Ten oz

9 hours ago, iNow said:

Maybe having aspiration and vision as core to the message is exactly what we need in a leader. Maybe the mythology is more central in voters hearts... maybe pathos overrules logos... and maybe that passion should be focused on positive active causes that actually matter in everyone’s daily lives.

You know, or maybe we should set arbitrary expectations for how a candidate should behave. I suppose that’s an option, too.  

Pragmatism isn't arbitrary though. I think Obama campaigned from the left advocating policies which were good for everyone and practical. Despite all the complaining about the ACA done from the Right it reduced deficit spending and got more people healthcare. Part of the problem today seems to be that people have lost faith that smart policy making can resolve our current issues. With someone like Trump in office it isn't hard to understand why faith has been so greatly diminished. Many people want to just start over fro scratch or just totally change course but that isn't possible. One cannot through a car in reverse while traveling forward at freeway speeds. 

I am no Donald Rumsfled fan but he did make an interesting statement once "'You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time." I agree with its basic theme. One must manage what they have and not what they wish they will eventually have. The Democratic Candidates are running to become President of the United States as it exists here and now. That means they will be burdened with cleaning up the messes we currently have. 

We have a budget deficit of over a trillion a year, ongoing trade disputes with the world, an opioid crisis, there is a humanitarian crisis in Yemen, refugee crisis in the Mediterranean, and etc, etc. Once Trump is gone executive authority will need to be overhauled. There will need to be changes to our Nepotism laws, the Emoluments Clause, financial disclosures by elected officials, and etc, etc, etc. It seems silly but things like whether or not a President should be allowed to threaten a citizen via media (social or otherwise) will need to be addressed.

Candidates are talking about things like UBI and Reparations but I believe the sobering reality is the next President will spend the bulk of their first term working on more straight forward and boring things like restoring all necessary funding for the ACA and fighting to make DACA permanent. The Green New Deal is awesome but we aren't even in the Paris Agreement currently. 

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

****edit - I am not implying they should appeal to the other side or be moderate by default. Rather they need to ensure their policies are for everyone. Universal healthcare isn't commonly thought of as a moderate position but by design is meant to benefit everyone. 

55 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Finally signs of your taking responsibility...

Having solutions that work for everyone is consistent with the way Obama and Clinton governed. It is generally Republicans who betray the public's best interest in favor of satiating the worst inclinations of their base.

*Edit- also this applies based on who ones constituency is. AOC for example has no obligation to give 2 *#its about out of work factor works in West VA. They are not who she was elected to represent. 

@iNow as a continuation to the point I made in the reparations thread regarding activism I think too much activism from our national leaders is part of the reason divisiveness is so great. People are fearful of what happens if the other side wins in part because they don't trust the other side cares about their interests. For example Republicans promote NRA positions claiming they are in the publics best interest but the arguments are clearly contrived. They ignore what the majority supports in favor of what their fringe supports. I don't wish to see Democrats behaving the same way. I think candidates should error toward what is broadly supported by all. The President is everyones President equally and not merely the President for those who voted for them. 

****edit - I am not implying they should appeal to the other side or be moderate by default. Rather they need to ensure their policies are for everyone. Universal healthcare isn't commonly thought of as a moderate position but by design is meant to benefit everyone. 

@dimreepr are you saying that what you meant was perverse effect/unintended consequence or trying to argue that Revenge is synonymous with an unintended consequence? 

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

reparations are fundamentally flawed because they can't repair, they can only compensate. And that is reverse  revenge.

Revenge means "The action of hurting or harming someone in return for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands", Link. Reparations does hurt or harm anyone. 

10 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m not ignoring you. I’m still thinking about this point. 

I too have been thinking on it. Trying to figure out how best to explain my objections. I do not have any problem with Congress taking the issue up for consideration. I don't think any conversation is off limits. One of my hang ups, I guess, is the involvement of Presidential Candidates. The President serves everyone, all communities throughout the nation, equally. For it to be a Presidential matter (in my opinion) there needs to be a case made that it is in the best interest of the whole nation. Community by community leaders can make individual decisions about how to best create equal opportunity and repay disenfranchised individuals. Our system already allows for that. What is the impetus for Presidential involvement? During segregation the impetus was that States were violating human rights and the Constitution. 

