Yes to both but the short-term political realist calculus is to offer rhetorical support to both to blunt those industries' opposition in advance of the election. The key is whether a Harris Administration turns around after the election and cuts their knees out from under them (which they should).
2 things:
1. Scaramucci could be lying (or grossly inflating his role “advising” the Harris campaign)
2. People saying that it’s okay for Harris to cater to crypto/AI now for political expediency and change her mind later are endorsing the same type of deceit that they claim to despise in Trump
if he's not making this up I'd be shocked tbh, Harris's staff is pretty put together and her desired treasury secretary candidate fuckin *hates* crypto
He’s a known liar and a huge self-promoter, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he offered his services, the Harris campaign gave him a polite, non-committal answer and he ran with it and said he’s advising them.
Point 2 are often how folks defend Dems approach to immigration. They consistently underestimate how sincere Dems are in wanting more "border security", cedes the entire premise of the debates, and makes voters deeply cynical. All seems bad!
Comments
So it's isn't bad Emma, can refer you if your interested.
1. Scaramucci could be lying (or grossly inflating his role “advising” the Harris campaign)
2. People saying that it’s okay for Harris to cater to crypto/AI now for political expediency and change her mind later are endorsing the same type of deceit that they claim to despise in Trump
basically "why the hell aren't we regulating these assholes?"