top 96 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 69 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Where exactly is she shaken?

I only see her standing up for a splitsecond and then a smirk at the end.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I know this is very very old news / old man yells at clouds but,

    Couldn't you just slap "visibly shaken" onto fucking anything? Headlines suck

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • No doubt. Every other day there's something claiming that dtRump has gone "off the rails" or is "having a meltdown". Or Stephen Miller. Or Musk.

    Show proof, clickbait-whoring pimps.

    This video showed no proof. Pretty much the opposite of what was stated in the headline.

    Protestor interrupts Kamala pimping her book with accusations of right wing genocide & responsibility for getting Trump in office, she replies with a smirk

    Would that be a more accurate header?

    I think so.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    That smirk makes me unreasonably angry. That protester was 100% correct, and there's zero self-reflection. She's out there flogging her books when she should be mounting an opposition.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I think I just expect shaken in a non-angry way. And maybe more than 5 frames.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 134 points 1 year ago (29 children)

    It's crazy to think this all could have been avoided if Biden just kept his word and let us have an actual primary where Kamala predicably would have lost early on.

    Instead we got a half assed bait and switch for the worst polling candidate possible. I swear she was picked because she was the cheapest corpo money could buy.

    The DNC needs to be dissolved because they keep picking loser corporate stooges that nobody likes in the belief that they can just AstroTurf and gaslight their way to popularity.

  • source
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    And she still probably have won if she'd stuck with the campaign she was running at the start, rather than ditching it to pivot right

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    What, Liz Cheney wasn't good enough for you?? 🙃 Seriously, that's when i knew we were sunk. What a fucking disaster

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    She also got the Clintons to campaign for her; HRC went down to Florida and Bill went to Michigan, where he defended Israel to Muslim and Arab-American voters that Harris was ostensibly trying to win over.

    lol

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Would love to kick the DNC to the curb but at the beginning of this year everyone top to bottom was replaced. It is malleable and we need to change it to finally be progressive and actual leftist party for the people.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Everyone seems to conveniently forget the fact that the only one that was legally entitled to any of the money raised for Biden’s campaign, over like 3 years of fundraising, was Kamala because she was on the ticket.

    Restarting the fundraising process from scratch, after even just a 14-21 day primary process that would somehow also be built out of nowhere, would have meant whoever secured any nomination would have easily been outspent by a mile. They would have had no funds to even campaign on. It probably would have locked all the money that was already donated up too, considering that it would take quite some time to refund all of that money; figure out who was owed what exactly based on what hadnt been spent yet, etc…

    Like what the fuck else did anyone expect to reasonably happen? It was stupid for Biden to ever say they could even have had a primary. The real promise he should have stuck to was when he claimed he would only be a one term president years beforehand

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    I don't really recall all the rules, but you're right that she was the only one entitled to it legally. However, I'm pretty sure other pacs can run ads for other candidates. For example, you'll sometimes see democrat or republican ads for spoiler candidates. There's surely still a way it could be used to benefit whoever the democratic candidate was. IANAL though.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    She was the cheapest option. Literally look at the other person talking about how they were the only candidate that could use Bidens money so as to immediately have the millions already invested by big pockets and a candidate they could know they could pay for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (18 children)

    If Biden died rather than step aside who would have been the candidate? It would be Harris as that is who was selected by the states that ran democratic primaries at that point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago* (17 children)

    Harris is deeply unpopular with anyone who isn't a rabid neolib and was solely picked by the neolib establishment (read fucking dinosaurs addicted insider trading) for her willingness to be a corporate stooge.

    If she was half as wonderful as the online astroturfing suggested she wouldn't have had an abysmal turnout and wouldn't have lost the election along with every primary along the way.

    I knew she was cooked the moment she announced her VP and he got 1,000x the enthusiasm and coverage that she did.

    We needed an actual democratic socialist to excite people, not another fucking Israeli funded Republican-lite campaigning on a desperate gamble to gaslight people into thinking she isn't just another dogshit neolib.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Kamala had to be carried as VP, she had absolutely no business being the nomination.

    Shit, the only reason she was made VP was because of the identity politics of having yet another ancient white guy in office.

    Sorry I double responded, I meant to reply to another commenter and left it here by accident.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Although she definitely more left leaning than Biden.

