389
Lina Khan has probably been the best and most effective bureaucrat in my lifetime.
If she ends up replacing Lina Khan I'll lose all hope for this administration.
"recent calls from some allies ..."
Who? What allies? Could this be any more vague. The article gives no hints as to who these mysterious unnamed "allies" are and no evidence of anyone, donor or not, calling for her removal. Nor has Harris or anyone from her campaign so much as hinted of any plans or feelings of wanting to oust Khan. Other than Mark Cuban, all the tech bro/oligarch types are Trump allies, not Harris donors.
Sounds like just another piece trying to stoke rumors and stir up division.
Dems Rally to Save Lina Khan After Mark Cuban Puts Target on Her Back
https://newrepublic.com/post/186971/bernie-sanders-aoc-lina-khan-mark-cuban
Thanks for the additional info. I'd call this "anticipatory worry/outrage" as a parallel to how the oligarchs ceding to Trump is called "anticipatory obedience".
Just because Cuban supports her and may expect obedience in return, I seriously doubt Harris would do it, especially as she is running as a previous DA/AG who went after lenders and others to protect the consumer, and has campaigned on going after 'price gougers' and others who harm the middle class. For her to turn around and get rid of Khan would fly in the face of all that and wreck her credibility right off the bat. I can't see why she would consider doing that.
Having seen her progressive voting record I wouldn't have expected her to campaign as a "moderate" and go back on every progressive stance she ever held either. In short, I don't trust her to be consistent.
There's no way she'd have even a chance of winning if she hadn't campaigned that way.
I disagree, I think if she had campaigned as the most progressive Democrat in history that would have sparked a massive wave of new support, but it would have put her campaign up against a lot of wealthy and powerful people. She chose the easy path by cozying up to capital interests, and this strategy gets us nowhere. At best it staves off the worst of the growing fascist movement for a time, but at the same time moves the needle further to the right. I think it's shortsighted.
Wow, you have a very unrealistic understanding of where the American electorate is if you think running as "the most progressive Democrat in history" could get anywhere close to a majority, If someone could win that way, they'd certainly be trying it. Enjoy living in that bubble!
I believe a large portion of the electorate that vote Democrat are liberals who weren't fans of Biden but hated Trump, and intended to vote for Biden only to prevent Trump from winning. Kamala would not lose this contingency of voters even if they think Kamala is too progressive, but she would gain new voters who previously felt unrepresented. Only anti-Trump conservatives (a tiny but admittedly growing voting bloc) might jump ship.
Kamala chose to appeal to conservatives to steal votes from Trump and because it gets her more wealthy donors. It's possibly a winning strategy, but it is not the only one, and this one abandons the progressive voting bloc in favor of conservatives in a time where younger people are trending leftwards. This is a move that will have long-term consequences.
Her campaign had record-setting grass roots donations. She didn't need to kow-tow to wealthy donors to get enough funding--that is not the reason she's running as moderate. It's because she needs lots of votes from moderates and anti-trump republicans if she's going to win (and I do think she will). And by the way, "stealing votes"?! That's not stealing votes ffs, it's winning them. Even then the race is way too close.
I don't think you realize how many Democratic men can't, won't, or have a real hard time bringing themselves to vote for her because she's a woman. Lots of interviews on video showing them. It's so ironic to me that their main reason is they say "women are too emotional to be given the responsibility." When trump is the biggest ketchup-throwing cry baby ever to occupy the Oval office? I can't count how many times I've seen male senators and congressmen losing their shit while the women are the calm adults in the room. John Boehner, who was Speaker of the House, used to burst into tears on the House floor at the drop of a hat. But I digress.
Point is, not even Democrats are as liberal as you think they are. Only a faction of them are very liberal. (Out of curiosity, do you live in a blue state, and/or a large urban area? I wonder why you think there are that many truly liberal voters in the United States.)
I do agree with your first sentence that intense anti-trumpism is the reason we might finally get a woman president. Under normal circumstances it wouldn't happen. The US is just not like other democracies that way.
whatever, and you enjoy losing to a republican instead of a dem pretending to be one.
Americans want police reform, guns out of schools, a public option, judicial term limits, weapons to Israel to stop. Biden/Harris have been against all of these things and each of tnem cost her votes and voter enthusiasm. She could have won easily by embracing all of those. Tacking to the center has gotten very few republicans onboard, which is evidenced by the way she has been losing ground to trump steadily all month.
Campaigning this way has hurt her chances.
Do you not remember during the housing crisis?
Kamala Harris Has To Answer For Not Prosecuting Steve Mnuchin
Harris is too far to the center right and too donored up by elites to be progressive
People said the same thing about Biden and he's the one who appointed her.
Keep Khan and ditch Harris if it comes to that.
Shutup preemptively we'll make it work with the power of wanting it really bad
Elect Kahn
It's worth acknowledging that Kamala Harris' 12th largest campaign donor is Alphabet inc according to opensecrets.org
Progressives need to start finding a primary challenger for 2028 as soon as the polls close. Democrats will feel no leftward pressure otherwise and we'll be unprepared if we wait.
We were frankly cheated out of a primary this year. The last primary without a preordained winner was 2008. We cannot let this become any more normal than it already has.
When are you guys going to start calling yourselves Marxists/Communists, instead of hiding behind some newspeak label?
Because different folks define those differently.
A democratic socialist is very different from what most people think of when they hear communist.
