457
Kamala Harris, endorsed by Biden to replace him, is left of the president on health care
(www.statnews.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
457 points (97.5% liked)
politics
19138 readers
3344 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
She locked people up for weed period. Fuck that shit. Unelectable.
Oh sugar...
Amidst the dichtomous choice that presents itself, I'm going to go out on a limb and say if you don't like that, then you certainly won't like what Trump has in store for you.
It's not about my vote. She's unelectable. Putting her in as the nominae would be handing it to Trump. Same way the DNC handed it to him in 2016 by putting in Hillary.
Right, the most progressive candidate we've ever had is unelectable. For a thing the administration she was part of decriminalized.
That doesn't make sense.
Exactly. She has to win not just in the deep blue progressive states. She also has to win the competitive states. She can't just coast to a victory; She has to actually compete against Trump. ~~~~
If "most progressive" was something that the swing states voted for, they wouldn't be swing states; they would be blue. "Most progressive" will win her the popular vote, and lose the election. Just like it did with Hillary.
Contrast with Mark Kelly, a solid blue candidate with a known record of being able to win in red states. Kelly would poach votes from Trump, turning the competitive states blue, and some of the red states competitive.
You're confusing "most progressive candidate" we've ever had with "democratic socialist".
Mark Kelly is a great politician but he would be starting from behind her on this. Newsome who was already prepping for a 2028 run would be the more logical choice if you want to replace Harris.
Harris is a lawyer turned politician. Kelly is a fighter pilot turned test pilot turned Navy Captain turned Astronaut turned Senator, with an identical twin brother with a nearly identical career, and a wife who survived an assassination attempt.
You can't swing ~~a dead cat~~ Trump's toupee in DC without hitting a dozen lawyer-turned-politican Democrats.
Kelly might be starting from behind but he has every advantage here.
Tell me you don't remember Swift Boating without telling me you don't remember it. The playbook on kneecapping anyone who leans on their service is already written. Mark Kelly was successful in Arizona because he kept his composure against Martha McSally and advocated common sense policies.
But he doesn't have the funding, donors, or national ground game he would need for a presidential campaign. That, along with her record, is why Harris is getting the nod.
John Kerry was a low-level officer in a race with another low level officer.
Kelly was a high-ranking officer, running against a malingering draft dodger.
Completely different circumstances
Mark Kelly's opponent was Martha McSally, 20+ year veteran of the Air Force and a fighter pilot.
John Kerry faced off against a delinquent national guard pilot while he was a decorated combat veteran. Unable to match Kerry's military record, Bush got navy veterans who were mad about Kerry's anti war activities to say mean shit about him and insinuated they served under him. His actual crew made the rounds for him but it was useless.
Just so we're clear, since you seem to have confused them.
I didn't confuse them. I was talking about his future opponent, not the previous one.
Then you need to use the words, "will be" instead of "was".
You also neglected to tell us how you would avoid that swift boating.
I could have been a little bit clearer, but I used the same construction in both sentences, using "was" to refer to their previous status as officers, and describing the events of their presidential election process. The context of "malingering draft dodger" should have been enough of a clue that I was referring to someone other than Col. McSally.
I did not neglect how to avoid the swift boating. GW and Kerry were both low level military officers, each accusing each other of having had poor military records. Both of them had sufficient military experience to make their criticisms credible, but neither had enough time in for their service records to prove or disprove the other's claims.
Trump has no military service. He's already known as "Cadet Bone Spurs". JD Vance has 4 years of service... As an enlisted reporter. Any attack they might try is only going to remind the voting public of their terrible military credentials.
Swift Boating isn't about proof. It's literally about lying too fast for fact checkers to keep up. And being a higher rank means more disgruntled people served under you, and it's even harder to fact check that guy on the TV ad who says you laughed maniacally while ruining his life.
But they didn't though? Gonna vote for Kamala either way but you don't have to lie. At best the administration she was part of nicely suggested that we should reschedule it to a lower but still very criminal schedule 3. Please don't give them credit for shit they didn't even do, or promise to do.
I did think they got it lower than that. But schedule 3 can be prescribed and some are available behind the counter at the pharmacy. So it's a way better position than it was.
I'm glad you're getting upvoted for a blatant lie while my correction of that lie is getting downvoted, and now that you're admitting it was bullshit all along you leave it there unedited to mislead more people. Great job. Look, I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but you don't see making up reasons to lick boot.
I don't think it is a blatant lie. It's a huge improvement. There's obviously more work to be done to get it to recreational status. But schedule 3 reduces tax burden and opens up banking options for dispensaries. If a grower wanted to get their product nation wide they can apply to the FDA for a license now. Could you imagine buying concentrate from the counter at Walgreens 2 years ago?
Framing this as an all or nothing thing really misses the point in my opinion.
Worse, they did promise it, but then didn't follow through.
And somehow I'm getting down voted for refuting it with reality lmfao
It's because people really need to believe she'll beat Trump. It's the same wishful unrealistic thinking that led the same folks to assume Hillary would just beat him. Dangerous, lazy, hopeful complacency.
She's got a better shot than Biden, but we still don't need to be making up reasons to give Dems a sloppy toppy. Let them actually do some shit before you heap on the praise.
Gulag. 🐀