    She ran to biden's right. biden never promised to put a republican on his cabinet. He never campaigned with cheneys.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    All in all, Harris played the gamble too safe and was trying desperately not to alienate anyone.

    She was perfectly willing to alienate the anti-genocide left.

    But she ended up not sounding like she was going to improve anything.

    She ended up sounding like what she was. A pro-genocide centrist.

    I firmly believe she would have helped pass any progressive legislation that came across her desk, but to win she needed to be pushing the country more left on policy.

    I firmly believe that she would have continued the biden betrayal of the left and the unconditional support for genocide, only with a republican on her cabinet.

    People we would normally write-off as pulled too far right actually are juts looking for leader with a message that gives them hope.

    Whatever gives you justification for moving even further to the right. Genocide support wasn't far enough rightward for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    None of this answered the question I asked though.

    Are you educated in the American political system at all? Im asking this because I don’t know you and a lot of the “they never held a primary” folks are actually not well educated on elections and how they work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    She would have lost, even by the DNC's own crappy poll metrics which showed several candidates that were much more popular, like Newsom who could have easily fulfilled his role as a shill and a well received candidate instead of just an obvious shill.

    DNC running around with "too late for a primary" and "can't adjust voter law" is moot when you consider that almost all of them have a catch all cause for holding primary elections in circumstance, and the fact that they aren't even tied to the Federal election or even State control if the DNC wishes.

    That all being said, Harris would have been the de facto candidate as the incumbent if Biden died, but if the DNC wanted to, they could easily chose not to run her as the candidate and hold a primary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Your question isn't relevant to what actually happened because it's an entirely different hypothetical situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    No, it’s directly relevant as it is the next closest situation as to what happened. Biden stepped down because ge could not fulfill the role due to his health.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    It's literally not. That's not what happened and has nothing to do with me talking about how Biden should have let a primary happen. You just brought this up as if it was relevant when it's really not

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Biden stepped aside due to health concerns after a disastrous debate. These concerns have since been justified as Biden has cancer.

    There was a primary and Biden/Harris won it. They ran unopposed for most of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Okay, you do realize that Biden should have stepped down long before the debates ever even occurred.

    Again I reiterate, you're talking about something completely different than what I'm talking about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    No because there was no reason we knew of at the time for him to step down.

    You stated there was no primary. I pointed out there was and then asked what the difference between Biden stepping down after the primaries had been run was any different thwn if he had died.

    If you have any precedent to point to that shows they had to or even were legally permitted to run a new primary I would be interested in seeing it as Im unaware of any.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    "there was no reason we knew of at the time for him to step down."

    That's factually incorrect, Biden ran on the promise of being a one term president there was every expectation that he would step down.

    You're just trying to justify bringing up random shit at this point, I'm kinda done with talking in circles with you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I have literally been sticking to the same point the whole time and it is you who keeps trying to bring up new points.

    The fact us Biden stepped down. Multiple states had run primaries and selected Biden/Harris. There is no legal way to invalidate those elections that I am aware of.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I always thought AIPAC bribes were kinda cheap, but then when you compare it to other lobbying groups and even bribes for spies, that's just an excellent deal on Israel's part.

    They can literally buy almost any politician, and they'll defend Israel to the death even after the stakes have dropped to zero. She's not running for 2028, has practically nothing to lose except money, but still defends probably one of the worst Democratic campaigns for decades.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Misread it as "Hideo Kojima" at first and was confused.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 143 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (17 children)

    You unconditionally support a genocide for just two years and suddenly you're a "war criminal." So much for the tolerant left.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    How much power do you think VPOTUS has over Israeli policy?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 59 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    She had complete control over her own campaign platform, where she chose to be in lockstep with Biden.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    This. It's up to the politician to build a platform that gets as many votes as possible. The DNC and Harris choose to ignore their base, shout down the Muslim vote, and took more money from special interests groups than Republicans.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (11 children)

