111 Republican former officials endorse Harris because of Trump's disloyalty to America and unfitness to serve
Kamala Harris' campaign has netted Republican endorsements from numerous Trump administration officials as well as from figures such as Dick Cheney.
You're viewing a single thread.
The modern democratic party has adopted the positions of 2005 republicans. They might as well adopt the personnel of 2005 republicans too.
They're against gay marriage and gearing up for a gigantic tax cut for the wealthy?
They're against IVF and school lunches for children?
Democrats have kept the Trump tax cut scheme where the wealthy pay less, and the working class tax cuts expire. This is the ratchet effect, where republicans move the country right, then democrats normalize the rightward shift instead of pushing back.
Kamala has lowered her desired capital gains tax rate to a pathetic 28%.
They are advocating for defunding public education and setting up private religious charter schools?
Well this is a bit outside of our scope, since most of the education defunding was done pre-2005 under Reagan and Clinton.
But yea, democrats have failed to re-fund public education. Our schools look like prisons and our teachers are paid like slaves, and you can see it in our failing test scores.
Do you have a specific example? Just one?
democrats have failed to re-fund public education
Specifics, man. Do you understand what that means?
So... No examples. Got it.
They're against healthcare reform and pre-existing conditions?
Yeah, look at what they did to Bernie and Medicare for All. They are explicitly against healthcare reform.
edit: or if Bernie is too polarizing of an example, look at how candidate Biden's #1 policy proposal was the public option, and once elected he completely dropped it.
Who did what to Bernie? Be specific. Explain, one last time, you understand how basic legislation is passed in the United States of America. Be specific please.
I’m 100 in for blue up and down the ticket this year in a non-battleground red state.
Debbie Wassermann-Schultz, former DNC chair is largely responsible for tipping the scales to Hillary Clinton and away from Bernie. Had Bernie been the candidate, I believe that we would never have had Trump in the first place. I’m still pretty pissed off about her specificity.
First, you haven't given any specific examples of "tipping the scales". 2nd, for "tipping the scales" to work, Sanders would have had to be very close to Clinton in support. He had signficant support certainly but unfortunately not close enough for the outcome to be in doubt.
Thank you. We can address DWS and Bernies ability to secure the nomination but I want Kronos to engage first. I'm not forking out of this discussion yet but I will come back.
They are against public infrastructure and housing reform?
Yes the infrastructure package passed by Biden is barely enough funds to handle the backlog of maintenance issues in our failing infrastructure.
We are the richest country on earth, we should be building high speed rail like china. We should be investing and making the infrastructure of the future. Instead we can hardly keep our 80 year old rails running without our trains exploding.
I notice you only talk in buzzwords and never give out specifics. You say a lot without saying anything. In none of your comments do you actually give specific examples of anything or explain cause effect. It's pure buzzwords and vibes. Do you have a specific example of anything?
I gave many specific examples you have ignored. I tried to engage with you in good faith but it's obvious that sentiment is one sided. Have a good day.
You haven't given a specific thing. You called general topics such as Biden Infrastructure Package. And then you tied it to some kind of gap I funding. But you never explained where and how.
You never give specific. You talk a lot in generalities. In all your comments. All of them.
Give me one specific cause and effect tied to democratic 'policy. Just one.
1sh Edit: to all the downvowers:
Saying broad general things like "Biden s infrastructure package fell short in funding" is an empty statement without specifics. It doesn't tell us anything. It's a feeling. It doesnt tell us how or why. It's a feeling. And people like Kronos keep up the narrative propped up thanks to these declarations based in.... Nothing. Give us clear examples.
Not asking for the moon here. If this is too much, then what even is there to discuss?
is an empty statement without specifics. It doesn’t tell us anything. It’s a feeling. It doesnt tell us how or why.
I am with you on this. A pet peeve of mine is people making vague meaningless claims. Because that is one of Traitorapist Trump's main tactics. It happens mostly on the right but sometimes on the left too.
It's the bread and butter of sophists. Everyone has strong opinions about politics, but when you lift the hood you see most of it is manufactured.
the infrastructure package passed by Biden is barely enough funds to handle the backlog of maintenance issues in our failing infrastructure
They are against increasing child tax credits for parents?
For almost a year, we nearly eliminated child hunger and child poverty in this country. This was under the child tax credits under Trump's covid policies.
