Forget the Memes. This Is Kamala Harris's "Great Strategic Advantage" | Vanity Fair

Here's to hoping that this wave continues to grow.

The memes that accompanied the surprise launch of Harris's presidential campaign went so viral, so fast that they're now all but played out, less than two weeks later. The Charli XCX endorsement, and the interest it helped generate among a generation that had tuned out Joe Biden, have been the subject of 10,000 hot takes. The coconut tree and the Venn diagrams are now as familiar in political discourse as Trump's overlong tie or weave.

The shift in the celebrity-media ecosystem toward Harris hasn't caught pundits' eyes in the same way. But if it holds, it could be an edge for Harris in her underdog campaign. The Pop accounts—and other viral, celebrity-focused outlets, like the Shade Room, Hollywood Unlocked, and Bossip—not only have millions of followers, they reach an audience that isn't exactly waiting through pharma commercials for Lawrence O'Donnell's next segment or checking their inboxes for a newsletter from Semafor. "They're a great strategic advantage," Mike Nellis, a former senior adviser to Harris and the founder of the digital-advertising agency Authentic, tells me. "This is how you break through."

... yeah but, trump has fake wrestlers (steroid ballerinas), has been TV/movie stars, wannabe rock and rollers, not to mention goober crooners and a bunch of convicted criminal felons at his disposal...

... yeah but, trump has fake wrestlers (steroid ballerinas), has been TV/movie stars, wannabe rock and rollers, not to mention goober crooners and a bunch of convicted criminal felons at his disposal...

Don't forget he has his very own bible as well....

... with the trump revised 10 commandments.

Thou shall (Huh. The next word scribbled out with black sharpie) ...

... with the trump revised 10 commandments.

2. You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them, except for a Trump idol...

that next word is not...

I've been getting these garbage e-mails from reich wing sites, don't know how I got on any of those scumbag mailing lists.  I just blocked something from some reich wing site called 'Right and Free'

You know there's no god when scum like this doesn't get zapped by lightning for such blasphemy

Before the internet this was basic grass roots campaigning.

Now people are adapting to the millions of channels out there in the multiverse.

that could prove difficult for those living in the past to adapt and compete... bummer...

that could prove difficult for those living in the past to adapt and compete... bummer..

Depends.

Different online media appeals to different people.

In my experience, the younger generations for the most part look down on Facebook, considering it too "old fashioned". But many older folks seem to still like it.

"IGM" (Instagram) & TikTok seem to be the first choices for younger generations. 

YouTube is interesting. At this point its certainly not "the latest thing", but many younger people still use it. (IMO because there are still many advantages to pushing your content on the site. 

YouTube is interesting. At this point its certainly not "the latest thing", but many younger people still use it. (IMO because there are still many advantages to pushing your content on the site.

On a slightly different subject: if someone is interested in earning money-- if they learn how to best use YouTube and get good at that, the opportunities to earn really large sums of money are there.

And while that's a bit off topic as its not primarily political-- someone could earn big $$$ and contribute it to a political campaign.

Before the internet this was basic grass roots campaigning.

There is still no substitute for getting out and pounding the pavement. This is, however, a wonderful addition.

There is still no substitute for getting out and pounding the pavement. This is, however, a wonderful addition

Of course some people today might look at it differently:

There is still no substitute for using the Internet in political campaigns. But getting out and pounding the pavement can be a wonderful addition..

My experience in political campaigns over many years is its not as efficient to use only one modality-- why not use as many as possible-- to reach all audiences?

Very true, but now misinformation, disinformation and downright fake news have already proven to have influenced people who are of inadequate IQ, incapable of critical thinking and assume too much.  The days of Walter Cronkite are no longer with us. 

Before the internet this was basic grass roots campaigning. Now people are adapting to the millions of channels out there in the multiverse.

While online (and email, etc) campaigning is increasing rapidly, IMO traditional grassroots campaigning will never end.

