Harris: If someone breaks into my house they’re getting shot

[Foxyy 345]

3 minutes ago, AyeshaErotica said:

That is a lie that Kamala Harris wants you all to believe. Kamala Harris is upper class and was raised upper class.

Kamala Harris was raised in Westmount, Montréal in the 1970s and early 1980s.

Westmount was the richest community in all of Canada in the 1970s and 1980s. In, Westmount the most prvileged of the privileged lived. It still is a luxury residential area. I know Montréal well, in her street, Grosvenor Avenue, houses sell for two to four million Canadian dollar on average.

She is the daughter of a Stanford (American élite unversity) and McGill scientist (McGill was the Harvard of Canada in the 1970/80s, so a Canadian élite university), they got a lot of money from their unis and lived in rich neighborhoods, how on Earth is that supposed to be middle class? She is upper class.

Thank you for your Breitbart talking point. It's been appropriately dismissed.

Middle class does not mean poor.

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

11 minutes ago, Forlorn said:

 It's been appropriately dismissed.

Middle class does not mean poor.

It has never been dismissed. Only in your delusional world. Of course, middle class doesn't mean poor, I never claimed that. Upper class means relatively rich, and that's what her class is.

Kamala Harris grew up (high school years) in Grosvenor Avenue, Westmount, the richest community in all of Canada in the 1970s and 80s, being the daughter of well-paid élite university scientists. I know Grosvenor Avenue, it's a very privileged area. Very, very different from the areas where black people usually live in Montréal.

I will not continue to argue with you, as you will continue to believe her to be middle class anyway.

[Foxyy 345]

6 minutes ago, AyeshaErotica said:

It has never been dismissed. Only in your delusional world. Of course, middle class doesn't mean poor, I never claimed that. Upper class means rich, and that's what her class is.

Kamala Harris grew up (high school years) in Grosvenor Avenue, Westmount, the richest community in all of Canada in the 1970s and 80s, being the daughter of well-paid élite university scientists. I know Grosvenor Avenue, it's a very privileged area

I will not continue to agrue with you, as you will continue to believe her to be middle class anyway.

Then why bother quoting at all? Don't waste my time.

Your definition of "upper class" is one I disagree with and you're using right wing talking points to dismiss that she's worked for everything she's achieved, she has always been a dedicated public servant and she's a crucial part of the most pro-working class administration since FDR.

I don't care if you get the ick because she used to live in a gated community or whatever. It's literally irrelevant.

Have a great day/night!

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

25 minutes ago, Forlorn said:

I don't care if you get the ick because she used to live in a gated community or whatever. It's literally irrelevant.

 

It isn't irrelevent because Kamala acts as if she represents Black people because "she was raised middle class" (which is NOT true, because she was raised upper class). It is true that Kamala is Black, but her class is not Middle class. She is fishing with lies for the general Black vote and that's not OK in my opinion. Just like she is fishing both in the Isráel and Paléstine pond, to each side, even though both positions are irreconcilable.  She never had the typical life of an average Black person. She didn't live in an underprivileged or 'normal' neighborhood. Westmount was the epicentre of Canadian wealth during the 70s/80s, and McGill and Stanford are not typical next-door college-like-universities, they are worldwide leading research universities. She knows the poor parts of America only from occassional visits, not from being raised there.

She is making her history and background artificially poorer to get the votes from middle class people - that's not OK. She didn't had to lie but she did. She could have simply said she wants to cater to the Middle Class. But no, instead she portrays herself as someone she wasn't.

There was no pressure on her to lie. It was not necessary for her.

Would Miley Cyrus have become famous, if her father wasn't already a somewhat famous singer? Neither Miley nor Harris probably would have made it into their positions, if they didn't have their starting bonus capital in first place.

 

[Bronco 24,865]

8 hours ago, AyeshaErotica said:

long as the winner-takes-all-principle is not abolished, there will be forever only two parties

There are multiple european third parties who have beat the two party system in winner takes all elections. 

The US are just bad at organising and don't prioritise winnable downballot races.

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

5 hours ago, Bronco said:

There are multiple european third parties who have beat the two party system in winner takes all elections. 

The US are just bad at organising and don't prioritise winnable downballot races.

You mean the Winnter-take-all-system (WTAS) at national-wide level or local community level? According to Wikipedia this principle (WTAS) only exists in Belarus and the UK at national-wide level in Europe,:

"In Europe only Belarus and the United Kingdom use FPTP/SMP to elect the primary (lower) chamber of their legislature and France uses a two-round system (TRS). Winner-take-all system are much more common outside Europe, particularly in the countries of the former British Empire, like Australia (IRV), Bangladesh, Canada, Egypt, India, Pakistan and the United States (FPTP/SMP)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winner-take-all_system#Current_use

It seems to be a legacy of Great Britain and its empire.