Also I'm very left leaning but still like some aspects of capitalism. It just needs to be regulated or else monopolies eat everything and turn capitalism into feudalism.
In the US, there are still a lot from McCarthy-era sentiment and "Communist" is a pejorative within the general population. For instance, The Communist Control Act of 1954 is still on the books. Though it has issues as a law for being really vague, and hasn't been used seriously against leftist organizing on account of that, it nonetheless remains and has never been outright challenged to the Supreme Court of the United States. Either way, it had a chilling effect, and was pretty successful as part of the US's broader campaign to demonize communism and communist organizing.
Because of the way "Communism" and "Marxism" are used within US press and mainstream politics (especially by the Republican party), the average voter is conditioned to view them as bad words accordingly. The Democratic party, trying to court "moderate" voters within the political landscape here, all but refuses to touch those words with a 10-foot pole. It's not part of their brand (and not part of their policy either, not by any stretch of the imagination).
Progressivism in my view is an umbrella term, but still pretty linked with liberalism as a movement in the sense that it's mostly reformist, and acts a subgroup within the Democratic party. Most "Progressive" candidates for US political office are SocDems at most.
You can call it newspeak, but political movements arise under new/different names as the situation dictates, and often refer to different things. I'd argue that the point of newspeak within 1984 was actually to limit the evolution of language and restrict the development of new words/ideas, but I do get where you're coming from on account of "progressive" being considered more politically correct.
In before “But… but… whatabout Trump!”
Valid fucking questions though, he's worse in every meaningful way.
Of course he is.
He’s not the bar we need to rate everybody against, though. Being better than Trump is not enough. Let’s hold our government to reasonable standards.
That's the problem with the first-past-the-post voting system. It necessarily limits you to two choices, which frequently means you're merely picking the one you dislike least.
Abd the problem with the Democratic Party is that they take advantage of this.
Indeed.
When the fascists have been driven out of the public sphere, we're going to have to do something about that.
Democrats have no interest in driving the fascists from the public sphere. Without fascists, what would Democrats threaten us with every time we want better?
I have an interest in driving out the fascists from the public sphere. The best way to do that is to marginalize them as much as possible.
They control the Republican party, so the Republican party must end. And the best way to do that right now is to boost their most viable challenger.
That requires a bar to hold the democrats too, and right now that bar is dolled up in orange spray paint and lieing on the floor somewhere. The issue for the modern america is to resolve the spoiler effect. Without a third party there is no "voting in favor" of someone there is "voting against" someone else.
Frankly she's already gone. Harris had way too many billionaire Tech Bros donors who are worried about being regulated in any way for her to keep what has been the best part of the Biden Administration by far.
"Provoke a confirmation fight" that by itself makes me doubt she's "already gone". Maybe I'll be proven wrong though.
I don't see why you would need to provoke a confirmation fight if she doesn't nominate her in the first place. Which is what I'm sure is going to happen.
.... can you read? She's in place now. When her term runs out she will remain there until the next president nominates someone else. If they do, there will be a fight. Harris DOES NOT NEED TO NOMINATE HER FOR HER TO REMAIN IN PLACE. A confirmation fight happens only if she nominates someone to replace her. Harris doesn't need to nominates her, only not nominate someone else, and she will stay.
That's not exactly how it works. They don't stay in place. Come January they will all offer their resignation. That's how it works every new term. Harris of course can refuse to accept their resignations, and thus keep them in place. That's not unheard of. However there's no way she won't offer her resignation. That's why every new presidential term isn't started with the new president publicly firing everybody.
So if she turns in a resignation, and harris accepts it.... confirmation fight to find a replacement. If she doesn't accept it... no confirmation fight. And I don't think it's law that they turn in resignations. It's tradition. But that's not relevant, if harris wants rid of her either through firing, or accepting a resignation, it will be one more political fight
It's not law you're right it's just happened every single new presidential term in the history of our country. Not turning in their resignation would be such a breach of etiquette that even I think it would be justified to fire her at that point, that's how ingrained it is into the American system of government. But it won't be a fight. She will hand in a resignation and if Harris wants to accept it there's nothing anyone can do. There's no politics involved. It's just the executive.
Also the new nominee won't be a fight.
Looking it up Powell had to be pushed, and it was because he explicitly wanted to fire him. But ignore that. I'll give you 100 percent of that. I'm sure I'm technically wrong on the first paragraph. Infact I'm factually, technically, practically, spiritually, and obviously wrong.
"Also the new nominee won't be a fight" ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
I live in a world where, even having a majority, congress struggles to tie it's shoe laces. Every few years they break and shut the whole thing down. I don't think our realities match up. I don't think I can see your point, I don't think you can see mine. I don't think we have eyes that can look through the same glass.
No I'm saying that when you get rid of the the reformer who actually wants to go after malfeasance and fraud and replace her with somebody who's been approved by the billionaire donors, that person will not be a fight. What the Republicans are going to be against the person who just rubber stamps corporate malfeasance now? Congress rarely if ever shuts down over the pro corporate candidate. I think if you look at voting roles you'll see a lot of agreement when it comes to those kind of things.
Honestly, filibustering any nominee to Khan's right would finally get centrists to get rid of the fucking filibuster.
Neat theory-crafting but tbh idgaf who the current or next FTC Commissioner is as long as we avoid another Trump Admin. The worst case Harris outcomes don't scare me in the slightest.
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
389 points (100.0% liked)
News
31198 readers
2778 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS