this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
225 points (93.8% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7211 readers
288 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

More than a dozen former Ronald Reagan staff members have joined dozens of other Republican figures endorsing the Democratic nominee and vice-president, Kamala Harris, saying their support was “less about supporting the Democratic party and more about our resounding support for democracy”.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 46 points 2 months ago (17 children)
[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 32 points 2 months ago (2 children)

They’re trying to reach conservatives that don’t support Trump.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 22 points 2 months ago (3 children)

They're alienating people who hate Reagan.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago (15 children)

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.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If you get endorsed by Hitler it reflects pretty badly on you.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (6 children)

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.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Right, his endorsement doesn't help. That's my point? Liberals shouldn't be cheering because Reaganites endorsed Harris.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Who said Liberals were cheering? This is aimed at disenfranchised conservatives.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago (9 children)

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!"

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] CooperRedArmyDog@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] anarcho_blinkenist@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

"disenfranchised conservatives" he says

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (16 children)

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.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Believe it or not, the President does more than determine support for Israel.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago (7 children)

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.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Having read about Hitler's meeting with the military heads that line was bonechilling when she said it

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

What are they going to do about it?

Please say campaign for electoral reform in their respective states.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CooperRedArmyDog@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (4 children)

why though? there is a large untapped market to the left of the Democrats, that they constantly ignore instead focusing on trying to just BE the republicans and take the fictional moderate.

In reality here everyone in that space has decided, and is not going to be swayed a large majority of them are with trump, They should move back to ATLEAST new deal politics but expand it to all not just white americans, that will both re-expand there voting window and allow for a diferentiated base

[–] anarcho_blinkenist@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

because their interests don't allow it. Their donors and the people they work for, recruit from, and get hired by after leaving office, are all the billionaire imperialists that benefit from exactly what the democrats are doing and have been. It's in the base structure of the democrat party. A lot of times these capitalists donate to the democrats, then vote republican. Both parties work for the same class of capitalist imperialists in whose interest they are so entrenched, they literally can't do anything else but fly to the right and become more and more indistinguishable from each other as they both compete for who can be better at committing genocide and who can be more fascist on immigration and the border concentration camps and also militarily and operationally abroad

The only way to break the duopoly is to throw weight behind a 3rd party (the further left the better, PSL or greens if you're a liberal or your state is strong for it and you like that idea), which would starve the democrats of the margin they need to ever get power, and force a reorientation where the ruling class would have to float a reformist "labor" party to keep people from further radicalizing and flooding to the socialists away from the open-fanged republicans, who would remain as the only real political force when the mouth-closed-smiling but just-as-fanged democrats, entrenched in their position, can no longer cruise-control on "not being the republicans." Which they already are in most ways, and in the ways they wear a mask of not being they're totally feckless and actively capitulate in order to drum up more fear about the republicans to scare people into voting for them without doing anything to earn those votes (Obama had both houses of congress. He could have codified abortion rights and LGBTQ civil rights protections into law then and there. He didn't. He also gave away a supreme court seat. And Biden has not only not forcefully pushed to expand and pack the courts, but has actively denounced the idea as "politicizing the courts" as if that ship isn't already past the horizon. And has done fuck-all to stop the book-burnings, anti-LGBTQ laws, criminalizations of abortion, etc that are currently happening under a democrat president. They don't care about any of us and never will, and it will continue to get worse under the duopoly).

The ruling class floating this "labor" party would itself cause the democrat party to split in half, with half hedging their bets and pouring into the 'labor' party and the farthest-right establishment remnants stopping pretending they're anything else and joining the republicans. Which would then "democrat-ize" the "labor" party and alienate their left wing who were trying to escape those same people and interests into joining with the socialists. This is why I say throw weight behind a socialist 3rd party. Because then you actually have a growing counterweight pushing forward against this rupturing contradiction and highlighting how badly these people play politics, as the establishment and their bourgeois politicians are scrambling in retreat to reorient and reconstitute politically, having obviously grown so entrenched and corrupt and complacent they've forgotten how to play politics.

[–] RageAgainstThe@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I would like to add that the Democrat party stance on gun control only hurts minorities and LGBT from defending themselves, as rich white liberals are sheltered from any problems the actual working class face.

they love to fear-monger about Project 2025 (Which is a real threat) while disarming the people who need firearms the most. "Trust the police, you do not need weapons of war" while they give speeches with armed security details nearby at all times. Both parties do not want an armed working class

[–] Belgdore@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Taking one vote from another candidate is worth two votes from someone who is not voting, or who is voting for a non-viable third party.

I know plenty of people who wanted to vote for Kennedy but will probably vote for Trump now that he’s out. This group is likely to listen to former Reagan staffers and republican presidents that they liked.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I saw someone theorizing that this helps Republicans down ballot. They give the Dems the presidency, but having more Republicans showing up to vote helps house/senate/whatever local elections swing Republican.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

Very spicy take: This helps Donald Trump because it reinforces the idea that Donald Trump is not colluding with the uniparty establishment.

Liberal protection clause: I do not support Donald Trump.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Surely if we go right one more time the mythical moderate republicans will reveal themselves and vote us. Just one more genocide, we got this

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It literally does though. Forget our personal politics for a moment. I don't think there's a single voter already planning to vote for Kamala Harris who would stay home because the staffers of a long-dead president support her. Keep in mind, Harris and her campaign have zero control over who officially endorses her. And even among the people who are not solidly behind her, many see her as the obvious only sane choice and are planning an anti-Trump vote no matter what.

But on the other side, I could definitely see centrists and Republicans swayed by what they view as the administration of "the greatest president ever" (fuck Reagan) denouncing Trump and supporting Harris. They may not even vote for her, but if they stay home this could literally tip the election for Kamala Harris.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)