Of course, this does not mean that there are no thresholds at all, otherwise there would be dozens, if not hundreds, of parties in parliament. There are electroal thresholds that typically range from 3% to 5%. A party that receives at least 5% of the vote is certainly represented in parliament, in most European countries. But here too the phenomenon occurs which, as in America, prevents smaller parties that are likely to fall below 3%/5% from being elected because people tend not to want their vote to be "wasted" and therefore vote for one that is safely in. Unfortunately, parties specialized on animal protection often fall under this phenomenon because they often get 1%-2,5% but not the necessary minimum threshold.
In Europe this means that parties that are expected to fall below 3%/5% are less likely to be voted for because people would rather vote for a party that gets above 3/5% so that their vote effectively COUNTS. After all, parties above 5% are represented and there are more than 2, often four to six. Which means a broader choice, even if it's not ideal.
In America, however, this means that - due to the WTAS - people effectively only vote for Dems or Reps because only the second largest party has a chance of overtaking the largest party. For example, if the Dems get 41%, the Reps get 45%, the others (third parties in plural) get 13%. The 13% are effectively "wasted" (that's how people in general "feel" about it, not what I feel), and even the 41% in almost all states. That's why hardly anyone votes third party in America, because of the WTAS.

I really don't think it's because Americans are poorly organized. It's entirely down to the WTAS. It makes it theoretically possible and practically impossible. It's just so unlikely that a third-party would suddenly become the most voted party.The Reps and Dems have a two party monopoly and they don't want to share their power with anyone.  The people can't practically vote out the system as long as only the two-party monopoly can.

This is not to say that the European system is a thousand times better. It conceals the fact that there is also a quasi two-party monopoly, namely when the smaller parties have to form a coalition and are dependent on the larger parties to get over the 50%+1 threshold. (And then the votes of the up to 49% are de facto meaningless.... which is...American-like) And the large parties, typically two in Europe, always have a veto right. The resulting policy is not so dissimilar to that in America. What makes the European system different, however, is that the major parties can slowly lose votes in percentage terms over the decades and are in fact replaced by others.

The Swiss system is imo the very best system because there are no coalitions, so a party that gets voted by e.g. 7% truly counts 7% and doesn't become meaningless if it was in the oppositon because their is no oppositon-coaltion. They all rule together in Switzerland. The fairest system of all, imo.

 

 

 

[msr 83]

On 9/20/2024 at 10:29 PM, thedirtymonster said:

There’s nothing to “defend” from. Self-defense is not a crime.

It is though if its not proportional 

[Bronco 24,865]

6 minutes ago, AyeshaErotica said:

I really don't think it's because Americans are poorly organized. It's entirely down to the WTAS. It makes it theoretically possible and practically impossible. It's just so unlikely that a third-party would suddenly become the most voted party.The Reps and Dems have a two party monopoly and they don't want to share their power with anyone.  The people can't practically vote out the system as long as only the two-party monopoly can.

 

Look, for decades parties like the Greens/Lib Dems/UKIP/SNP/Plaid Cymru/BNP in the UK - a near identical system to the US's legislature elections all sat around blaming the system and not playing the game. They got nowhere. 

I'm not saying in any way shape or form that a third party in such a system can win a majority overnight, it's never happened. Even in moments where one of the two parties has collapsed and been replaced by another - this has always result in the new party becoming the largest opposition for at least 1 cycle. 

But the Lib Dems for example just achieved their best result since the Liberal Party's 1924 collapse and their best ever result since the amalgamation of the Liberal Party & Social Democrats in the 1980s. That happened because the party effectively organised itself in key areas where it had strong local organisations that had repeatedly built up the party's local standing through successive local election cycles. And are now in a position in which there is the potential for them to replace the Conservative party in the next cycle. 

The UK Greens spent decades in the wilderness and achieving nothing in terms of electoral victory in the UK because they didn't prioritize local organising and instead focused like the US greens on running high profile campaigns on single issues or in major elections they had zero chance in. Then in the last 15-20 years they professionalised under the likes of Caroline Lucas, Natalie Bennet & Carla Denyer. The party focused heavily on areas where there policy platform appealed to local interests - Brighton & Bristol which all trend leftwards and have younger electorates and then areas like Trafford where you have richer affluent suburbanites looking for a party that will preserve local beauty etc (and housing prices). And as a result of this professionalisation they finally have more than 1 MP elected to the Commons. They unseated an incoming cabinet minister. 

The SNP achieved a near 100% monopoly of Scottish seats at Westminster as a result of taking power in Scotland's devolved government after decades of building up local government power. They replaced the Labour party in Scotland for a decade through establishing themselves as a viable governing alternative. 

Meanwhile in the US, the Green party split into 2 organisations for the majority of the 21st century so far and instead of prioritising building a green vote they fought each other. The Green party wastes it time and resources on presidential elections currently despite knowing it can't win. Despite having achieved some local successes in California, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Massachusetts & Maine. Any party serious about becoming a viable third party ballot option would prioritise building up its vote in those states where it has local electoral success, building that into statewide success and then progressing onto fighting for a House seat and contesting the Senate elections. But instead they pump millions into Jill Stein. This is what I mean when I say the Green Party of the USA is not an effective organisation and is holding itself back. 

