this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
217 points (90.9% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7318 readers
456 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Are they? The campaign is not speaking in support of the Reagan administration. Harris is supported by the former administration over a corrupt and narcissistic megalomaniac.
Personally, I don’t see this as anything other than validation that Trump is that bad.
If you get endorsed by Hitler it reflects pretty badly on you.
Putin endorsed Biden, and now Harris. Do you honestly think that he wants Democrats in charge during his invasion of Ukraine? Politics is a game.
Right, his endorsement doesn't help. That's my point? Liberals shouldn't be cheering because Reaganites endorsed Harris.
Who said Liberals were cheering? This is aimed at disenfranchised conservatives.
Do you think conservatives read The Guardian? This is for internal consumption, to make liberals think "wow even Reaganites are on our side, we must be doing something right!"
So you’re critical of The Guardian then? Do you believe they should have left that story out based on their reader demographic?
No? I'm critical of Harris accepting the endorsement of ghouls.
both sides are Fasistic, and engage in class colaberation. If I look at the endorsements for haris coming from the right, there are people I would not want to even agree on what pizza topping is best with, let alone who should run a country.
Second your right, anyone can, however the canidates can also reject their endorsement, and tell them to shove it where the sun don't shine, they have not done that, and that is damning.
3rd ... REAGON AND CHENEY ARE MODERATE NOW... do you not see how abserd you are talking? they are not moderates
No one said that. maybe they should have been crtitical of her not disavoying it
"disenfranchised conservatives" he says
I live in NY. It’s a blue state with ~3M Republicans. Most of the ones I know are only in it for financial reasons (large portfolios, business owners, etc.). They voted for Trump in his first term, and are very reluctant to vote for him again. There are more of them than you think.
that is not what "disenfranchised" means at all. These people are business owners with large portfolios?? They are objectively some of the most enfranchised people in the country. They're literally sitting on their thumbs in their bathtubs of money deciding which genocidaire would be better for their wallets? How is this a disenfranchised population? This is objectively the opposite. Fuck them.
Anyone catering to these very enfranchised sociopaths for votes, rather than to (and while actively repressing and brow-beating) those who are demanding an end to the bipartisan US-financed and US-armed genocide in Palestine, and rather than to the huge portion of actual left-wing voters and poor working class voters who are moving to 3rd parties or among the 35-50% who have stopped voting because of how actually disenfranchised and abandoned by this imperialist-corporate-conglomerate pretending to be two different parties they are
anyone catering to the former group instead of the latter two groups is my enemy
The liberals cheering is what told me the liberals where cheering. I mean ... Haris even gloated that Ronald Reagon himself would vote for her.
as for disenfranchised conservitives, this is a group that does not exist, like both halvs of the uniparty pander to the conservitive.
That's a good question, but I think Putin's being honest. Trump is more likely to try to negotiate a peace deal, but if that goes badly, he's also much more likely to order some off-the-wall shit like giving Ukraine ICBMs and permission to use them. Remember this was the guy who was presented with a range of options to retaliate against Iranian sabre-rattling, and for seemingly no reason chose the most extreme, drone striking their top general! There's lots of reason to not want Trump in charge.
~~What makes you think Trump would negotiate peace? He’s already said Israel should finish the job and stop recording their atrocities. He also repealed restrictions on Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory. Netanyahu was so grateful, he named a settlement after Trump in Golan Heights.~~
Accidental and unrelated reply. My mistake.
I'm not saying he's a dove or anything, but he doesn't really give a shit about NATO therefore isn't terribly invested in protecting the Zelensky regime, and he has been consistent about saying the war should be ended so Ukrainians survive, [which, to be clear, I doubt he personally cares about, but it's his platform] and even said this when he was pressed with the insanely unprofessional and ridiculous bait question "Do you want Ukraine to win?" at the debate.
Anyway, it's no guarantee, he's a very unstable and erratic guy, but I think he sees the war as a waste of money and would prefer friendlier relations with Russia.
Sorry my reply was unrelated. I’m also discussing Israel in another thread on this post.
I think the only way Trump would negotiate peace for Ukraine/Russia would include relinquishing Ukrainian land to Russia, and would very likely not include the safe return of the tens of thousands of abducted Ukrainians.
No worries about the Israel part
I would say that yes, it would certainly involve reliquishing land, that's the reality of the situation. I don't think there's any credence to the "abducted Ukrainian" story. On the off chance you mean POWs, they would surely be returned. If you mean the children who Russia evacuated from the war zones that it controlled, most likely the children with a surviving guardian will be reunited with them as has already happened, and the children who can't be reunited with a guardian (for any number of reasons) will wind up in the local foster system in Donbass. The Ukrainian government loves crying wolf about being the victim of a supposed genocide by Russians, but here as ever there simply isn't adequate reason to believe it's true.
To be clear, I'm not saying Trump would take any action an anglosphere liberal would approve of (though I think his stance on Ukraine is the one thing he supports that is surprisingly reasonable if it's true), I'm just trying to explain as best as I understand it the things Putin would take into consideration. This is of course all in the "pro" column for him, but it's also extremely unreliable (Trump could easily be lying about his position, though I believe he isn't) and doesn't make up for the much worse possibility of Trump dramatically increasing US involvement. As things stand, Russia is surely going to win the war, so it would be poor strategy to rock the boat with the wildcard Trump currently represents with respect to this specific issue.
I read it as the neoliberal warhawks are enthusiastic about a more level-headed maintainer of Empire who has promised the most lethal military in the world and to always support Israel.
Believe it or not, the President does more than determine support for Israel.
Yep, but the part that specifically draws the Reaganite fascists to Kamala is her promise to maintain the most lethal military in the world. Forever wars and endless profits for the MIC, endless support for Imperialism.
Having read about Hitler's meeting with the military heads that line was bonechilling when she said it
The people who are saying this is a deal breaker weren't going to vote for Harris anyway.
Trump is a threat to democracy, stands in direct opposition to the rule of law, embraces authoritarianism, undermines national security, alienates allies while emboldening enemies and rivals, enables nutcases and violent extremists, has called for the constitution to be thrown out, has stated he intends to use the government to persecute his political rivals, has declared that members of his own administration should be executed for being more loyal to the country than to him, and managed to get the Supreme Court to declare the president to be above the law. And that's barely scratching the surface.
Even for conservatives, that list sounds very bad. Bad enough to outweigh major policy disagreements. It really shouldn't be that hard to understand why some of them might be willing to endorse the only viable alternative.
America doesn't have democracy in the first place.
Bush/Cheney STOLE the 2000 election. That was the biggest threat to democracy in my lifetime and now the Dems are welcoming them into the fold.
I mean odd that you KNOW none of these people where going to vote for Harris but these endorsments will get people to vote for Harris from the trump camp. I mean I would argue that there are people who remember past political actions and do not want to suport someone also suported by ghools, and this was either the last straw, or enough that they felt there was some alterer motive here.
Second, have you seen any trump suporter, or someone thinking about suporting trump they are unlikely to be pulled away.
third, threat to democracy? I mean I hate to break it to you but at best the US is an Oligopoly, and even then I would argue the dems are just a few steps behind. As for the the SCOTUS, what is stopping biden from using the above the law power... or Haris, why is this only a concern when trump might use it
fourth, you have to relise that DICK CHENEY endorsing your canidate is not going to be a good look, especialy reveling in it. the better political move would be to use his endorsement to open up a conversation about all the evil he did, and the farther promotion of the Unitary Executive (Really started by Reagon and his staffers... who also endorsed harris) leading us into the mess we are in today, and to shove that endorsement where the sun dont shine