I suppose this is bit of a cross post with the Democratic Primary thread but I see a difference between activists and Presidents. MLK wasn't a President. Cesar Chavez wasn't a President. Activists are not responsible for the whole nation. Activists can be focused on more singular goals for singular groups of people. The ACLU, Green Peace, PETA, are all organizations doing good work but are not Govt Agencies. It don't think it is the Presidents place to take up the lead role of activist less it can be demonstrated to be in everyones best interest. Easy examples of such things in my opinion are Healthcare and Climate Change. 

28 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Of course they wouldn't but one will get a sense of the common themes.

As stated in the rest of my post the common themes we already have are being regularly ignored. 

10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

The harm that has been caused to the inhabitants and descendants of the African continent cannot be overstated. I think the first step towards reparation is to just sit down and listen to what they want to say.

All wouldn't say the same thing. Experiences differ and individuals internalizes things their own way. That said communities of color often stand in solidarity and are often ignored. 

African American's voices are for example are muted and it is so common most don't notice. For example 90% of all African Americans voted for Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore  yet they all still lost. No candidate for office has ever shored up support from 90% of White voters has ever come close to losing an election. It may read as a bad example because Whites are the majority so of course 90% of them would guarantee victory for nearly anything but that is also my point. Even when African American stand in unison they can still be ignored, still need the approval of Whites. The opposite is never true. During the big hubbub over Athletes kneeling during the National Anthem polling showed 80% of the African American public supported the kneeling, basically all the athletes participating in kneeling were African American, and the majority of all NFL Athletes are African American yet the NFL still passed a rule prohibiting it. Whites are always in a position to decree regardless of how strongly other groups feel. 

The authority held isn't merely a majority thing either as seen with our elections and system govt. Both Clinton and Gore won the popular vote and lost. California has a population 56x greater than Wyoming's (92% white) yet both States get the same number of representatives in the Senate. Democrats who overwhelming are supported by minorities represent 40 million more constituents in the Senate than Republicans yet Republicans are in the Majority. Think about that. The party that represents less people are in the majority. Structurally Whites are empowered over other groups. 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Points well made. Only pushback is slight, and specifically with that last part. We can both remove symbols of division and oppression AND create ways to offer retribution.  They’re not mutually exclusive, much like we can fight to make things equal while also in parallel advocating for addressing past wrongs. 

Case by case when tangible I agree. In gentrification unduly displaces a family that family should be adequately compensated. In a person is injured by aggressive police they should be adequately compensated. It is harder to address as a catch all nationally. There might be common ways people have been disenfranchised but it is still a unique experience for everyone. Do all cases receive the same retribution? I don't think that is fair per se. The same prescription for all ills.

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

One thing I do know for sure, however, is that saying, “this is toxic and politically unrealistic so we shouldn’t even bother exploring it” is not the right path. 

I agree. 

How untenable reparations might be isn't at the heart thought process. It is just the easiest of my thoughts on the subject to express. 

In the same way a victim of a violent crime just wants to feel safe again I believe people, everyone, wants to feel safe, equal, and that things are fair. I think taking down Confederate statues, hiring police that are part of the community they police, ensuring that beautifying (gentrification) a neighbor doesn't mean removing people of color, and many other things along those lines would make those historically discriminated against feel safe, equal, and that things are fair. I think there is more opportunity for catharsis in simply removing symbols of division than in creating ways to apologise or reimburse. 

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

This isn't about silver spoons in mouths and loving parents. As I wrote in the thread which led to this one:

The issue is much deeper than that. It's about centuries of systematic discrimination, how for centuries blacks have been financially harmed and held back, under educated, over jailed, and under served by government.. How conscious decisions by white legislatures have hindered wealth accumulation, property ownership, and even simpler things like availability of nutritious food. 

Giving everyone the same number of bandaids and same tubes of neosporin is a great start, but some have broken bones... bones that white privilege has broken with intention... and thus they may require more care.

While I agree with your perspective I also consider it relative. Those born with a bad hand often aren't more concerned with others plights than there own. Cynical people exploit that by promising things like the return coal mining jobs to those who view prioritize their own hardships above all else. 