I think its great that social media is going to do something positive (for a change ?).  We might end up with a blue wave. 

I have to say though, that I have never heard of Pop Crave. (I'm getting old)

Same here!  Oy vey! 

There's no doubt the vapid, "brat' campaign works with the online left. Left wing content creators and their media allies have decided to ignore everything about Kamala's positions and policies and just market her as a goofy imbecile who acts as a mascot for progressives.

This tweet sums up the left wing campaign:

  Kamala might just be successful and usher in a new regime of retarded, vibes-based politics where politicians are memetic spectacles, have no platform, make no promises, hold no opinions, but are explicitly aligned with (and captured by) this or that set of powerful interests who will be the ones actually doing politics opaquely out of public view. This arrangement worked well with Biden except that he reminded everyone of death and dementia every time they looked at him and he was nostalgic for organized labor.

The trick was to find someone with the superficial surface appeal of Obama but who was 40 IQ points stupider, more cynical, and who had no thoughts of their own. That millennials lose political power with this sort of arrangement is actually fine with them because, despite their protestations, the conflict and grubbiness and oppositional behavior required for effective politics makes them feel anxious and psychologically unwell and they’d prefer to cheer something on as a group rather than disagree and negotiate and actually have to do politics.

So, I think people make a mistake when they say Kamala doesn’t have a base because there’s a big contingent of the over medicated, over socialized who have no real political interests or material needs and who only feel well psychologically cheering on ‘social progress.’ She is the candidate for them.

x

I much prefer the policies of Biden and now Harris because she is not trying to take away anybody's rights and retrench to the 1950's.

And if you agree with half of what you posted, I don't need to hear from you anyway because we are about to move on from the 20th century attitudes expressed. I am going to assume that you would not mind if the Trump was re-elected, even though that would guarantee more division amongst the population at large because that is what Trump creates: division and discontent. Harris, on the other hand, is promoting much good-will and positive energy that is vastly different than the hate and rage machine that Trump leads. 

Harris 2024! 

because she is not trying to take away anybody's rights an

Lol.  She promised to issue an EO for a mandatory gun buy back program, in case you missed that. 

Of course it will be somebody else who has to go get the guns from those that don't comply, can't wait to see who signs up for that.

Unnamed officials with the Kamala Harris campaign told  the  New York Times  on Monday that the Vice President no longer supports many of the progressive policy stances she took during her first presidential run in 2019, including a mandatory buyback of civilian-owned “assault weapons.” Instead, her campaign said that she merely supports banning the sale of those guns moving forward.

The Harris Campaign confirmed the position change in an email to   The Reload .

“Correct, the VP will not push for a mandatory buy back as president,” Lauren Hitt, a Harris spokesperson, told   The Reload . “She has expressed support for red flag laws, universal background checks and an assault weapons ban.”

The Reload

Yes, I know that guns are far safer than LGBTQ people.. /s

know that guns are far safer than LGBTQ people.. /s

The duality of the Harris campaign. She  promises to take away rights and her supporters ignore it, while pretending Trump is going to somehow illegalize being gay so they can pretend like they are the ones fighting oppression.

What rights did Trump take away from gay people when he was  President? 

Unnamed officials with the Kamala Harris campaign told  the  New York Times  on Monday that the Vice President no longer supports many of the progressive policy stances

Yeah, she's too busy being a brat to actually  answer questions from the media and explain all of these policy reversals.  Her job is to make tik toks, not handle policy. 

You know what? I really don't care if somebody can't have their lethal toys. They are not intended for hunting, they are intended to boost the egos of people who otherwise would feel "less than." Partially, the thrill of having them is because the owners are doing something bordering on illegal. They get the thrill of adrenalin when they go out in the woods or to the shooting range and shoot off several tens or even hundreds of dollars worth of ammunition. I get it.

I, too, was a child. Once. But I am grown up now and realize that the number of guns in the country is too high. We used to be sensible, have sensible gun regulations, but now everybody cries and puffs up when there is any attempt to regulate guns.