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

6 hours ago, Bronco said:

 That happened because the party effectively organised itself in key areas where it had strong local organisations that had repeatedly built up the party's local standing through successive local election cycles. [...] Meanwhile in the US, the Green party split into 2 organisations for the majority of the 21st century so far and instead of prioritising building a green vote they fought each other. [...] Any party serious about becoming a viable third party ballot option would prioritise building up its vote in those states where it has local electoral success, building that into statewide success and then progressing onto fighting for a House seat and contesting the Senate elections.

In this specific case, comparing the US with the UK, I agree that the approach of the smaller British parties is more successful compared to the (fragmented) third parties in the US. Start small, win territories, expand, from the bottom to the top (instead of having no solid basis but already reaching for the stars) is indeed the wiser option. Perhaps their goal is not to win, but get media attention? (Though the UK system remains very different politically from continental Europe)

By the way, I found on wikipedia, that what I have described in my previous post, has a technical term on its own: "Duverger's law":

"A two-party system is most common under plurality voting. Voters typically cast one vote per race. Maurice Duverger argued there were two main mechanisms by which plurality voting systems lead to fewer major parties: (i) small parties are disincentivized to form because they have great difficulty winning seats or representation, and (ii) voters are wary of voting for a smaller party whose policies they actually favor because they do not want to "waste" their votes (on a party unlikely to win a plurality) and therefore tend to gravitate to one of two major parties that is more likely to achieve a plurality, win the election, and implement policy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

On 9/21/2024 at 12:19 AM, River said:

people are talking about safe defense, but over 700 innocent people died in 2023 because they entered the wrong property, usually the neighbor's property.

America is such a sick place

America is indeed sometimes like that:

 

It's morally questionable what Cartman is doing.

I would never shoot an intruder, that person simply might be drunk or a silly teenager,  it isn't very common yet it isn't very rare either. Also as long as an intruder doesn't attack you, "self-defence" should not be on equal terms with a hypothetical preemptive defense, in my opinion. Yeah, I heard of cases that in suburban America where houses sometimes look the same; that people come back from parties at night and confuse houses and end up like... Tolkien.

[Doroteyo 451]

On 9/24/2024 at 3:55 AM, AyeshaErotica said:

It has never been dismissed. Only in your delusional world. Of course, middle class doesn't mean poor, I never claimed that. Upper class means relatively rich, and that's what her class is.

Kamala Harris grew up (high school years) in Grosvenor Avenue, Westmount, the richest community in all of Canada in the 1970s and 80s, being the daughter of well-paid élite university scientists. I know Grosvenor Avenue, it's a very privileged area. Very, very different from the areas where black people usually live in Montréal.

I will not continue to argue with you, as you will continue to believe her to be middle class anyway.

middle upper class is very different to upper class. Professors are not typically upper class people. They are comfortable - which is mid to mid upper. Its different. 

 

If you are upper class I expect you to have security and your own jet or something along those lines.

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

4 hours ago, Doroteyo said:

middle upper class is very different to upper class. Professors are not typically upper class people. They are comfortable - which is mid to mid upper. Its different. 

 

If you are upper class I expect you to have security and your own jet or something along those lines.

Upper class = status = money+reputation

ultra-rich = just money

I'd agree if it was an unknown university in Bulgaria, Greece, Mongolia or the likes of Texas College, uni of Anchorage, Dakota State, Oklahoma, etc.

But we are talking here of Stanford - the second-best ranked uni in the entire world, not just America. ( https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2024/world-ranking# ) Scientists either apply on their own for Stanford or Stanford reaches out for them, but it only does so if they are famous/acclaimed in the world of science and they only make it if they are perceived as eminent. It's known in China, India, Brazil, New Zealand, Poland, all over the world.  It's an exclusive world-known uni, where thousands apply and get rejected and most wouldn't even dare as they know they wouldn't make it. Scientists there usually get much, much more money than those from an average American uni.

Donald J. Harris' works are known in his circles, he ain't very famous in academica but he is somewhat famous. He made it into upper class.

And McGill was the #1 uni in Canada in the 1970s and got the nickname "Harvard of Canada". However, ever since the 80s, McGill has been falling in fame and prestige  and was overshadowed by other Canadian, and US-American unis, just as Montréal as a whole declined in relevance. So its glorious times are passé. An upper middle class person would have settled on Montréal West Island, while an upper class person would choose Westmount.

Westmount (19500 inh.) constitutes 1,03% of the population of Montréal Island (1,9 million). It's the top 1%.

Donald Harris joined Stanford uni in 1972.

In 1972, there were 2700 minimum-standards unis and colleges in the US. ( https://www.nytimes.com/1972/07/27/archives/diplomamill-rise-disturbs-educators-rise-in-number-of-diploma-mills.html )

And Stanford was always in the top 3, so it belongs to the top 0,1% of unis. As a whole, judging by status, Harris plausibly makes it into the top 1%