Political Discussion

TenderLovingKiller® said:
I am empathetic with your feelings on this issue almost 40,000 Palestinian’s dead with the cruel promise to finish the job. Absolutely Horrific.

That being said, within the United States there are multiple issues that matter to your average voter beyond the war in Gaza. Vice President is usually chosen as a balance. If you have a President that is more liberal or critical of the Netanyahu government balancing the ticket by choosing someone who has differing views isn’t a bad way to gain a more mass appeal. Being that the vice president has very little power, especially from a foreign policy standpoint, their personal views on Gaza matter very little.
Click to expand...
The Lancet, the preeminent medical journal on the planet, estimates a minimum of 186,000 dead Palestinians earlier this month. I understand what you are saying, though I do not agree. Choosing someone who supports the genocide and villainized student protesters is the clearest way to squander all the goodwill and energy that the Democratic party just got among the youth vote that it desperately needs in order to win. Three months ago American public opinion was already firmly against supporting Israel's actions, and it's only eroded further. Constantly choosing Democrats with right-wing appeal instead of pushing for policies that are actually popular among the electorate is why they lose so much.
 
Hemotep said:
I agree. The more I read about them last night and this morning and the more I knew we'd get screwed by the Dems picking one of them in a failed attempt to pull in Republicans.
Click to expand...
You pick a VP that has a different appeal than the Presidential nominee. If Kamala is more liberal it would make sense for her to pick a moderate as a counter balance on the ticket. The good news is that despite their personal beliefs the VP really just works in lockstep with the POTUS administration. If Kamala decides to get tough on Netanyahu or support the PRO act, the Vice President will go along with the President.

It’s why JD Vance is such a weird choice because he is basically Millennial Trump. There is so much overlap that his selection will expand Trumps appeal very little.
 
TenderLovingKiller® said:
You pick a VP that has a different appeal than the Presidential nominee. If Kamala is more liberal it would make sense for her to pick a moderate as a counter balance on the ticket. The good news is that despite their personal beliefs the VP really just works in lockstep with the POTUS administration. If Kamala decides to get tough on Netanyahu or support the PRO act, the Vice President will go along with the President.

It’s why JD Vance is such a weird choice because he is basically Millennial Trump. There is so much overlap that his selection will expand Trumps appeal very little.
Click to expand...
But Kamala isn't more liberal. She was to the right of Biden in the last primary. And until she puts out a platform and list of policy positions there's no reason to think she's changed. Being a Black Woman doesn't automatically make someone more liberal.
 
TenderLovingKiller® said:
As much as I like Kelly as a figurehead (a bad ass fighter pilot/astronaut you couldn't ask for a better back story), I like Shapiro a slight bit more mainly because of his oratory skills, he is a much better public speaker, he also ran ahead of both Trump and Biden in 2016 and 2020 respectively. in his PA elections for AG and Governor. I am really fine with any of the VP candidate's they're currently vetting but I would go Shapiro 1A and Kelly 1B as of fright now.
Click to expand...

I think they are both flawed but solid picks. Kelly would make me even more worried about a move to the center from where Biden was at but would secure AZ and is a scientist.

Shapiro is beloved and from the most important swing state-- but still raw and is very pro-Isreal.

My heart is with Tim Waltz. He is a great communicator has has gotten even more done than Gretchen. But MN isn't really a swing state at this point.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20240725_101503_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20240725_101503_Chrome.jpg
    185.4 KB · Views: 4
RenegadeMonster said:
I still can't wrap my head the mindset of conservatives.

Harris' campaign is running on "freedom" and saving our democracy that a second Trump presidency would continue to erode if not destroy.

Yet conservatives have the mind set that harris is the biggest threat to our democracy. And if she were president, we would have communist rule / authoritarian.

That couldn't be further than the truth. While Trump isn't a communist, he for sure would be authoritarian and the biggest threat to our democracy. It's like what he is, they accuse of other side of being.
Click to expand...
It’s called projection - Trump and his cronies have mastered it.

“Hours after Mr. Biden dropped out on Sunday, Mr. Trump posted on his social media website, Truth Social, that Republicans now “have to start all over again,” and he questioned whether the G.O.P. should be “reimbursed for fraud” because, he claimed, the news media and Mr. Biden’s doctors knew Mr. Biden was incapable of running for president.”

 
ngower said:
The irony is that California is like the 8th largest economy in the world. They're always like "socialism will cause bread lines!" yet CA is thriving.
Click to expand...

Except for the housing market which is a complete shit show... but that's because Black Stone was allowed to buy up 2/3s of the states rentals over a 10 year period. And because of NIMBYism of course.

