who’s not a jackass can agree with, especially those of you who value the social utility of market capitalism.

    Anyone arguing against it is in favor of entrenching existing interests, which is what conservatives are about by definition anyway, and it has nothing to do with the virtues of capitalism, but everything to do with its drawbacks.

    1. Anyone arguing against it is in favor of entrenching existing interests, which is what conservatives are about by definition anyway, and it has nothing to do with the virtues of capitalism, but everything to do with its drawbacks.

      If that was what it was actually about, I would be wholeheartedly for it as I can mentally outperform 95% of the population. Unfortunately, the last 150 years or so of world history show you to be full of shit. Capitalism is the only system that has led to gains in freedom.

      1. Nobody within light years of this conversation is advocating for anything other than capitalism.

        You have to decide whether you want the most unfair, unjust, warped rent-seeking version of capitalism that Republican slimeballs can muster up, or one that attempts to actively engage some actual pro-market fairness so capitalism even makes sense to keep around.

        1. one that attempts to actively engage some actual pro-market fairness so capitalism even makes sense to keep around

          Wondering whether or not you want to “keep capitalism around” is sort of like wondering whether you want to “keep gravity around” because you’re finding it hard to get up off the couch.

          If we continue to have money, we have capitalism.

          Your notion of “market fairness” can’t really mean anything other than “I don’t like the economic choices people are freely making.”

          1. IOW, Fascism quite literally “keeps capitalism around” with the notion that the government is capable of making capitalism “serve society.”

            The Chinese Communist Party “keeps capitalism around” with the notion that the government is capable of making capitalism “serve society.”

            Capitalism =/= liberty. Free markets are the things libertarians prize. Capitalism is nothing more than the effect of storing value in money – so much so that the statement itself is a tautology, really.

            1. You’re making my point for me. I’m glad we agree that the Republican Party of the US doesn’t have a monopoly on the correct definition of capitalism.

              1. I’m glad we agree that the Republican Party of the US doesn’t have a monopoly on the correct definition of capitalism.

                Me, too. Now, what definition of capitalism do you think the Democratic Party is laboring under?

                1. Now, what definition of capitalism do you think the Democratic Party is laboring under?

                  It looks a lot like the CCP structure of testing to be part of the civil service, who are the only people treated like citizens and not serfs.

                  1. And who decide on behalf of “the People” what the economy needs.

                    1. How about “the people” and not some dead Russian bitch?

                      Your game is known. Neoliberal Americans like to write constitutions when they parade American peacekeeping around the world. They like to write constitutions that force people to live by a low-regulation, low worker protection, limited ability to sue regime they can’t change democratically.

                      But *checks notes* if the consent of the governed is not achieved, that’s when it becomes OK to chop plutocrat heads off.

                    2. How about “the people” and not some dead Russian bitch?

                      Huh?

                      Your game is known. Neoliberal Americans like to write constitutions when they parade American peacekeeping around the world. They like to write constitutions that force people to live by a low-regulation, low worker protection, limited ability to sue regime they can’t change democratically.

                      Did you hit “Reply” on the wrong comment?

                    3. Libertarians commonly argue that democracy is a secondary value to their policy goals. It’s why you friends in power write constitutions that keep economic policy set in stone. Because you’re just so special and right.

                    4. Libertarians commonly argue that democracy is a secondary value to their policy goals.

                      No. Democracy is a secondary value to human rights. Which is why we have a Bill of Rights and a Supreme Court and we don’t just let the Will of the People run around willy-nilly eating up whomever it wants.

                      It’s why you friends in power write constitutions that keep economic policy set in stone.

                      Those don’t sound like my friends. Did you have someone specific in mind?

    2. Equal footing when you START competing.

      Meaning . . . ?

      1. It means the “socialism” extends to healthcare, education, correcting policing biases, and maybe a universal basic income, which is something most libertarian forefathers supported anyway. Stop giving welfare to billionaires and oil companies.

        It’s pretty mainstream stuff compared to the lazy fearmongering populism and constant whining of the other side. You cannot seriously be surprised if a campaign loses when its platform is “Love me please, and in exchange, fuck you.”

        1. It means the “socialism” extends to healthcare, education, correcting policing biases,

          And how are you going to ensure that wealthier people can’t have better healthcare and education and more pleasant encounters with the police?

          The only thing I can think of that could possibly work would be the Harrison Bergeron solution – make sure that no one has access to anything that’s better than anything anyone else has. Or the Brave New World solution in which all children are confiscated from parents at birth so that they can all be raised “on a level playing field.” Otherwise, some people are going to have better healthcare, education, and policing than others, and we will refer to these people as “wealthy” and/or “privileged” however that result comes about.

          This is the reason people ignore leftists when they say they don’t want a totalitarian regime – because the social goals you express require one, whether you are willing to admit it to yourself or not. The first pass won’t eliminate inequality, and so you will need more. When that doesn’t work, you will need more. Because it will never work.

          Society is made up of different people with different ways of living, different goals, and different standards of success and well-being. Once you decide that one outcome needs to adhere for all regardless of their individual characters, you are a totalitarian, regardless of what you tell yourself.

        2. maybe a universal basic income, which is something most libertarian forefathers supported anyway

          Only in the same sense that Milton Friedman, for example, supported abandoning the gold standard. Not because he was against a gold standard – he was realistic about the fact that no government anywhere is going to stop fucking with the value of its currency, such that trying to maintain a gold standard is a fool’s errand in the actually-existing world.

          Likewise, “libertarian forefathers” didn’t “support” UBI – they offered it up as a compromise form of welfare that wouldn’t require much bureaucracy to implement and that would minimize the moral hazards of qualification-based welfare programs, with the idea that the UBI would be the only welfare of any kind.

          Not “we like this idea” but “if we have to accept that government is going to do this, here’s a way that’s less retarded.”

        3. “”maybe a universal basic income, which is something most libertarian forefathers supported anyway.””

          Can you cite that? I am not aware of any libertarian that believes you are owed something just because you exist.

    3. Well I”m waiting for that equal footing in the NBA or the NFL or the 100 meters in the Olympics..or for that matter Goldman Sachs, the Media in general, Hollywood, sit com writers and all those segments were one “minority” tribe is way overrepresented…how about govt doesn’t discriminate or pass laws forcing people to but beyond that you have the right to discriminate..its called freedom wokie

  42. In the vain hope that I can stop reading morons compare the Democratic Party to various totalitarian regimes from history books, here’s where you dumbfucks go wrong.

    Yes, leftists have had leftist revolutions and installed totalitarian regimes. But so have rightists, lest we forget the Nazis. It turns out that everyone underestimated the tendency of revolutionary or otherwise hardline political movements to become totalitarian. The twelve actual communists on the internet sometimes gloss over this, but not nearly to the extent that rightwingers do, who by all appearances seem perfectly OK with trying out fascist totalitarianism again. Plenty of minorities left to exterminate, after all.

    As Mr. Peterson so aptly instructs, clean YOUR room. Fucktards. If all you have to argue with are dystopian straw men, you’re not making your best case! Don’t you get that? You’ve set the expectations at Mao. Don’t you think it might be rather simple for Joe Biden to do better than that?

    1. Lest we forget the Nazis were socialists. Socialism is fascism. It can be no other way.

      Because if it isn’t fascist, then the people you depend on to support complete strangers across the country might opt-out of doing so. If it were voluntary.

      1. You don’t know what the fuck you’re taking about. Nazis were socialists like the DPRK is a democratic republic. Your analysis is as simple and semantic as humanly possible, and if you aren’t lying right now you are incredibly uneducated.

        1. So – would you describe the Nazis as free market Capitalists?

          1. No, they were nominally socialists because socialism was popular at the time. It’s a whole thing. But it’s entirely beside the point because they were mass murdering tens of millions of people and warring the world. What kind of economy is that? Who cares? Total state control of the economy is a bad idea. Nobody thinks otherwise. Not in China and certainly not here. Maybe in North Korea.

            You want to pretend that an economic system is causal of totalitarianism when totalitarianism can take shape under any economic policies. It’s not the relevant factor. You only need it to be because you are doing anti communist PR straight from the 1950s, and you want to LIE about how somehow Democrats are like Stalin because of word association. It’s a lie, and if you don’t know that you need to change your media diet.

            1. No, they were nominally socialists because socialism was popular at the time. It’s a whole thing.

              So . . . not free market Capitalists?

              But it’s entirely beside the point because they were mass murdering tens of millions of people and warring the world. What kind of economy is that? Who cares?

              Why did you bring them up, then?

              You want to pretend that an economic system is causal of totalitarianism when totalitarianism can take shape under any economic policies.

              When that economic system is “there must be no inequality” regardless of anything else about the economic system, it is “causal of totalitarianism.”

              Total state control of the economy is a bad idea. Nobody thinks otherwise.

              Do you ever read Vox?

              Your average Democrat is less like Stalin and more like Trotsky.

            2. Why do you lefturds put so much effort into trying to spread the lie that your third-worst mass murderer wasn’t one of you? Wouldn’t it make more sense to try to pretend that Mao and Stalin weren’t lefturds?

              -jcr

        2. “You don’t know what the fuck you’re taking about. Nazis were socialists like the DPRK is a democratic republic.”

          You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
          Tooze, “Wages of Destruction”, spend many pages explaining exactly how the means of production were to bee nationalized, and if you’d ever read Pipes, or even that half-baked lefty apologist Figues on the Soviet revolution, you’d find Hitler was just about lock-step with their efforts in time of execution.
          I repeat, you do not know what they fuck you’re talking about; you seem to get your ‘education’ from the Sunday suppliments.

        3. The Nazis demanded the sacrifice of the individual to the collective, they imposed a command economy, and they railed against capitalists. They were acknowledged as socialists by all their contemporary fellow lefturds, right up to the day that Hitler attacked Russia.

          You lefturds can keep lying about it until you’re blue in the face, but Hitler was still a lefturd just like you, Tony.

          -jcr

          1. Hitler was a racist socialist. It’s the racist/nationalist part that makes leftists say he was a far-right dictator, when the policies other than that were taken right from Marx for the good of the burgioses…I mean volk.

            Hitler and the socialist dream

            Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. “I have learned a great deal from Marxism” he once remarked, “as I do not hesitate to admit”. He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that “they had never even read Marx”, implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been “a private Russian affair”, whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history! His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun”, adding revealingly that “the whole of National Socialism” was based on Marx.

            That is a devastating remark and it is blunter than anything in his speeches or in Mein Kampf.; though even in the autobiography he observes that his own doctrine was fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason that it recognised the significance of race – implying, perhaps, that it might otherwise easily look like a derivative. Without race, he went on, National Socialism “would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground”. Marxism was internationalist. The proletariat, as the famous slogan goes, has no fatherland. Hitler had a fatherland, and it was everything to him.

    2. Also, no *you have* set the expectations at Mao. Because that’s what socialism always devolves into.

      1. It’s what cults of personality tend to devolve into. The economic system under the totalitarian regime clearly is incidental.

        1. The economic system under the totalitarian regime clearly is incidental.

          Not necessarily. Free markets and totalitarianism are mutually exclusive, by definition. There is some economic latitude for the totalitarian, but it’s always going to be somewhere at least socialist adjacent.

          1. When you say free markets you mean in practice neoliberal corporate oligarchy, and not only does it correlate to plenty of totalitarian regimes, they are regimes the US set up.

            It’s been a long time since we’ve talked about how corporations inevitably capture government when that’s precisely what you empower them to do, but it’s not a minor variable in your worldview.

            1. When you say free markets you mean in practice neoliberal corporate oligarchy

              Oh, Tony. Do you ever wonder whether the reason you need to explain what people “actually” mean is that you can’t refute what they’re actually saying?

              not only does it correlate to plenty of totalitarian regimes, they are regimes the US set up

              How would you describe the economies in those regimes (I’ll spare you having to be specific about which ones you mean)? Free market Capitalism?

              It’s been a long time since we’ve talked about how corporations inevitably capture government when that’s precisely what you empower them to do

              Yeah – for those of who are libertarian it’s probably been about ten minutes since we tried to get someone like you to understand exactly this.

              What’s your magic plan for making corporations unable to control people through governments?

              Mine is to make governments less powerful. Now you go.

              1. Yes, make government less powerful. Meaning necessarily less powerful relative to corporations. In practice, that’s the whole point.

                I’m glad we agree that you hate freedom.

      2. No, sometimes democratic socialism votes itself away. Europe used to be much more socialist with many nationalized companies. They have let many of them recapitalize or fail to capitalist competition.
        Some of these countries are not more economically free than the US.

        1. Need edit button. no “not”
          I meant:
          Some of these countries are more economically free than the US.

    3. who by all appearances seem perfectly OK with trying out fascist totalitarianism again.

      Specific examples? Bonus points for things that Biden hasn’t also promised to do.

      What do you call the “wing” that has always resisted totalitarianism no matter how the different competing teams characterize each other?

      1. I call them liberals. It’s the definition of liberal.

        Ayn Rand was advocating for totalitarianism. I don’t know if you got that.

        1. No one but you got that.
          Perhaps everyone else is not wrong.

          1. Literally everyone who managed to graduate 9th grade being skeptical of Ayn Rand got it.

            1. “Literally everyone who managed to graduate 9th grade being skeptical of Ayn Rand got it.”

              So, literally, you and your drunken buds got it and everybody else missed it?
              Of all the claims you’ve made here, Ayn Rand = totalitarianism has got to be a record for idiocy.

        2. I call them liberals. It’s the definition of liberal.

          So would I. Now, how would you characterize “Progressivism?” Is it “liberal?”

          What if I don’t agree with your notion of what “Progress” is?

          Ayn Rand was advocating for totalitarianism. I don’t know if you got that.

          Not an Ayn Rand fan, so if you were looking for a “gotcha,” that wasn’t the place to go.