I think we can both agree that Trump is the worse evil, so what does it say about Democrats that they increased child poverty compared to Trump? Why didn't they push to make the Trump child tax credits permanent?
Where, who and how?
I need specific details not vibes. You are just giving me opinion.
You make a lot of statements but never provide specific details. A lot. Like, all your comments are identical. Why are you like this?
They're against environmental regulation and climate change policy?
Holy shit you are absolutely relentless. I dunno how I feel about it, but damn.
Stop, stop! He's already dead!
I'm tired of all the pseudo intellectuals hijacking every conversation with feels and never providing concrete examples of anything. They'll dance and dance around general topics and never give us specifics because they know they can get away with saying anything. It's an effective way to build up narratives without having to be held responsible for anything.
They'll never give a clear context or path to how / why / where because they know they can talk in generalities and move on. They're here to stay and either we can all roll over into the post-modern "truth is just a construct world" or we can push back.
Kamala literally bragged about increasing gas production to an all time high, yes.
Give the whole stance. What else is tied into that policy? If you want to talk policy, let's go. But first you have to prove you know what the full policy or statement is. I'm waiting.
Do I really need to? Because increasing gas production is not a good thing for the climate, and bragging about doing something that's damaging the climate seems like a pretty clear indication that you're not really committed to addressing climate change. The fact that she says whatever nice words about it doesn't matter, talk is cheap.
But her whole statement is here
I didn't ask for her debate statement. I asked for her full policy. Yes, you really need to understand how American policy and legislation is formed before we can continue the conversation.
I understand how American policy is formed well enough to know that policy statements on the campaign trail rarely actually manifest into anything. But here's her statement from the campaign website, just for you:
Yes, politicians have to run on policies and positions. They have to espouse those positions on the campaign trail.
Do you understand the president does not enact legislation? I need you to address this before we go any further. I need you to explain what the difference is between the presidency and congress.
I will, but first I need you to explain something to me to prove that you're qualified to have a conversation with me. Explain the difference between peepee and poopoo. Otherwise it will prove you don't know the difference, this conversation will be over, and I will declare victory.
Uh oh. Someone doesn't understand what the US president is and is entitled to give opinions on social media. I know, American civics is hard. What time is it in Mokba?
Where is Mokba? It's 2:30 AM here in Illinois.
I can't believe you don't even understand the difference between peepee and poopoo. They literally teach this stuff to preschoolers.
Yes, under the Biden administration we set a new record for fossil fuel extraction. Biden is giving out so many drilling permits, there are thousands that are unfilled.
We are on pace to make earth uninhabitable.
Oh wow. An entire economic system based on a particular source of energy cannot be course corrected over night. Oh wow... Policy change is not easy, is. It? Huh. Who knew?
They are against alleviating student loans?
"Alleviating" doing a lot of work here. They forgave PPP loans (which went mostly to the wealthy) but didn't forgive student loans like they said they would. Biden also helped create the problem in the first place by arbitrarily making making such loans ineligible for bankruptcy forgiveness
but didn’t forgive student loans like they said they would.
Because Republicans stopped them. The same thing would have happened if Sanders was president. Sanders told everybody it wouldn't be enough just to make him president, there would need to be a "political revolution" such that Dems were in place at multiple levels.
If they were actually motivated, they could've done something like tying student loan forgiveness to PPP loan forgiveness. Or packing the courts, or at least leveraging that as a threat the way FDR did.
Ultimately, I just don't believe that the guy who spent decades working towards a right-wing agenda that included making student loans worse and harder to get rid of was actually motivated to do more than a token effort towards forgiveness. There's this collective delusion that Biden suddenly transformed into an entirely different person the moment he became the nominee. He contributed to the problem because his donors paid him to, then, with the same donors, conveniently failed to address it. And yet somehow this gets trotted out as a point in favor.
Why couldn't they forgive student loans? Explain to the rest of Lemmy what happened so we know you have a basic understanding of civics before we proceed with a full back and forth discussion. I'm done arguing with people who operate in buzzwords and have no clue what they are talking about. First demonstrate you understand the basics and what PPP loans even are.
I've rarely seen such a textbook example of a gish gallop.
You don't even know the right debate bro terms. Did I overwhelm you with arguments by asking that you show us you understand what you are talking about? Oh my god. Im so sorry that was so overwhelming for you.