When I left CA for IL, I realized how progressive the CA tax system was. The most 11th affordable in the country if you're middle class. But all you here about is how extreme the taxes are.... because if you're rich than you gwt taxed up the ass.
 
Hemotep said:
But Kamala isn't more liberal. She was to the right of Biden in the last primary. And until she puts out a platform and list of policy positions there's no reason to think she's changed. Being a Black Woman doesn't automatically make someone more liberal.
Click to expand...
But it does make you a DEI candidate in the eyes of conservatives. I am so sick of hearing about how DEI has lead to her nomination, and she got it by default rather than merit.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
But it does make you a DEI candidate in the eyes of conservatives. I am so sick of hearing about how DEI has lead to her nomination, and she got it by default rather than merit.
Click to expand...
The DEI thing is certainly an offensive trope, but it's not like even several of her supporters on this very thread have said that she deserves it because she's a Black woman and that passing her over would cost the Dems for those reasons alone, ignoring everything about her politics and actual qualities as a person and politician. Which I've pointed out is offensive to both Black voters and to women. Liberals are just as guilty of "DEIing" her as conservatives are, and Biden himself said that it was an important consideration in who he selected as a running mate. She's certainly more than that, but it's not just conservatives who are feeding into that racist and sexist trope.

And she did get the nomination by default? I don't know what it solves to deny that obvious fact. There was no primary and it's not a sure bet at all that she would win an open primary either. That doesn't mean she doesn't have experience, but she wasn't democratically elected into the position she now finds herself in. And if she really was meritorious then she wouldn't have had to drop out of the last primary before the first vote was ever cast. Nothing makes any of these politicians more special than millions of other smart and competent Americans who could do the job well. Much like most celebrities, they're just a person in the right place, but there's nothing inherently deserving about who they are or what they do.
 
She's in a can't win situation on that but defacing property and flag burning is not going to be something viewed well by mainstream society. If that makes you want to sit out and not vote for her then good luck going forward. The purity thing on this is a one way ticket to a Trump 2nd term.
 
mdmost said:
She's in a can't win situation on that but defacing property and flag burning is not going to be something viewed well by mainstream society. If that makes you want to sit out and not vote for her then good luck going forward. The purity thing on this is a one way ticket to a Trump 2nd term.
Click to expand...
She could have said nothing. Instead she's given credence to Trump's and Republicans' bogus claim that "her supporters" are terrorist sympathizers.
 
BjorgenFjorgen said:
She could have said nothing. Instead she's given credence to Trump's and Republicans' bogus claim that "her supporters" are terrorist sympathizers.
Click to expand...
I would've settled for nothing. At most a condemnation of the bloodthirsty psychopath who will soon have an international warrant for his arrest that got a standing O in the chamber of congress she's currently presiding over, but, of course, that would be too hard.
 
BjorgenFjorgen said:
She could have said nothing. Instead she's given credence to Trump's and Republicans' bogus claim that "her supporters" are terrorist sympathizers.
Click to expand...
If she said nothing, she gets immediately jumped on by those same people as supporting terrorist sympathizers. Again, it's a can't win situation where you can't please anyone. That's the line she has to tread and I get some of you don't like it but it is the reality of the situation.
 
mdmost said:
If she said nothing, she gets immediately jumped on by those same people as supporting terrorist sympathizers. Again, it's a can't win situation where you can't please anyone. That's the line she has to tread and I get some of you don't like it but it is the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...
Who gives a fuck, those people aren't voting for her anyway. That vast majority of dem constituents sympathize with Palestine, it would take nothing to instantly jump 3-4 points in polls.
 
mdmost said:
If she said nothing, she gets immediately jumped on by those same people as supporting terrorist sympathizers. Again, it's a can't win situation where you can't please anyone. That's the line she has to tread and I get some of you don't like it but it is the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...
If you would like to accept whatever slop the party feeds you, without demanding better from them, you're welcome to do so. She could have pointed out that protest—including burning the flag of the United States—is a constitutionally protected right. Even Pelosi condemned Netanyahu's speech! Harris could indeed have pleased her base; instead she painted protesters as antisemites.

They are not going to change their position on a currently unfolding genocide without pressure from voters and they are not going to win the election unless they do so. Godspeed, I guess.
 
Right, sympathize with Palestine, yes. Expressing support for Hamas, no. Protesting against Bibi, yes. Defacing property with Hamas slogans, no. The only thing I really don't like about her statement is the flag burning but I also don't think you should exclude the KKK from marching. But she's has to walk that because everyone is looking to pounce on any thing she does especially the media. I also don't make my votes based on a single issue. I take the totality of a candidate into account. But if that one issue is enough to drive you not to vote, again good luck then if she's not in office next January.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top