10 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Ten oz - Can you please explain why you think Wikipedia doesn't correct their article on Affirmative Action when they say "...affirmative action has sought to achieve goals such as...redressing apparent past wrongs, harms, or hindrances."

I think the Affirmative Action in the United States wiki page is more relevant to the Affirmative Action as it has existed and been implemented here in the U.S..

Court rulings are good source to review if you are unclear about the aim of AA. Below are rulings for and against the use of AA. Both were ruled based on diversity and discrimination. Neither on past wrongs. 

Quote

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case in which the United StatesSupreme Court upheld the affirmative actionadmissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in a 5–4 decision and joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, ruled that the University of Michigan Law School had a compelling interest in promoting class diversity. The Court held that a race-conscious admissions process that may favor "underrepresented minority groups", link

Quote

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989),[1] was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the city of Richmond's minority set-aside program, which gave preference to minority business enterprises (MBE) in the awarding of municipal contracts, was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that the city failed to identify both the need for remedial action and that other non-discriminatory remedies would be insufficient. Link

58 minutes ago, iNow said:

Cory Booker often speaks of a comment his dad used to make. 

“Stop acting like you hit a triple. You were born on 3rd base.”

It reminds me of this conversation. We can give everyone a bat, good cleats, access to food and training equipment, but the underlying issue remains:

Some people begin the run from home plate to 1st base. Others begin from 3rd base straight to home. 

The score remains handicapped and biased (whether or not passage is politically feasible). 

Some people will always be born with more advantages than others. No changing that. Simply having two healthy parents that love you is an advantage many don't get. In my opinion the problem isn't so much that some people are born on third base much as it is that so many who aren't born on third  hate themselves and each other for not being born on third. 

51 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I think you are reading it too narrowly. From your source...

AA was not just about equality and increasing diversity. Discrimination didn't just mean that blacks might be discriminated against in college admissions, it meant that blacks were often unqualified for college admissions due all the additional barriers blacks faced when trying qualify for college admission in the first place. As my first link and now your link point out, AA addresses past discrimination.

Segregation ended 50yrs ago. Throughout the country and in the south in particular there were many who preferred segregation. Many organizations had to be pressured to integrate. Many organizations resisted and the problem of discrimination remained at multiple levels. The current President lost a discrimination case in 73' where he disenfranchised black people seeking housing. That was in progressive/diverse New York City. Incentives and quotas were put into place to prevent further discrimination and attempt to undue the disparities created by years of discrimination. 

I think you are viewing AA through too narrow lense absent of context to what was happening at the time and who advocated for most of the laws associated with AA were written. Again, segregation ended 50yrs ago. It wasn't the ancestors of victims who were helped by AA. It was victims of discrimination in realtime who were helped by AA. Look at the time frame when the executive orders regarding AA starting rolling out in the 60's. They were in conjunction with civil rights. The aim was to end ongoing discrimination. AA was just one of numerous policies. 

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Not as I've always understood it.

Quote

 

Affirmative action policies were developed to address long histories of discrimination faced by minorities and women, which reports suggest produced corresponding unfair advantages for whites and males.[13][14] They first emerged from debates over non-discrimination policies in the 1940s and during the civil rights movement.[15] These debates led to federal executive orders requiring non-discrimination in the employment policies of some government agencies and contractors in the 1940s and onward, and to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited racial discrimination in firms with over 25 employees. The first federal policy of race-conscious affirmative action was the Revised Philadelphia Plan, implemented in 1969, which required certain government contractors to set "goals and timetables" for integrating and diversifying their workforce. Similar policies emerged through a mix of voluntary practices and federal and state policies in employment and education. 

Link

 

The goal was to stop ongoing discrimination and then work to increase diversity where it had previously not existed. 

41 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Many already believe it is time to end Affirmative Action as it is unfair to those who have never wronged anyone, and gives an advantage to those who have not been wronged. And to clarify that point, when I say "have not been wronged", I am speaking to the specific correction made by AA. For example, if a black person is applying to University for the first time, they have not been wronged by the application process. So it can be reasonably argued that giving someone preferential treatment in college admissions is as unfair to whites as Jim Crow was unfair to blacks. Instead you should just make the admissions process fair for all.

