The Case for Kamala Harris
The Case for Kamala Harris
You're viewing a single thread.
Won't destroy democracy: Check.
✅ Also has some good ideas
Which unfortunately will never get anywhere because the Republicans are almost guaranteed to win back the Senate...
It really sucks. Either Trump wins and gets the trifecta of control letting the fascists at the heritage foundation run rampant or Kamala wins but still loses the Senate and we get nothing but the statue quo for at least 2 more years... But if anything the Republicans will gain seats in the next cycle because they can point to the previous 2 years of nothing (caused by them) as evidence that Democrats suck...
Big sad. :(
I mean, at least she used to, before she started hanging out with Biden and dropped Medicare For All. Anyway, won't destroy democracy.
I prefer she doesn't promise shit congress will never pass
I prefer she show support for things she would pass if congress were willing. It doesn't have to be a promise.
This is why I support Vermin Supreme. Free ponies for everyone!
The distance between you and a Trump supporter is smaller than you realize.
I want Medicare For All and you think I could be a Trump supporter? You're not as clever as you think, we are nothing alike.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Is it? It's on you to express your ideas in a coherent way.
Judging from your response, apparently it is.
It's called being realistic about what president can do with their powers. She absolutely should encourage Congress to pass legislation as that is much more permanent and effective than executive orders
Being "realistic" doesn't mean expecting promises of things that Congress would never approve.
Then I should move to a country with single payer.
Why would I stay here if the United States will never end medical debt? Seems like a bad place to raise a family - especially when Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc exist
It is a bad place to raise a family and you should move
Dropped livable wages and a slew of other items
One wants to be a dictator, the other doesn't. They're the same! \s
The installed candidate won't destroy democracy?
Nope. Biden even gave up his chance at a second term as soon as the polls suggested Americans would not re-elect him. The complete opposite of what Trump would do (did) in that situation.
This is all pretty basic stuff really if you're not a lunatic like Trump.
Polls had zero impact on that decision. It was 100% threats of campaign money stopping from the donor class that made the call.
Yes, it's true that donors sometimes prefer giving money to candidates who have an actual chance of winning.
Notice how none of these Democrats or donors seem be saying "hmm, why don't we just steal it again like in 2020 and save our money!", whereas for Trump stealing tge election seems to be the only thing he ever put actual genuine effort into while in office.
“Installed”? Bro the very idea of a “primary” is pretty rare in the world so yea, the party chose a candidate to represent them in the election. Plus she’s currently the VP and so was, in part, already elected to a very similar job which is a pretty good endorsement.
Also if you voted for the Biden/Harris ticket four years ago, given Biden's age you were voting for VP to replace him too.
I see a comprehension of U.S. political party operations was not installed in your head.
Straight to ad hom? You must be full of fallacies
I'm not a 5th grade teacher, it's not my responsibility to explain these concepts. A person making comments about election operations should have a clue about those operations.