Yeah, she's too busy being a brat to actually  answer questions from the media and explain all of these policy reversals.  Her job is to make tik toks, not handle policy. 

Ha! Imagine a Vice-President of the United States who is campaigning to be President of the United States being busy. Sounds like personal jealousy to me. And besides, I think that she is working, which in this instance may just be being Brat.

they are intended to boost the egos of people who otherwise would feel "less than."

Is it any wonder that there are a bunch of whiny scared conservatives who just don't feel "safe" without clinging to their assault rifles pretending to be big dick Christian Reich Rambo's when they're surrounded by people who don't look like them, talk like them or worship the way they do? To them it's a zero-sum war on their way of life. If they aren't surrounded by other whiny pale conservatives who believe that white Jesus is coming to wipe out their ideological enemies then they simply can't accept any proposed gun regulation or universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of actually dangerous people. The fact is they don't want such legislation because they know their ideology will require them to be those "dangerous people" someday when their God asks them to be "Christian Soldiers" to "fight" to take "their" country back from the supposedly "evil" heretics and non-believing darker skinned immigrants with "weird" accents and different traditions.

gee, I wonder what the current death toll of walking into a school with a gun is versus walking into a school with a gay person is so far...

The Republican party has sought in many states to retrench the rights of the LGBTQ community. 

CNNACLU

Luckily they have not succeeded in many cases. Donald Trump gives cover to the people who do not want equal rights for all humans. 

Exactly what rights does she promise to take away?

ice-President of the United States who is campaigning to be President of the United States being bus

Right, Because when you are campaigning for President, it's impossible to answer questions from the press. 

Sounds like personal jealousy to me

You think pointing out that a Presidential candidate refuses to answer any  questions about her policies sounds like "personal jealousy?" Lol. What a bizarre claim. 

She promised to issue an EO for a mandatory gun buy back program, in case you missed that. 

fuck that. utilize the gun registry to impose a $200 tax per year for every AR on their owners, or 2 weekends per AR per year undergoing well regulated militia training.

Are you saying we don't have enough common sense gun laws?  The problem is not with responsible, law-abiding gun owners, but with criminals and the criminally insane.

But as you know there's no appetite to do the really hard work to pass laws that might actually make a difference. Can't stigmatize anybody just because of a mental illness, and so people don't speak up. 

So instead we get the usual tidbits about the need to ban a certain type of gun. No thought about what happens after that type of gun is banned and it doesn't change the outcomes very much. What happens if the mass shooting rates don't change? Do they then try to ban another type of gun?

No, the usual bitching about banning any type of gun is IMO lazy thinking. Looking for an easy fix so that someone can beat their chest and pontificate about the "excellent changes" they have championed. As if changing the paint color really fixes the underlying issue.

The problem is not with responsible, law-abiding gun owners, but with criminals and the criminally insane.

The problem is really with democratic Prosecutors who refuse to enforce gun laws and punish violent criminals use guns because of "equity."  

Its why the "common sense gun laws" campaign is such a joke.  They've made clear they have no interest in enforcing them against criminals. 

There are too many guns in circulation, period. 

And no, we don't have enough common sense gun laws.

• Registration should be across the board. All guns must be registered.
• Every handgun in this country should be registered as should its owner.
• Every person who owns a handgun should have a license that is reviewed yearly.
• Every person who buys a gun of any type needs to have a background check.
• Background checks need to be performed yearly.
• If you sell or otherwise dispose of a gun, you must prove that you sold it, to whom you sold it, and that due diligence was followed. 
• All guns must be stored unloaded or have the appropriate and effective trigger locking mechanism.
• Ammunition must be stored separate from the gun.

These days all of these rules are not difficult to implement or maintain.

The problem is really with democratic Prosecutors who refuse to enforce gun laws and punish violent criminals use guns because of "equity."

Prove that this is a true and factual statement.

And no, we don't have enough common sense gun laws.

Do you think existing gun laws are enforced?

