More than a dozen former Ronald Reagan staff members have joined dozens of other Republican figures endorsing the Democratic nominee and vice-president, Kamala Harris, saying their support was “less about supporting the Democratic party and more about our resounding support for democracy”.
They’re alienating people who hate Reagan.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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!”
The Guardian is a newspaper. They are just covering the news.
Other outlets are covering this also, including conservative ones.
You are way too eager to find a conspiracy here… I promise you, this British newspaper isn’t run by and for American Democrats.
no one is saying that is, but what queermunist is doing that you are failing to do is annilise the bias of the source, and consider the reasons for why they wrote something and the way they wrote it … this is basic media literacy
There’s no conspiracy? This is just liberals telling other liberals about the “good news”
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.
No one said that. maybe they should have been crtitical of her not disavoying it
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
He’s spent more time in private with Putin, sometimes refusing recording, more than any other President.
I doubt he’s planning on putting wrinkles in ol’ Vladimir’s panties.
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 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
And Trump has already proven to support Israel’s eradication of Palestinians and expansion into Gaza and the West Bank. Israel is not the point of comparison between them, although Trump is worse for Palestinians.
More money in the hands of the lower and middle classes stimulates the economy and drives stock prices. The middle class is considered the most wasteful class. That consumption drives consumerism, which increases stock value.
Trump is the same as Harris with respect to genocide. He can’t just buy bombs on his personal card and ship them via DHL, this is a bipartisan effort because the basis is economic, not moral.
No idea why you’re bringing this up.
Have you compared Biden and Trump’s tax proposals? They’re extremely different. Stabilizing the lower and middle classes will result in more consumerism, which in turn helps stock prices. Middle-class conservative stockholders or business owners would benefit from Biden’s tax proposal. It’s the $400k+ earners that get hit the hardest.
Again, no idea why you’re bringing it up in any capacity. I know what you’re talking about, not why it’s relevant. For starters, “lower class” and “middle class” don’t mean anything, they are entirely arbitrary.
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.
The people who are saying this is a deal breaker weren’t going to vote for Harris anyway.
Trump is a threat to democracy, stands in direct opposition to the rule of law, embraces authoritarianism, undermines national security, alienates allies while emboldening enemies and rivals, enables nutcases and violent extremists, has called for the constitution to be thrown out, has stated he intends to use the government to persecute his political rivals, has declared that members of his own administration should be executed for being more loyal to the country than to him, and managed to get the Supreme Court to declare the president to be above the law. And that’s barely scratching the surface.
Even for conservatives, that list sounds very bad. Bad enough to outweigh major policy disagreements. It really shouldn’t be that hard to understand why some of them might be willing to endorse the only viable alternative.
I mean odd that you KNOW none of these people where going to vote for Harris but these endorsments will get people to vote for Harris from the trump camp. I mean I would argue that there are people who remember past political actions and do not want to suport someone also suported by ghools, and this was either the last straw, or enough that they felt there was some alterer motive here.
Second, have you seen any trump suporter, or someone thinking about suporting trump they are unlikely to be pulled away.
third, threat to democracy? I mean I hate to break it to you but at best the US is an Oligopoly, and even then I would argue the dems are just a few steps behind. As for the the SCOTUS, what is stopping biden from using the above the law power… or Haris, why is this only a concern when trump might use it
fourth, you have to relise that DICK CHENEY endorsing your canidate is not going to be a good look, especialy reveling in it. the better political move would be to use his endorsement to open up a conversation about all the evil he did, and the farther promotion of the Unitary Executive (Really started by Reagon and his staffers… who also endorsed harris) leading us into the mess we are in today, and to shove that endorsement where the sun dont shine
America doesn’t have democracy in the first place.
Bush/Cheney STOLE the 2000 election. That was the biggest threat to democracy in my lifetime and now the Dems are welcoming them into the fold.
The Harris campaign has not extended an invitation to the Bush administration to come back and take over the White House if she wins. Nor is there some great wave of enthusiasm on the right for Harris, it’s just them endorsing the only viable alternative to Trump.
And if Bush v Gore was the biggest threat to democracy in your lifetime, you must have been dead for the last four years. Florida in 2000 was a clusterfuck whose outcome was always going to be determined by how the votes were counted because the margin between the candidates was less then the number of disputed ballots. But after it was over, the country went back to business as usual.
Trump spread lies about the election being stolen, plotted a blatant coup attempt, incited a riot that attempted to overthrow the election by force, and after failing to hold onto power. But unlike in 2000, this didn’t stop with one election, Trump and pals have continued to push conspiracy theories and coordinate at the local level to disrupt the entire democratic process. You’ve got armed nut jobs threatening poll workers, and local election rules being written specifically to maximize the disruption they can cause to elections. It’s now the norm for Trump supporters to see elections as inherently invalid if their side loses, with a significant number of those people being willing to support illegal or violent actions if it will give them the win they want. Even if Trump loses, the damage he’s inflicted to American democracy will likely last for decades.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot
If the law had been followed Florida in 2000 would’ve done to gore.
Things went back to “business as usual” because the people who stole the election WON and successfully got control of the country, and what they did with that power was start 2 wars and murder a million+ people in the middle east and legitimize torture. That is worse than anything trump has done.
The damage that reagan/bush/cheney did to this country and to the world is incalculable. The dems disagree with me on this and that’s why I’m not a dem and I can’t support the dems
I’m not hear to defend Bush v Gore, the Bush administration, Republicans, Democrats, or anything else.
Fuck it, ok, fine, Bush v Gore was worse. So what? Unless you have a time machine, there isn’t anything we can do about that. But Trump poses a threat right now, one which will get much worse if he manages to get back into power. That can still be prevented. If the price that comes at is the knowledge that a few loathsome individuals agreed with millions of people like me on this one narrow choice, that’s a small price to pay.
We could expect Harris to denoucne the endorsements and tell them to F-off instead of reveling in the ensorsements, that would be a start
https://lemmy.ml/post/20396714/13736665
The long term effects of voting “lesser of 2 evils” pushes everyone to the right.
I’m not willing to get pushed anymore, if you are then just accept that you’re center-right or far-right at this point. I’m not, I’m a leftist and I’m going to stay a leftist
The long term effects of authoritarians consolidating their power and eliminating the last remnants of democracy and the rule of law is that it no longer matters if any of us are left or right. I’ll take having a system that can still be changed over being trapped in under dictatorial rule but taking comfort in the fact that I’ve remained ideologically pure.
And no, choosing the best viable candidate doesn’t just lead inevitably to a shift to the right. If that were the case, we wouldn’t be talking about people on the right endorsing someone to their left. The fact that Democrats have chosen electable candidates when Republicans chose Trump loyalists and MAGA nutcases is the main reason why Republicans have underperformed since 2018, and why they keep sabotaging their own efforts fighting with their own party members. Their most recent victories are largely due to courts they packed with right wing judges, something that will only get worse if they win, but which will be gradually undone if they lose.
But this is an argument that’s always raging on this site. That particular dead horse has been reduced to a fine paste. I doubt anyone’s going to be swayed at this point.
What are they going to do about it?
Please say campaign for electoral reform in their respective states.
deleted by creator