Aaron Coleman argues in The Nation that "Black Culture Won't Save Kamala Harris": "In spite of his cultural competency, Obama’s tenure oversaw an economic recovery that left many black families behind, and a proliferation of highly visible police brutality. Today, after both a long honeymoon and hangover with a charismatic black candidate, the code-switching playbook may be played out. "When Kamala Harris held her first presidential press conference at the her alma mater, Howard University, she hugged black students sporting black-and-gold Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity jackets and pink-and-green Alpha Kappa Alpha sweatshirts. She posed for pictures with beaming black women in their box braids and Afro-puffs. She shook hands with little curly-haired kids in Bison hoodies. Standing behind a placard modeled after Shirley Chisholm’s presidential design and in front of a plaque bearing Howard’s logo, Kamala conjured the imagery and legacy of the historically black University—a lineage that includes Toni Morrison, Thurgood Marshall, Zora Neale Hurston, Donny Hathaway, and more. "Yet all the pageantry doesn’t seem to be enough to distract from her policy record." https://www.thenation.com/article/black-culture-wont-save-kamala-harris/
Everyone seems to have an opinion on "black culture" and an opinion on what the hell "black culture" even means.
fwiw, the same criticism was levied against then-candidate Obama, who was raised in a non-Black family
Kamala Harris provides her opponents with PLENTY to oppose . . . including her support of unconstitutional gun regulations in California: Can a state ban all new handguns? According to a 2-1 panel of the Ninth Circuit, the answer is yes. A pending cert. petition asks the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the question. I filed an amicus brief in support of petition, on behalf of professors (including VC's Randy Barnett) who teach Second Amendment law, and also on behalf of several civil rights organizations (the Independence Institute, where I work; the Millennial Policy Center; and Mountain States Legal Foundation). Background: The case is Pena v. Horan, with Supreme Court docket number i18-843. My amicus brief is here. The Supreme Court's docket page is here. As the docket indicates, California has received an extension for its reply brief until March 6. A California statute requires that all new models of semi-automatic handguns stamp the handgun's serial number in two locations on each round of ammunition. It is possible for a handgun's firing pin to stamp the serial number onto the cartridge's primer, which is a disk in the center of the back side of the ammunition. It not possible to stamp a serial number in two locations, as an erudite amicus brief from the Cato Institute explains. Nevertheless, California Attorney General Kamala Harris in May 2013 declared that all conditions for implementation by the statute had been met. Accordingly, all pistol models created since May 2013 are prohibited from commercial sale in California. David Kopel's conclusion: A lower court faithfully applying Heller would have found the California ban categorically unconstitutional, since it a ban on an entire class of arms (as the Cato brief argues). Had the Ninth Circuit applied ordinary intermediate scrutiny, the ban still would have been stricken. But like many other courts (including the Second and Fourth Circuits) the Ninth Circuit persists in defying Heller and nullifying the Second Amendment. https://reason.com/volokh/2019/02/06/californias-ban-on-all-new-pistol-models more at the link
This will comfort many liberals about Harris. The era of kowtowing to gun rights fanatics and their Russian backers is over. If John Roberts thinks he can stop it. let him and his army try.
clearly you missed the conclusion: "A lower court faithfully applying Heller would have found the California ban categorically unconstitutional, since it a ban on an entire class of arms (as the Cato brief argues). Had the Ninth Circuit applied ordinary intermediate scrutiny, the ban still would have been stricken. But like many other courts (including the Second and Fourth Circuits) the Ninth Circuit persists in defying Heller and nullifying the Second Amendment."
No... that simply presents the gun lobby's opinion on the law. The Ninth Circuit's opinion differed. Until a higher court rules differently, the Ninth Circuit's ruling would seem to hold. btw, how is it impossible to stamp a serial number in two places when its possible in one?
The way I read it was that the stamps had to be on each round of the ammo, not the gun. It sounds like the firing pin can stamp the casing when it comes into contact upon firing. Not sure how you would stamp the round of ammunition upon firing in another location.
Not going to happen. The last Presidential election showed that facts or sources are not required to win. In fact it just shows weakness to use them. Both parties are going to emulate Trump and figured consequences are never going to occur.
I guess she assumes you know his how to use this new tool called Google. A search engine online. You type in phrases such as “Climate Change” and magically research online from non other than scientists will appear. Here is an example: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
I'm not asking about her ability to do a google search. I am specifically interested in which specific "World-renowned scientists" she is relying upon to assemble her policy platform on the climate change issue. Do you have a link to her giving a speech or putting something in writing where she (not google) mentions these specific "World-renowned scientists" who have told her anything? that would be helpful. thanks in advance.
Are you disqualifying any evidence from world-renowned scientists that are published online? Does the information have to be given in person rather than researched?
I think he just wants to know what sources she is relying upon as opposed to what others can pull from the Internet (or their own expertise, if applicable).
Okay, but what if she is relying on data published online searchable on Google by world-renowned climate scientists? Does that disqualify anything?
I'm not attacking or defending anything. I was just pointing out that Os would like to know her source (if there is any indication).
I understand wanting to know the source. I just think if the two likely options are someone giving a report directly to her, or her doing the research and finding the report online why either one would be unreliable. I just wanted to clarify is all. I'm not faulting anyone.
that's not fair. now who's sniping? The question is: can Harris actually name any of these "world-renowned scientists" upon which she bases her predictions of the end of the world? Here's one: James Hansen. Mr. 1988 Sweating-it-out-during-his-Congressional-testimony James Hansen. Mr. Original Doom and Gloom. Now? the poster child for the pro-nuclear wing of the climate alarm scientist club. Here's a nice essay discussing nuclear power: https://www.city-journal.org/atomic-power Harris wrote: "World-renowned climate scientists have warned us. We either act now to radically combat climate change or we will face major global climate catastrophes. We can no longer make excuses — we need to fight to preserve our future." What is her position on nuclear power, as informed by "World-renowned climate scientists"? Is Harris serious about "we either act now to radically combat climate change" or is she not serious? The Green New Deal is not serious. But of course her "World-renowned climate scientists" must have already made her aware of that.