Do you see a possible resource problem with yearly license review and background check?

heres one example of systemic non enforcement in one of the most violent counties in the country:

Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx is floating a new policy that would direct prosecutors in her office to reject drug and gun charges that stem solely from some routine traffic stops.

In an interview, Foxx said the draft policy aims to undercut a dramatic rise in stops that disproportionately target people of color and rarely lead to arrests.

“It felt like it was time to do something about it,” Foxx said. “And so our office — armed with data, armed with the knowledge that these stops have not significantly or in any way reduced violence in our city — decided that it was time to look at this issue and see if we could model a best practice that we’ve seen in other jurisdictions.”

Under the policy, her office would decline to file drug, gun and theft charges in cases that begin with traffic stops for minor issues, such as having an expired vehicle registration, a missing license plate or nonfunctioning brake lights and headlights.

chicago.suntimes

here’s the da of Philadelphia claiming that that prosecuting people for illegal possession is racist:

reason

Do you think existing gun laws are enforced?

Depends on several factors, not the least of which is the local culture of police.

Do you see a possible resource problem with yearly license review and background check?

It took me around 6 months from the time I applied til I got my license. That was 3 years ago. Welcome to bureaucracy 

Not possible.

Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx is floating a new policy that would direct prosecutors in her office to reject drug and gun charges that stem solely from some routine traffic stops.

This is an attempt to stop fishing expeditions. From the Sun Times article:

The decision not to file charges would hinge on whether there was  no other probable cause  for the stop. The proposal would continue to give prosecutors broad discretion in deciding whether to charge cases.

Because it is obviously illegal, I would imagine that the guns are confiscated nonetheless.  A lot of the folks in the urban centers do not trust the police and do not trust the community in which they live, which is a hell of a situation to be in. Also from that article:

The ACLU again sued the department in 2023, alleging that traffic stops for minor violations were being used as a pretext to search Black and Latino drivers’ cars.

According to a report by Impact for Equity, traffic stops jumped from fewer than 100,000 citywide in 2015 to nearly 600,000 by 2019. Stops dropped during the pandemic years, but had climbed to nearly 400,000 citywide by 2021— with police curbing vehicles most often in Black and Latino neighborhoods.

Citywide, Black drivers are six times more likely to be stopped by police than white drivers. Latino drivers are pulled over at twice the rate of whites. Just two of the city’s 22 police districts — both majority Black areas — accounted for 20% of all traffic stops.

The stops rarely turned up drugs or weapons and seldom led to an arrest, according to the Impact for Equity report. Less than 1% of all stops resulted in officers finding a gun or drugs, and in 2021 just over 2% of stops resulted in an arrest.

Gosh, that sounds like definitional systemic racism to me.

From your other article :

The report's analysis of 100 shooting cases underlines that point: When the source of the gun was identified, none was purchased from a licensed dealer. The main sources were illegal transfers and theft, which is consistent with   other research   on guns used by criminals. Increased legal restrictions on gun sales, such as   expanded background checks , do nothing to address these dominant sources, since they have no impact on people who are already breaking the law.

"With so many guns available," Krasner says, "a law enforcement strategy prioritizing seizing guns locally does little to reduce the supply of guns, and, if it entails increasing numbers of car and pedestrian stops, has the potential to be counterproductive by alienating the very communities that it is designed to help." He notes that "people of color are disproportionately stopped in Philadelphia and arrested for illegal gun possession in Philadelphia and statewide." African Americans, who represent 44 percent of Philadelphia's population, account for about 80 percent of people arrested for illegal gun possession in the city.

"Focusing so many resources on removing guns from the street while a constant supply of new guns is available is unlikely to stop gun violence, but it does erode trust and the perceived legitimacy of the system," Krasner writes. "This in turn decreases the likelihood that people will cooperate and participate in the criminal legal system and associated processes, reducing clearance, conviction, and witness appearance rates."

