238
Former Ronald Reagan staffers endorse Kamala Harris for president
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
238 points (100.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
8316 readers
205 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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!"
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
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.
"disenfranchised conservatives" he says
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.
Russia has placed approximately 20,000 Ukrainian children up for adoption to be raised as Russians, rather than returning them to their families after the invasion. It’s genocide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War
They were children abandoned in a war zone. Russia needs to do something about keeping them fed, housed, and clothed. If it didn't, then it would still be getting accused of genocide, though in that case with more reason! Furthermore, Russia clearly and demonstrably is cooperating with humanitarian organizations to reunite families, and many have been reunited already. The accusation is alarmist nonsense from the perpetual self-proclaimed ethnic victims to justify their fascist cult to literal perpetrators of the Holocaust.
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
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.
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.
Having read about Hitler's meeting with the military heads that line was bonechilling when she said it
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.
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.
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.
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.
What are they going to do about it?
Please say campaign for electoral reform in their respective states.