I personally support making up for past mistakes, such as by the use of Affirmative Action, but I tend to be hopelessly pragmatic. In my mind, giving blacks something of value not given to whites (money, admission preference, etc.) is too big a bite at this time in our history and is doomed to failure. I therefore think we have a much better chance of meaningful change if our goal is equality for all.

I think Affirmative Action is often misrepresented. It isn't meant for making up for past mistakes. It is to prevent ongoing discrimination. The goals surrounded Affirmative Action are typically that a business or school have diversity levels proportional to society at large. Preventing a school from only have a 0.5% minority student population is the aim. Affirmative Action is managed differently in different places but it is very much about preventing discrimination in the present and not just some sort of consolation for past wrongs. They are still companies, schools, clubs, teams, unions, and etc throughout the country today which are 100% white. Affirmative Action forces organizations to be more inclusive by pressuring them to meet minimum levels of diversity that mirror society. 

Most things in life are incestuous. We get out religion, diet, hobbies, and etc from our family. Which type of work one pursues or type of education also is greatly influenced by family. People are more likely to do or consider things their parents or siblings did. As such many institution which formally prevented minorities might struggle getting many minority application. Some institutions may have 99% white applicants. Affirmative Action encourages such institutions to open some spots and find a way to recruit some diversity. 

With that said I agree with your conclusion. Reparations is too big bite. We still have monuments up honoring Jefferson Davis for #*ck sake. 

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

That could equally be posted in the dangerous / toxic politics thread

Absolutely

"Cindy McCain on Tuesday posted a vile message she received from a person on Twitter who disliked her deceased husband, Sen. John McCain.

"Your husband was a traitorous piece of warmongering sh— and I'm glad he's dead," the person wrote.

The woman also compared McCain's daughter Meghan to Miss Piggy and said she hopes she "chokes to death."

"I want to make sure all of you could see how kind and loving a stranger can be,"Cindy McCain said in her post. "I'm posting her note for her family and friends could see."

The tweet came on the same day President Donald Trump disparaged her late husband over the late Arizona senator's vote against repealing Obamacare."

Link

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

No one is against studying history, and learning from our collective mistakes.
But history is 15 to 20 thousand years ( at least ), and, by our very nature we have perpetrated plenty of injustice, as seen through modern eyes.
( I am of Italian ancestry; should I be responsible for injustice/atrocities perpetrated by the Roman Empire ? )

Segregation just ended 50yrs ago. There are millions alive today who sat in the back of the bus and endured numerous levels of mistreatment. It isn't ancient history or a discussion about ancestors removed by generations. Victims of racial disenfranchisement exist today. 

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

Exactly, but if we don't correct for past mistakes, then the starting point for today's equality is not equal.

Said another way, if we both are allowed to run the race at 5mph, then we're equal... but if we're going the same speed and you start 10 miles in front of me, then we're equal in name only.

In Germany there are laws against Holocaust denial and any statues of Hilter have long since been destroyed. In Germany they take full responsibility for there past ugliness. Here in the U.S. It is very different. Confederate flags fly and founding fathers are revered with godlike adoration despite many being slave owners and murdering Natives. Here in the U.S. we have a very long way to go. 40+ percentage of the voting public just put an obvious bigot in the White House. 

People do tend to agree individuals have been treated different based on race but which groups were treated better or worse is a matter of disagreement. As we see with climate change studies don't change minds. 

31 minutes ago, iNow said:

Do you see this conversation as primarily about direct payments ("reimbursement" to use your word)?

No, this conversation is not primarily about payments. Reparations in general though is about some form of payment/reimbursement of sorts. 

Life can be hard for everyone. Despite white families having advantages being white in itself is no guarantee of success. Few people tangibly feel the advantages of race in their daily grind. A white male out of work truck driver with a new born at home and bills due doesn't feel benefited by the nation's ongoing history of racism or sexism. There are states in the U.S. like MT, WY, UT, ID, NE, ME, and etc which are so overwhelming white that many have next to no interaction with others groups of people at all. Relative to the life they live I can see why many of them don't see or feel privileged regardless of whether or not they are. I think everyone experience life from their own eyes and ears outward.  

