this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
225 points (93.8% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7211 readers
284 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.
As far as I can tell, The Harris/Walz campaign hasn't officially responded to this endorsement. Are you getting mad about stuff that hasn't even happened?
Believe it or not, the Harris/Walz campaign doesn't orchestrate endorsements. Anyone can endorse a candidate with or without that candidate's knowledge, permission, or acknowledgement.
Harris may be getting the endorsement of old-school/moderate Republicans, but Trump has the endorsement of extremist/far-right Republicans and Neo-Nazis.
If you can't pick a side here, that's entirely your own moral failure.
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
Her silence is damning.
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 mean I am not saying that his endorsement is a good sign, however I see no reason not to trust his endorsement on face value. It seems to be more work and more conspericy boarding to say that this is some 7d chess to get trump back when there are reasons he would want a haris win
Are you aware that the Republicans in Congress refused to vote in favor of Ukraine aid? Democrats had to add Israel to the bill to get them to agree.
Putin wants Trump. It’s not a question which party is on his side.
You keep talking domestic policy, but you have not given a reason on why Putin cannot be trusted on his endorsement. You are also missing the point that trump is a less stable commander in cheif, and may oppose Russian intrests elsewhere not just ukraine
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
boy I hate to tell you this, but you're not escaping that by voting for the democrats. the establishment parties are personifications of all of the worst vices and cruelties of the imperialist capitalist class of war mongers, racketeers, and liars which keep the globe under their boot with 800+ bipartisan military bases and CIA blacksite torture camps, and bipartisan Hunger Plans and bipartisan competing to see who can do more genocide faster.
Biden's such a corrupt narcissistic megalomaniac he wouldn't even step down while his brain was visibly leaking from his ears his own party including the speaker of the house (also being one of the most corrupt, narcissistic megalomaniacs in congress) was demanding he do so. He only did when the billionaire imperialists that finance the democrats (and who they work for, who both parties work for) pulled their funding.
I mean... yes... there are quite a few reasons I would not feel good voting for harris but there are 3 reasons I cannot in good contious vote for her, the first is the endorsments from Bush and Cheney, the second is this Reagon Endorsement, the third is she has publicly talked about class colaberation.