Krasner highlights an oddity of Pennsylvania law that compounds the racially disproportionate impact of arrests for illegal gun possession. For Pennsylvanians generally, carrying a concealed weapon without a license is a   first-degree misdemeanor , punishable by up to five years in jail and/or a maximum fine of $10,000. For Philadelphia residents, the same offense justifies an   additional misdemeanor charge . As a local law firm   explains , the combination of those two charges is "almost always graded as a felony," which means "it may carry significant jail time even for defendants who do not have a prior criminal record."

For people who are legally allowed to own firearms, carrying one without a license "is only a felony in Philadelphia," Krasner notes. "The exact same offense in every other county in Pennsylvania (carrying a firearm without a permit to carry) is only a misdemeanor offense….The legislature's decision to more punitively criminalize and subject to more collateral consequences only the residents of its most diverse city is inequitable and obviously racist." That policy, Krasner argues, reflects "the money and power upstate legislatures' jurisdictions obtain from incarcerating Philadelphians in their prisons." He condemns "a commerce in the bodies of Philadelphians held in upstate prisons for doing what is not even a crime in the jurisdictions where they are held."

Even if you don't buy all of that, this arbitrary distinction is hard to reconcile with anybody's idea of justice. But it gets worse: For Pennsylvanians with felony records, including nonviolent crimes such as drug offenses, carrying a gun without a license is automatically a   third-degree felony , punishable by up to seven years in prison and a maximum fine of $15,000. Merely possessing the gun is   another felony , punishable by five to 10 years in prison and a maximum fine of $25,000.

"The current intense focus on illegal gun possession without a license is having no effect on the gun violence crisis and distracts from successfully investigating shootings," Krasner says. While some people arrested for illegal gun possession represent a real threat to public safety, he notes, others are merely trying to protect themselves in dangerous neighborhoods. He says gun possession arrests "must be targeted to distinguish between drivers of gun violence who possess firearms illegally and otherwise law-abiding people who are not involved in gun violence." When "people do not feel protected by the police," he notes, they may "view the risk of being caught by police with an illegal gun as outweighed by the risk of being caught on the street without one."

Gosh, someone checking to see if the policies that are in effect are working? What a novel concept. /s

From the same article:

If controlling the supply of firearms and arresting people for illegal possession are not very promising ways to reduce gun violence, what strategies make sense? Philadelphia saw record numbers of fatal and nonfatal shootings last year: 501 and 1,850, respectively. Yet the city's clearance rates for such crimes are appallingly low: 37 percent and 18 percent, respectively, in 2020, for example. "Out of 9,042 shooting victims between 2015 and 2020 in Philadelphia," the report notes, "6,910 have not been cleared." At the end of 2021, Krasner adds, arrests had been made in just 28 percent of that year's fatal shootings and 17 percent of the nonfatal shootings. Raising those rates obviously should be a top priority.

The report includes several recommendations toward that end, including "a centralized non-fatal shooting investigation team" within the police department, better support for victims and witnesses, and "data-driven approaches to crime and traffic safety." The authors also describe various intervention and prevention measures that seem promising based on the available data.

I think it sounds like people are actually thinking about what they are doing rather than just arresting someone. I noticed that both of these were "proposals", so I do not think that they will make it much farther. It will be interesting if they do, however, to juxtapose the results against Eric Adams attempt to law himself out of the problem of guns.

Harris 2024! 

Thumbs down to more noise, division, and chaos!

n not to file charges would hinge on whether there was  no other probable cause  for the stop. T

Again, they won't charge, as a matter of policy, people illegally carrying guns. Exactly what I said.

Because it is obviously illegal, 

There's nothing illegal about it. 

that sounds like definitional systemic racism to me.

Lol. Prosecutors won't charge people illegally carrying guns because "racism"  is  exactly  I originally claimed.And predictably, you justify not charging people with carrying guns illegally (at least minorities, which would be systematic racism).

So passing more laws that prosecutors won't enforce will stop violent crime, how? Square the circle of new laws and non-enforcement of those laws magically lowering crime. 