White flight, mortgage manipulation, and the various other inequities which have continued to hurt black families require reform to resolve and but not reimbursement. The debt can never be repaid. Forgiveness among all must fill that void. I think reparations would further divide communities. I view equality as the goal, fairness moving forward. Equal opportunity for all. Many mistakenly feel we are already there. It will take tremendous work just to get current inequalities acknowledged. 

While I feel reparations are justified in theory I don't think it is practical as a policy. As mentioned forgiveness is sometimes the best/only available remedy to conflict. For example sometimes when my wife and I argue neither of us are sorry or feel like apologizing but we still have to find a way to forgive and move own. 

7 hours ago, iNow said:

Congress owns the power of the purse. Interesting that you direct these concerns toward presidential hopefuls who have no real power to implement the policies for which they advocate. 

A presidential candidate could suggest we transfer every human to Europa. For your worries to be relevant, we’d need to be talking about House and Senste elections. 

The President is the Chief executive every agency. While they do not control the power of the purse they do have influence over any daily operations and restructuring of our current agencies. A presidential candidate should address needed reforms and operational changes that reduce can deficits and better serve the public overtime. That is what Obama and Romney's famous exchange about about the military not having as many horses and bayonets was about. Obama was advocating DOD use of more unmanned cost effective technology rather than investing in large expensive assets which require more man power. As Commander in Chief a President is well positioned to oversee such changes. Obama also use his role as Chief executive to defer action for childhood arrivals (DACA). 

A president can do a lot but restraints and checks do exist. Some things require more Congressional support than others. There is no guarantee if a Democrat wins the white house in 2020  Democrats also win the Senate. There is no guarantee Democrats would keep the house and senate in 2022 even if they were to win it in 2020. It would be awesome if Democrats controlled both the legislative branch and executive branch but as candidates for Presidents I think Harris, Warren, Booker, Castro, and everyone else need to focus on the job of President. 

7 hours ago, Willie71 said:

The american deficit is the result if two of two main problems. Massive overspending on the military, and ridiculously low real tax rates, the US has incredible per capital gdp. It’s a myth you can’t afford what every other developed nation can afford. Incremental change is what neoliberalism has promised for decades, and people are sick of the con. 

I agree that taxes are too low and military spending too high. The problem is much easier to identify that fix however. For example while I agree military spending is too high remedies for that are difficult. Between active duty and reserve the U.S. employees 2 million service members, 800,000 civilian DOD employees, over 2 million contractor jobs, over 2 million retired military members receiving benefits, and etc, etc. Bases are have been strategically placed all over the country in different congressional districts to ensure support. Military spending in a lot of ways, while miss used, has been a jobs program. Cutting military spending too quickly would cost lots of jobs and depress communities currently buoyed by military spend of which there are many. Due to annual inflation even freezing military spending has an impact on a lot of communities. A draw down is spending doesn't have an overnight solution. That isn't neoliberalism but just the reality of the situation. I wish the situation were different but it isn't. 

Taxes need to be increased just to get the budget we have balanced. We need increases for Social Security in particular. That is a can which just keeps getting kicked. 

7 hours ago, MigL said:

I also don't agree with the call to change the electoral college system, Ten oz.
During the last Canadian election, the Liberals were coming from behind, and there were doubts as to whether they could win.
They promised electoral reform ( to proportional representation ) during the campaign.
This idea was quickly shelved once they won a majority, and deemed unfeasible.
I guess we'll have to wait until they lose before they start proposing it again.

If a change is to be made it should be made off cycle and the President shouldn't be involved. It is a dangerous precedent to allow candidates to determine or influence how a race is called. I wouldn't trust Trump to make changes in the middle of an election and assume Trump supporters wouldn't trust the Democratic nominee to make changes (not that they have the authority to) changes either. This is one of the things that angers me so about Bernie Sanders. He entered the Democratic Primary in 2016 well aware of the rules. The Primary rules were unchanged from 2008. Sanders then proceeded to complain about those rules mid race which only created distrust and resentment all around. 

