this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
-9 points (37.8% liked)

politics

19138 readers
3739 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
-9
A Socialist’s Case for Kamala Harris (nymag.com)
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Author seems to have decent enough bonafides to call themselves a socialist.

But I disagree with this:

Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan is an effective politician with a promising national future, even if she will never be the great hope of the American left. But she lacks name recognition outside her home state, and she’s never won a national race.

Anyone named candidate won't have issues with name recognition after a day or two of being the candidate.

And she's ignoring Kamala's approval numbers are even worse than Biden.

Over 2/3s of America has no opinion of Whitmere. And sadly enough that makes her our best bet.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If anything, she’s a sympathetic figure for dealing with an assassination plot as Gov. That’s how I first learned her name.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

Better than sympathy, shed take the threat of fascism seriously and actually fight.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This is the fucking DNC establishment rearing it's ugly head once again... those geniuses that sidelined Sanders for Clinton are now running a blitz media campaign to emplace Hillary's protégé.

There are much better options.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

As in you're implying Kamala is Hillary's protege? She is not, what gives you that idea?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

I'm very curious what Socialist discourse Sarah Jones follows, because this article is pretty divorced from any Harris think pieces I've read. Her role as a prosecutor and Attorney General make her a complete anathema in socialist circles, even to Democratic Party-aligned factions in DSA.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's pretty simple. It's Kamala Harris's name on all those donations and bank account for the campaign along with Biden. She will be chosen by the party. Republicans are already massing to run against her, including calling her a socialist.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It’s Kamala Harris’s name on all those donations and bank account for the campaign along with Biden.

Eh...

PAC money is pretty fluid, and dark money hasn't even really started yet.

Pacs can pay another PAC no problem. It's common to obfuscate where money came from.

Whoever the candidate is would have no problem getting Biden's money if the people running the PACs want to move it

Doesn't matter whose name is on the current Pac, it matters what the person controlling the purse strings wants. And legally there's a (even just gor appearances) separation between the candidate and the PAC

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There is probably over 400 million in the bank for the Campaign to Re-elect Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. I don't think it's going to be left on the table. Nice try though.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Huh?

I said the opposite, that moving the money to whoever is the candidate would be trivial...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Trivial? That's Harris's decision.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I legitimately don't know what you're going on about...

You think Harris controls Biden's campaign funds?

Like, in the event that Biden just drops and doesn't hand it off, yeah, Harris would have a shot at claiming it.

But that would never happen, it would get handed off to Biden's replacement. He can move that money anywhere, likely to a PAC.

And are you just talking about campaign? Because your number is like 4 times higher than reality... I don't know if you're that far off or including PACs?

I'm here to help bro, but it's really hard to keep up when none of what you're saying is based on facts and I'm having to try and fill in the gaps and assume what you meant.

Do you even want someone to explain this for you? If not, that's cool. I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to help.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think if you count the number of bad takes you have on a daily basis, you might want to give it a rest.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 4 months ago

No worries, I thought you were just here for discussion not slap fights, although to be honest I've had doubts.

Thanks for clearing it up, have a nice life, I sincerely hope it gets better.