Gosh, that sounds like definitional systemic racism to me.

Racism in deeply blue Chicago, say it’s not so.

Good luck in getting criminals to obey any of that.

Good luck in getting Democrat prosecutors to charge them for violating it.

One can take things out context all day long and it unfortunately will not increase their understanding one iota.  Others might wonder if it is lack of comprehension or malignant despicability, but it may be just plain stupidity.

Chicago prosecutors have and will charge people with firearms offenses. Why? Because it is their job. That is what they do.

But sometimes the prosecutors look at the information on those who were originally arrested and charged with firearms possession (which in the state of Illinois is called “ unlawful use of a weapon ”) and the rates of violent crimes with firearms and notice that even though the arrests were going up, the crimes were not going down proportionately.

Look a bit further into the data and see that the people charged at traffic stops were otherwise law abiding citizens, had a license for the weapon, and had the weapon for self defense, it doesn't take too long to figure out that the police are arresting the wrong people. They weren't arresting the criminals, they were arresting the people who want to protect themselves from the criminals. So in this limited subset of cases  that we are talking about (traffic stops based on minor infractions) she proposed that the current policy which is not working be changed.

Capiche?

Don't believe me? Here are some more links that you won't go look at because they would explode your partisan myth. WBEZ ChicagoILLINOIS CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION AUTHORITY

Your initial assertion:

The problem is really with democratic Prosecutors who refuse to enforce gun laws and punish violent criminals use guns because of "equity."

We can all see that assertion is false. But that won't stop you from repeating it I am sure. 

Lol. Prosecutors won't charge people illegally carrying guns because "racism"  is  exactly  I originally claimed.And predictably, you justify not charging people with carrying guns illegally (at least minorities, which would be systematic racism).

Well if we ignore the fact that you can't even get your terminology right, you still don't make any sense. That is not what you originally claimed. You made a blanket assertion which is wrong and then compounded it with tinges of racial animosity, which is wrong and also disturbing. 

See 4.1.28

Aren't you special.

And your point is?

That I’m shocked that white Dems are capable of such racism.

Are you unaware there are lots of white MAGAs in Chicago?

From what I have seen in my life, I don't think that any group of people or person is capable of being totally non-judgemental, totally objective, like a " Fair Witness "

Biden won Cook County, 73.4% - 24%.  Dems control all the elected offices there. 

They got smollett! The bastards.

She still backs everything from then…..just won’t do it in public because every one is a losing cause……and she knows it.

I’m not

You mean like the ones that attacked ole Jusse? S/

Lol.  She promised to issue an EO for a mandatory gun buy back program, in case you missed that. 

Rumor has it that she's also intending to take away peoples' right to sell fentanyl, to drive a vehicle without a license, etc.

[✘]

Awesome!

And you think terrorists and ordinary criminals would willingly submit to this?  

These days all of these rules are not difficult to implement or maintain.

they are not difficult , until they become difficult due to civil disobedience .

but with criminals and the criminally insane.

Then why do the Nutters insist on making sure they have access to guns? 

Sorry Mr Frost couldnt resist this .

 Its because old stanky guys like me are having a hard time sneaking up on the game animals we hunt to be in range  with a couple of sticks and a piece of string to make a quick killing humane shot . 

 son in law says i sound like a combination of an old worn out steam train pulling a grade with a load  and the rice crispy trio when im walking . he says one day he will hear those snap crackles and pops and have to carry me off the mnts .

I don't support any of that!

sounds to me like you would opt for civil disobedience .....

test

Boogetee-bogetee-boo

That sucks.

It is what it is .

 but one does what one can .

maybe, others can get away with things

boating accident personally .

Why be disobedient?

What is the benefit of said disobedience? 

The reason for the implementation of these rules would be to reduce the amount of weapons that find their way through back channels into criminal hands by making every firearm that is produced traceable. What possible motive could one have to circumvent this? 