1 hour ago, Willie71 said:

Economic justice won’t play well with staunch republicans, especially Trump’s base, but there are a lot of people who were promised a payout for sacrificing commons. Even a majority of republicans favour taxing corporations more, and expanding access to healthcare. Sanders started a massive movement on this, and newer politicians are building careerson it, such as AOC or Omar. This is the unifying message. Who is better off under Trump than they were under Obama, or BushII, or Clinton, or Reagan? Send this message home, and you will win the White House. The DNC has to let go of being republican lite, and define itself as being there for the people. Trump sold this, even though he was lying. 

Trump lost the popular vote by millions and numerous individuals associated with his campaign have been found guilty in court of felons. I think it is inaccurate to imply Trump the election on messaging. 

I am all for raising taxes. I am for universal healthcare. However I am also aware that the govt is over a trillion dollars in the whole annually currently and every emergency (hurricane, fires, etc) just goes straight toward debt. We need to increase taxes meaningfully just to balance the budget. The Budget request for 2020 is $4.75 trillion.Last the federal govt brought in $3.4 trillion in tax revenue. The math isn't hard to do.  So floating new programs paid for by taxes in the absences of addressing the budget we have and its shortfalls is a nonstarter for me. Not merely is it bad policy but it will never make it through Congress successfully. 

I understand the desire to elect someone with big ideas and who wants to bring about major change but we aren't starting from scratch unfortunately. Change will need to be methodical and spreed across a couple administrations if it is to realistically succeed. 

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Fortunately, there's still 230 days until the election... 

I don't get the feeling the narratives will change. Trump is terrible on addressing current events and speaks in circles to avoid specifics. So I don't think the Democratic nominee will be forced to address any of the concerns I mentioned. 

Worse still I get the feeling I may no longer be ideologically aligned with the Democratic Party. At present there is only one candidate in the Democratic field I absolutely won't vote for. I consider Warren, Gillbrand, Klobuchar, Yang, O'Rourke, Harris, Booker, Buttigeg, and etc to all be superior to Trump. So I will give any of them my vote. With that said most everything I have heard from them is either fluff or positions I disagree with.

Voting purely against Trump but for nothing in particular feels hollow. 

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Sorry, they very much were in earlier posts. Thought this was a continuation of that line of attack. Didn’t mean to misrepresent or misunderstand you. 

In generally I am dissatisfied with all the candidates so far. In my opinion a President's primary job is to be the executive of  the govt we have. There are many real world challenges afoot that I feel candidates are ignoring in favor of discussing theoretical policies that address less tangible issues. 

Whoever the President is in 2021 Syria and Yemen will still be a mess and our relationship with Saudi Arabia and Iran still will need addressing. I don't know what Harris, Warren, Booker, or etc do about North Korea. In Israel Netanyahu is about to be indicted I don't know how any of the candidates might respond to political change in Israel. There are just so many ongoing issues I am worried about that no one seems to be addressing. It is a bit depressing. New President don't take office with a fresh slate. When Obama ran in 08' he had to address Iraq, Afghanistan, the housing market collapse, deficits, and etc. 

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’ve found proposals about housing affordability to have the most potential ROI in this space. That, and policies addressing income inequality. Warren led with ideas there as a foundation and only offered the reparations suppler has a possible supplement (it’s not the only tool in her toolbox, I mean). 

 

There are lots of strong candidates. Many of them are highlighting great and important topics. Warren is just one, but she is setting the bar higher than most on having actual substance and meat to execute on the various proposals... which Congress will debate later. 

My criticisms are not specific to Warren. I already acknowledge other candidates are floating the same proposals. 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Many of the current Democratic Candidates are voicing various forms of reparations. It might be worth starting a thread specifically about reparations at some point to discuss them all. 

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Most things presidents and candidates for president talk about require Congress to tackle. Literally, almost everything.

Your criticism on this one seems forced and rings extremely hollow for me. It applies equally to tackling universal healthcare, prison reform, affordable education , action on climate change, immigration policy, and basically every single subject every single candidate is highlighting (including Harris).

Every other issue (climate, healthcare, etc) doesn't elect a candidate. The electoral college does. A candidate advocating for a change to the electoral college literally is advocating for a change to the way they would potentially be elected. As mentioned it is like a player trying to change the rules of a  mid game. I disagree with it. Candidates shouldn't attempt to change the rules to a race they have already entered. It ioens the door to corruption. I disagree with it whether it is Warren, Harris, Sanders, Booker, or whomever advocating it.