    Enough to have a backbone? To stand on morality? No one made her back genicide. Like the fuck we talking about?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Nothing you said answers the question. What specific actions do you think Harris can take as VP to stop what POTUS is intending to do?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    It doesn't matter. Even more so the less power she had to change the situation. All she had to do while vp was say was I don't support, agreed with, nor play a part in the genicide happening in Palestine. She could have said during the campaign that she would stop all weapons going to Isreal and that she'd hand over anyone that helped kill innocent people. She has nothing to lose. Her silence proved she wasn't ready to be president. If she can't stand up to special interest groups with no real skin in the game, do you think she'll magically gain morality once in power? And additionally, what a dumb political move that is ultimately! Not a single vote was gained by backing Isreal, because Republicans were going to back them anyways. Pro genicide people aren't going to vote Democrat, full stop. She was more afraid of losing money rather than the election.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (9 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    OK, so you live here. Do you need me to provide evidence for the widespread support for Israel among the voting population?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Uh? what? Among progressives. Among Dem voters? Among Muslims? Among the people the dems needed their votes? How many polls? Lol the support wasn't enough to win her an election. So Ya.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Among Americans in general. If she opposed Israel she would have lost outright. There likely will not be an anti-Israel candidate in the Oval Office any time soon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Among Americans in general.

    Americans in general includes every last republican who would never vote for her. Centrist democrats need to quit trying to get the fascist vote just because they deeply admire all fascists.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    being anti genicide doesn't make you anti Israel. Simply not giving them the tools to do harm wouldn't even be enough. We need to actively protect both sides from each other, and return to original boundaries. That's not anti Israel. That's pro human.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    And I'm sorry but this just hit me.

    she would have lost outright.

    She would have lost outright...

    She. Would. Have. Lost. Outright.

    Compared to... (check notes) Lossing!?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    An outright loss means she would never have a chance of winning. Taking the much less popular view would not make it more likely for her to win. Did you really need that clarified for you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Outright

    So you're saying you know exactly how greater her loss would have been if she didn't stand up for human rights? If you know that since outright loss means, never had a chance. So since she didn't outright loss what did she need to do to get more votes from the right or left?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 43 points 1 year ago*

    "We have four years of Trump!"

    I guess it's good to see that someone is still an optimist.

  • source
  • [–] 69 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    The VP has basically no power other than try to persuade the POTUS behind the scenes, which from what I've read, she did to some degree, but to no effect.

    Where she blew it was when she said she wouldn't do anything different than Biden. That was the end for her campaign. (regardless of whether anyone thinks it should have been that way or not, IMO that was the death blow)

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    She presided over the US senate and cannot be dismissed by the president, how did she have "basically no power"???

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Agreed...Also, if she had no power and is not responsible for anything Bidens government did, how is she at all capable of doing the job of the president? her qualifications were that she was a fly on the wall and observed others, but didnt participate in any meaningful way, huh. She simultaneously blameless and had no power, but also the most experienced, most qualified to do the job and the only one the DNC could possibly put up against trump. What a fuckin joke of a party.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    💯 so sick of hearing about small beans uwu bomber harris

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Obviously, as I said, I'm talking about power to decide policy. The VP (as it has been for all of them, not just her) can advise, try to persuade, but it's the POTUS who makes the final decisions.

    The VP can't override the POTUS on anything. That's just a fact.

    There are lots of replies conflating that fact with the positions she took during her campaign. She was obviously totally responsible for positions she took in the campaign. I'm not sure Trump wouldn't have still won no matter what positions she took, but we'll never know. Point is, she took the positions she did, and she lost.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    The VP has basically no power other than try to persuade the POTUS behind the scenes, which from what I’ve read, she did to some degree, but to no effect.

    The POTUS didn't dictate her positions during the campaign. Stop making excuses just because she supported genocide for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Where she blew it was when she said she wouldn't do anything different than Biden. That was the end for her campaign.

    iirc her campaign said “the Biden people” demanded she say that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    She wasn't required to listen to the biden people. The biden people hid his mental decline until it was too late. Their political instincts are runny dogshit just like their entire wing of the party.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    One error. It wont be "four years of trump", because either he dies earlier or he lives long enough to start his third term.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    because either he dies earlier...

    There is not one single thing about this world that makes me think we're lucky enough for that. I'm fully convinced we're heading for Trump 20XX... :/

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Or the end of the free democratic election system in the US.

    From now on, every "election" will be a shit show that will push through idiot leaders that the people don't want.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago

    i mean you lay down with dick cheney you get up with war crimes knowwhatimean?

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    28 comments in c/usa@lemmy.ml view that post