Why be disobedient?

because human history shows what happens when such things occur, usually to a minority populus that gets politically targeted .

 That would be one reason .

 another is human nature is all too predictable  when the masses are full of asses .

that would be the second reason .

 and the final convincing reason ? 

 no one can guarantee the government will be a goodie, goodie gum drop and rainbow unicorn farts type of government  elected by the masses full of actual authoritative asses  that could be voted out of power.. 

prosecutors have and will charge people with firearms offenses. Why? Because it is their job. That is what they do.

What a dishonest argument. You've just been given proof  they avoid prosecuting people for illegal possession and you ignore it.

You've pivoted from claiming they don't do it, to justifying why they shouldn't prosecute people for illegal possession of guns.. 

se they would explode your partisan myth

do you not understand the argument? your link doesn't, at all, rebut the DA's refusal to prosecute a whole class of people illegally possessing guns. 

. You made a blanket assertion which is wrong 

My claim is 100% correct. You can't even make a coherent argument in response. 

My claim is 100% correct. You can't even make a coherent argument in response. 

That is truly the most disturbingly humorous comment I have read today.

What a dishonest argument. You've just been given proof  they avoid prosecuting people for illegal possession and you ignore it.

Actually I find your partisan blindness to the actual truth an interesting case study in cognitive dissonance and/or reading comprehension.

Your initial assertion: Text added for clarity .

The problem is really with D emocratic Prosecutors who 1) refuse to enforce gun laws and 2) punish violent criminals who use guns because of "equity."

In order to prove this assertion you would have needed to have shown three postulated propositions true:

• Democratic prosecutors refuse to enforce gun laws

and

• Democratic prosecutors refuse to punish violent criminals who use guns

and that they do both  

• because of "equity"

You presented as evidence of this two articles, one in the Chicago Sun Times   and another in the online magazine Reason . Neither of these sources make your case by providing evidence for your postulates. You can read them again, carefully and for content this time. 

From the Reason article:

Philadelphia, like many other U.S. cities, has recently seen a sharp increase in homicides. But in a report issued last month, Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, a reform-minded Democrat, questions the effectiveness of two commonly proposed solutions to this problem: restricting the supply of firearms, a strategy favored by many Democrats, and prosecuting people for illegal gun possession, which has bipartisan support. The latter approach, Krasner says, is not only ineffective but unjust and racially discriminatory.

As should be clear from Krasner's dismay at a state and city "awash in guns," he is not saying these things because he is reflexively skeptical of gun control or anxious to protect the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. He reaches these conclusions based on the meager benefits and substantial costs of two widely popular crime fighting strategies.

.....

Here is how Friedersdorf describes the conundrum facing progressive prosecutors: "Which should a D.A. opposed to racial inequity prioritize—the disproportionate rate at which Black and Latino residents are arrested for possessing firearms, or the disproportionate burden gun violence and deaths impose on those same communities?" But if gun possession arrests are not a very effective way to reduce violent crime (especially when they fail to distinguish between "drivers of gun violence" and "otherwise law-abiding people"), this puzzle is not as hard to solve as it might seem.

Cities have to decide, based on the evidence, which approaches offer the most bang for the buck. Devoting more money and personnel to strategies with little chance of success means devoting less to strategies that might actually work. If cops are busy seizing guns and arresting people who arm themselves purely for self-defense, for example, they have less time to identify and arrest violent criminals. This is not a matter of being "hard" or "soft" on crime, as Republicans often frame the issue. It is a matter of being smart or dumb.

I dug deeper yet because I was curious, but none of that digging turned up any confirmation of your postulates, merely more of the same questioning of where to spend the limited amount of funds to solve the actual problem of violent crime in which a weapon is used. 

So you failed to prove your statement. 

You get an "E" for effort, though.

I'm curious, what do you think motivates Trump voters ? 

what do you think motivates Trump voters ? 