The Gish gallop (/ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/) is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, with no regard for their accuracy or strength
Yes, congratulations, that is what the term means. And that's exactly what you're doing. You post a whole bunch of one line comments and expect anyone who challenges them to write up a whole effortpost on each. The amount of effort it takes to just spew a bunch of bullshit is much less than the amount of effort required to refute each point of bullshit.
I'm sorry if asking you to explain the fundamentals of something before continuing a conversation is too overwhelming for you. It's clear you don't know what PPP loans are because you already jumped to comparing them to student debt - that was my first clue.
You don't know what you're talking about but you are very comfortable repeating buzzwords and catchphrases.
Why should I argue with someone who clearly has no idea what they are talking about? It's pretty clear you don't because if you did you could have proved it a long time ago.
Wow, I just want to say you're operating so clearly in good faith that I don't know which of your good faith behaviors to praise first.
As I already pointed out, you spewed out a bunch of low effort bullshit that would take much more effort to refute, which is again, a textbook example of a gish gallop. You then demanded to control the terms of the debate by subjecting me to some sort of test of knowledge which I obviously refused to engage in, since that's a ridiculous thing to do. Then, you took a word from the definition of gish gallop and completely removed it of context, and accused me of saying I was "overwhelmed" by your test of knowledge, which I never said. You then interpreted my refusal to engage with your terms as an admission of ignorance. So that's at least four points of bad faith, just right off the bat.
You don't get to randomly subject me to tests any more than I get to randomly subject you to tests. That's not how conversation or debate works. If you're afraid of engaging me on even terms and want to pull a bunch of bullshit, you do you, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation, which are the things I pointed out.
If asking you to explain a simple fundamental thing for you is too overwhelming then too bad. I'm not arguing quantum physics with someone that can't do arithmetic. You can't talk US legislation and policy like it's a soccer game. I'm more than convinced now than ever you don't know what you're talking about and Im glad I didn't waste any more time going down a rabbit hole only to learn later you are out of your depth.
If asking you to explain a simple fundamental thing for you is too overwhelming then too bad. I’m not arguing quantum physics with someone that can’t do arithmetic.
And I'm asking you to explain a much simpler, much more fundamental thing, and you can't. I strongly recommend investing in some diapers.
Im glad I didn’t waste any more time going down a rabbit hole only to learn later you are out of your depth.
Lol you filtered me out because I showed I wasn't going to put up with your bullshit, bad faith tactics. You won't submit to my test of knowledge so I won't submit to yours. I of course understand what the president's role is and isn't when it comes to legislation, just as you (presumably) know the answer to my question, but I'm not going to play your game for the exact same reasons you won't play mine. Because one side doesn't just get to dictate all the terms of debate.
Still doesn't change the facts of the matter, which are that everything I said is correct.
Yes they let a procedural hurdle (the senate parliamentarian) stop them lmao.
When the republicans get stopped by the parliamentarian, they just replace the parliamentarian. When democrats get stopped by the parliamentarian, they cry and give up.
who stopped what?
Be specific. Show us you understand what actually happened.
What parliamentarian stopped which policy and why. Be specific and walk us through the details. No more buzzwords and catchphrases, Kronos.
Be specific please.
They are against abortion?
When they campaign, they say they will codify abortion rights.
After they are elected, they dont even try.
For them, it is better if abortion rights are not secured, because it is such a great issue to motivate voters.
After they are elected, they dont even try.
There was never any time after the court took away abortion rights in which Dems controlled both the presidency and both houses of congress. All legislation originates in the House which is GOP controlled, so how would it be possible for them to "try"?
The idea behind codifying abortion rights is that it prevents the supreme court from eliminating those rights.
That's why it was such a popular idea for decades. For example, Obama famously ran on codifying Roe. After he was elected, dems had a majority. If they would have codified Roe then we would still have that right today.
"Democratic differences on abortion threatened to derail Obama’s namesake health care law. With Republicans united in opposition, Democrats could not afford to lose a single senator, and Ben Nelson, an anti-abortion Democrat from Nebraska, was the final holdout. To win his support, party leaders included a version of an amendment that prohibits Affordable Care Act plans from covering abortion, which was originally offered by another anti-abortion Democratic representative, Bart Stupak of Michigan." -- Amanda Becker for The 19th News, "Why didn’t Congress codify abortion rights?"
Explain to us how and where the process of codifying abortion rights happens federally. Walk us through the process and explain where the Democrats failed.