          1. Labels matter less to me than they do to you. I’m interested in the specifics, lest we get disgraced by hysterical shrieking over in- and out-groups.

            Broadly speaking, progressivism is the philosophy your beloved Western civilization comes from. Keep improving. That’s all it means. It doesn’t carry a dogmatic bias for or against any means of doing that. Government and markets are both powerful tools.

            Liberalism focuses more on individual freedom, also a constituent part of the philosophy behind your beloved Western civilization.

            What doesn’t belong here are fascists. We kill fascists.

            1. Labels matter less to me than they do to you.

              Which is why you’re here every day calling people Nazis.

              I’m interested in the specifics

              Yes – if there’s one thing you’re famous for, it’s digging into the specifics.

              Broadly speaking, progressivism is the philosophy your beloved Western civilization comes from.

              No, it isn’t. There was no such thing as “Progressivism” before the 19th century. What you’re talking about is progress, which is different. I understand that “Progressives” like to refer to their preferred outcomes as “Progress.”

              Government and markets are both powerful tools.

              “Tools” for what?

              Whose “tools?”

              Liberalism focuses more on individual freedom, also a constituent part of the philosophy behind your beloved Western civilization.

              ^ This is one of the first true things you’ve said.

              What doesn’t belong here are fascists. We kill fascists.

              Be careful what you wish for, given the economic system you’re advocating.

              1. “Yes – if there’s one thing you’re famous for, it’s digging into the specifics. ”

                Hey, misdirection, lies, goal-post excursions – they’re all specifics, right?

              2. See, right there:
                “Ayn Rand was advocating for totalitarianism.”
                Specific lie.

                1. Someone got triggered.

                  1. I’ve read several Ayn Rand books and people can like them or not. But I have never seen anything where she advocates for totalitarianism.

                  2. Someone’s a fucking lefty ignoramus.

            2. Progressives were killed this election. Let’s talk in 10 years if you guys are relevant again by then. Lol

        3. Ayn Rand was advocating for totalitarianism.

          Get your meds adjusted. You’re more delusional than usual today.

          -jcr

    4. and the 12 actual white supremacists as well right?

  43. Welcome to the era of the Handicapper General.

  44. If everyone ends up in the same place regardless, nobody has any incentive to put forth any effort. Why work harder than your neighbor if Nanny Harris is just going to take the fruits of your labor and give them to him, so that you can be ‘equitable’?

    1. Yep. This will run into the same problems that communism runs into.

      Why save more for my family if that will just be taxed and given to someone else?

      People will trend towards the bare minimum.

  45. If she thinks equitable means ‘we all end up in the same place’ – she’s dumber than I thought she was. Or she thinks her base is dumber than I thought they were.

    And I think they’re pretty dumb.

  46. When there are “equal” outcomes she won’t be the one living in a tent city for the homeless. There is a name for true equality of outcome — Death.

  47. And people are voting for Biden? In my street it all the NPR, elementary teacher, non profit/academic crowd…the Trump supporters are all small business owners. The corporate types like myself are divided…those with a serious degree who can think are voting Trump..the “liberal art majors” who all seem to work in corporate HR and talk “woke” are Biden supporters…i

  48. Jorgensen would be great, better than Gary Johnson whom I voted for last time. Jorgensen will not win however. Biden may win, Trump probably. Those are your two choices. Clearly we need the Approval Voting.

  49. Churchill’s quote about the equal sharing of the misery is an appropriate response to Ms. Harris.

  50. I would love to see someone tweak this animation and have it show what really happens with “Equal Outcome” and have it show one guy climbing the hill, and dragging another guy up who isn’t trying at all, and then he gets exhausted and only makes it halfway. Then a later variation where it is one guy climbing trying to lift 30 others that have all figured out they don’t even have to try and someone else will do the work.

    That is the result of forcing equal outcome. Make it obvious.

  51. KH is proving herself to be the dummy the democrats knew she was when they did not support her in the primaries and she had to drop out. But now….. all ABOARD

  52. Does this mean I can have nukes now like Kamala and Joe?

  53. I like Biden, but I’m not going to let Harris anywhere near the WH.

  54. It’s cause this niggeret knows that niggers can’t compete in a free market. They need the heavy hand of the state for them to even come close to the white man. They are practically apes.

  55. This is to be expected by those pushing the social justice narrative; expected and extremely dangerous

  56. Thank God she and Basement Bunker Biden are moderates.
    I hate to think where we might end up if she was a fanatic lefty.

  57. So what is she proposing exactly?

  58. This is literally just a spin on marxism. I’m trying to understand how it isn’t…but sorry, it is. Best of luck to her with this congressional makeup, lol.

Please to post comments