Trump managing the economy, Anti-wokism, anti-open borders,   

white grievance, anti-multiculturalism, "owning" the libs

if it was only what you say they could have gotten another candidate to do the same thing and spare themselves the humiliation of backing the worst presidential candidate in American history

Anti-wokism

Yes, we know deplorables despise those who become aware of racial and/or gender injustice and discrimination in society. They're like cockroaches when the lights are turned on and they're getting tired of having to run under the counter to hide their deep-seated racism and hatred of anyone who doesn't look like them or worship like they do.

...hide their deep-seated racism and hatred of anyone who doesn't look like them or worship like they do.

I am not so sure that I would go quite that far in that I might call it "unexamined feelings of wrongness", but the image that you conjure of them running is really rather humorous

The woke mind virus according to that scumbag Musk - whatever that is.

Also hate, ignorance, intolerance, against all things decent (woke)

That's it exactly

I'm curious, what do you think motivates Trump voters ? 

They believe him!

He's says he's going to do various positive things-- and they believe it all.

That's the way cults survive-- people who are gullible and believe the promises of the cult leader.

How anyone can believe that trump does anything for anyone other than what benefits trump?

So do Biden's, and now Kamal's worshipers

That's the way cults survive-- people who are gullible and believe the promises of the cult leader.

Ans at different times their have been cult-like leaders on both sides of the aisle.

This tweet sums up the left wing campaign

No it sums up the fucked up opinion of another anonymous Twitter user that you happen to agree with.

Opinions from X are not very convincing.

the maga desperation is so prevalent, you can't step in any direction without getting it on your shoes...

It's getting pretty deep

An ad-hominem attack against anonymous opinions by an anonymous person.

Good stuff. 

Voted up by two more anonymous members.

Let the irony continue to roll.

... the concrete of political reality has started to set.

Left wing content creators and their media allies have decided to ignore everything about Kamala's positions and policies

Generalize much?

ralize much?

Yes, as you do. It's one humanity's adaptions  that allow it to thrive. 

Kamala might just be successful and usher in a new regime of retarded, vibes-based politics where politicians are memetic spectacles, have no platform, make no promises, hold no opinions, but are explicitly aligned with (and captured by) this or that set of powerful interests who will be the ones actually doing politics opaquely out of public view.

Hell yeah!

And why not throw a little hate into the discussion-- it makes it interesting!

why not throw a little hate into the discussion-- it makes it interesting

Should we just call them a cult. Is that nicer?

how many cult memberships makes one an expert?

It really is imperative that this wave of optimism keep its momentum. 

More positive articles, more positive attitudes, and more positive people in general are how we can beat that other orange guy...

the gaping hole under trump's nose will deep six his campaign...

There are so many parallels between the former 'presidents' convicted felon and rapists' upbringing to Jim Jones and their motivations and desire for fame and power and notoriety and adulation and even a fake assassination attempt only with Jim Jones - part of what drew people to the People's Temple was his faith healings - which of course were fake and one time they staged a shooting of him and while the temple was all shocked and wondering what the fuck was going on - one of his inner circle came in with Jones' bloodstained shirt with 2 bullet holes in it and then Jones comes in without a scratch or any blood on him and said that he had healed himself.  He was mesmerized by Hitler.  Starved for attention.  I could go on and on ....

I agree. FORWARD!

Don'tchaknow

Yes, the future is 'out there' — Let's Go!

Yes, the future is 'out there' — Let's Go!

Remember-- all we have to do is say how the future belongs to us-- and type comments on NT on how the future belongs to us-- and it will happen!

Close your eyes, wish real hard-- and it will come to pass-- guaranteed.

Remember-- The Future Belongs to Us!

Note to Buzz:  This is the scene "Tomorrow Belongs to Me" from Cabaret

keep moving forward or get the fuck out of the way...

Keep moving foward. . . .!

Keep moving foward. . . .!

Keep Moving Forward!

Keep Moving Forward!

Keep Moving Forward!

keep moving forward or get the fuck out of the way...

I agree!