this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
106 points (92.7% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2805 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
106
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by jordanlund to c/politics
 

As much as I'd like to not advertise any single media source, CNN scored the sit down interview so it is what it is.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/harris-walz-trump-election-08-29-24/index.html

It's live right now, will be interesting to see what people think!

More:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/29/politics/kamala-harris-tim-walz-cnntv/index.html

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund 24 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Would appoint a Republican, nobody in particular in mind.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Appoint a sitting congressperson to flip their seat lololol

[–] meco03211 15 points 2 months ago

Then fire them.

[–] FlowVoid 22 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It's normal.

JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, GHWB, Clinton, GWB, and Obama all appointed to their cabinet at least one person from the opposite party.

And Harris didn't say she would appoint a Republican politician. When Obama chose Bob McDonald for Veterans Affairs, people barely noticed he was registered as a Republican. And one of Donald Trump's senior advisors was Ivanka Trump - who at the time was a registered Democrat.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And one of Donald Trump’s senior advisors was Ivanka Trump - who at the time was a registered Democrat.

I'm literally shocked you thought this was a good thing to write to support your point.

[–] Nurse_Robot 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's a comment about appointing people from the other side of the aisle. They posted an example of trump appointing a registered Democrat. There's plenty of criticism about it which is valid, but being literally shocked is a bit of a melodramatic overreaction

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's his literal daughter. She's not "on the other side of the aisle". There is absolutely no one with a smidgen of intelligence that thinks this was in some way evidencing bipartisanship or a concession to the left.

[–] FlowVoid 25 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

That's my point. "I will appoint a Republican" does not necessarily mean "I will reach across the aisle to the opposing politicians who are ruining America".

It could very well mean "I will appoint old friends from law school and the private sector, even if they happen to be registered Republicans." People like Bob McDonald.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm still confused why 'it's normal to appoint old friends from the private sector" is being tossed around as if it's a defense of the practice.

[–] FlowVoid 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Because presidents, like everyone else, prefer to hire people their team knows and trusts.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I understand why you're saying it's normal, i'm questioning why 'it's normal' is being used as if it's a defense.

Her appointing a republican could be fine, sure, but it could also be exactly as bad is people are interpreting it. The way the question was posed in the context of working and compromising with republicans certainly seems to favor the latter interpretation, and the way she responded certainly doesn't dispel the concern over it.

She could have said, "I'll select the best people for the job that are aligned with our administration's goals, regardless of party affiliation", but instead she laughed about it and dangled it like a carrot. That's not a comforting response.

[–] FlowVoid 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

She went a step further, and said she wanted "different views" in her cabinet. In other words she implied she will intentionally seek a Republican.

On the one hand, I think this was a calculated political move. She wants Never Trump Republicans to vote for her, and this may reassure them.

On the other hand, I think it is meaningless. If she simply seeks out the best people, like other presidents, then she would likely end up with a Republican in her cabinet.

In other words, I think she found a way to make political hay out of something unremarkable. Kind of like, "I will make our military highly lethal!", it sounds really good to some yet it's actually not promising much. But it is a good political strategy.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Which is evidence of good strategy

Idk, if the goal is more progressive governance I don't think welcoming conservative perspectives is a good strategy.

If the goal is simply to win..... sure. But still a cynical turn away from the left. Maybe they should have asked if she planned on appointing any progressive or pro-palestinian people on her cabinet, that's a question I'd be curious to hear her response to.

[–] FlowVoid 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

She doesn't have to welcome conservative perspectives.

She has to make conservatives think she will welcome conservative perspectives. And she can do this for free by pointing out that there will likely be a Republican in her cabinet.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

She doesn’t have to welcome conservative perspectives.

Well then why is she doing it, then? If cracking down on immigration and strengthening the military aren't conservative perspectives I'm not sure what they are because they certainly aren't from the left.

[–] gatorgato 3 points 2 months ago

I'm with Zaktor on this one. NOBODY thinks Trump appointing his kid was comparable to this Harris promise or other historical examples. Sure, you technically made a factuql observation. But, it seems like a bad faith argument in this discourse.

Or maybe some people really believe that Ivanka Trump (hang on, I'm laughing) is a Democrat.

[–] Ensign_Crab 1 points 2 months ago

That’s my point. “I will appoint a Republican” does not necessarily mean “I will reach across the aisle to the opposing politicians who are ruining America”.

No, "I'm a Democrat" means that.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why would you do this? Did sorkin get to them?

[–] jordanlund 24 points 2 months ago

My guess is posing an alternative to Trump who has said the first thing he'd do is purge anyone not loyal.

https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2022/07/trump-endorsed-plan-purge-civil-service-rogue-bureaucrats/375028/

[–] negativenull 7 points 2 months ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Adam Kinzinger:

Am I a joke to you?

[–] negativenull 5 points 2 months ago

Probably better than Raskin (as he's been really sick).

[–] Stiffneckedppl 11 points 2 months ago

Raskin is a Democrat.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil 10 points 2 months ago

Liz Cheney

Christ, imagine living through the '00s and thinking Dick's daughter should be anywhere near a position of power. Ffs, she threw her own sister under the bus for being a lesbian.

[–] randon31415 0 points 2 months ago

Would appoint a Republican to Attorney general, most likely. Don't want a democrat going after the "wrong crooks"