She will most likely not be a great president, but could be a good one. If Biden wasn’t so poor on the Middle East, he would have been a great one, from a policy perspective.
Biden never was going to be a great president, lacking a a majority in both houses means you burn up too much political capital to get anything done that doesn’t already have broad bipartisan support. And with how divided politics is today compared to any point in history where we had a great president, there is no such thing as bipartisan today.
Yeah, passing the new deal in the McCarthy era was cake.
… The new deal was passed 10 years before the McCarthy era. FDR was dead before McCarthy even started his red scare.
And supported labor better.
And supported labor
better.
Nah, I’m voting Trump. Especially since Dick Chaney came out in support of her. If the war pigs support her, I’m voting against her, 100%
I am braindead
Ok got it
she could be a great president if she issues an arms embargo against Israel
So you’re saying you’re still voting for her because you’re not a literal Nazi, right? Right?
Ham sandwich. It’s right there
Too god damn true. That’s mainly why I voted for Harris on my main-in ballot. She’s not Trump, that’s the primary reason.
Yep. She’s not my ideal candidate, but she is better in every single way when compared to Trump.
Since it’s easier to break things than to maintain, fix, or create, the choice is obvious.
A ham sandwich can be eaten. Eating is good. That’s 1 pt ham sandwich, 0 gop. Ham sandwich does more for Americans than gop.
The rich can also be eaten.
I’m gonna need a bigger smoker.
“Objectively” is such a fun way to describe what will always be a divisive position of power. Was any one president considered objectively good?
Well, Al Gore was voted president, and he didn’t make any objectionable decisions while George Bush was living in his house and working in his office.
George S. Washington
Grant’s administration was deeply imperfect - corruption ran deep - but he eradicated the first KKK. I feel like that’s an objective good, and anyone who disagrees isn’t worth listening to.
Does doing one good thing translate to being “an objectively good president” though? Broken clock and all that.
A president who performed an objective good, if you like
FDR because one can be wrong about objective things
I mean, that’s a good looking sandwich
You and I have very different ideas of what a good sandwich looks like. I’d still vote for it though.
maybe that’s mortadella that’s cut way too thick? I dunno. I’m with you. It looks more like turkey than ham to me. Not my sammich.
Don’t worry, voters will definitely hand both houses to the Republicans in 2026 if she’s elected and they’ll take their orders directly from Trump.
Because that’s what always happens.
I just hope Trump is dead by 2026.
There could always be some other MAGA asshole to fill the void, but the dissolution of Trump’s cult of personality would be a crippling blow.
There’s always an asshole. Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump. And our electoral system and goldfish-memory population will continually put them into power.
Newt, Mitch and the others only have their local GOP cult, they don’t have the national cult that the orange turd does.
Okay, Rush, Hannity, and Alex Jones & The Turds.
There will always be an asshole. That’s the entire reason we even have government in the first place.
That’s not what happened in 2022, at least not quite. Don’t underestimate Trump’s ability to insert himself and mess up whatever easy wins the GOP would otherwise have.
Do people really put the veggies underneath the cheese and the meat? Have I been sandwiching wrong my whole life?
Same with a burger. Your lettuce should be dry (pat it with a paper towel if you must) and put it as the bottom layer. This creates a moisture barrier that stops your bread/bun from turning into a soggy mess.
On a sandwich, the cheese should be on the other side for the same reason. Keep all the wet stuff from turning your bread into slop.
Maybe JD Vance turned the camera upside down.
It’s understandable - how else can he get the media to focus on this sandwich problem?
They’re eating the hoagies! They’re eating the patty melts! THEY’RE EATING THE SANDWICHES IN SPRINGFIELD!
The video’s reversed, dummy…
Absent of any anti-Trump arguments, I’d like to hear the case for Kamala being a truly great President. A few policy positions she, in particular, is notable for?
Start with what makes a good president? Obviously there’s the issues and all that which people focus on, but that’s subject to debate. Objectively, some qualities are definitely good, like being good at both urgent and non-urgent decision making, good at managing/organizing/handling chaos, capable of outsmarting adversaries, being a unifying force rather than a divisive one. Just to name a few. So let’s look at those:
- Decision-making: She’s relatively young compared to recent presidents, definitely a bit more in touch with modern reality and less tied to the old ways of doing politics. She’s faced a tough choice with her running mate, and while Walz has been criticized by some, given the short timeframe it’s clear she at least didn’t fuck it up. Her debate prep clearly succeeded, and she’s avoided any scandals despite clearly Republicans trying very hard to find them. All of these show a record of decent to good decisions.
- Managing, etc Obviously her campaign started in the midst of chaos, and there were a lot of fears regarding that transition. And it went probably better than anyone expected, with everyone quickly gaining confidence in her.
- Outsmarting adversaries She did a better job at this in the debate than any candidate in my memory.
- Unifying force Again I’ll refer to her getting everyone behind her after Biden dropped, while also keeping Biden’s support. Don’t underestimate how unlikely that seemed before it happened.
I’ll avoid comparing Trump who is obviously severely deficient in all of these respects. But I could go further and say she obviously compares favorably to Biden too, and compared to Obama, I’d give her an edge on outsmarting adversaries and managing, and Obama probably gets the edge on the other 2. But we’ll see.
There are policy details on her website: https://kamalaharris.com/issues/
But it’s pretty simple overall. She’s not a maverick, what’s on offer is simply the Dem agenda with a younger change of guard. The Dems believe in running the economy from the middle class, because investing in people is how we achieve long-term economic success and improve quality of life. So all her policies are going to be the same they would have been for Obama or Biden: improve social protections, improve access to education, improve access to housing, lower costs of living, make the corporations and wealthy pay their fair shares, pull away from needless wars, strengthen international relationships and create trade agreements of mutual benefit.
She can talk policy until she’s blue in the face, but we all should already know exactly what we are getting when we vote for a Democrat. The last time this country had a balanced budget it was Democrat. When we raise the minimum wage, it’s a Democrat. When we try to make education more affordable or help those with student debt, it’s a Democrat. When we strengthen unions and increase taxes on corporations, it’s a Democrat. When we pull out of wars, when we increase social services, when we increase protections for minorities, when we secure our clean water and block chemicals and pesticides in our food and household products, when we raise fuel efficiency standards and make corporations pay for pollution, it’s a Democrat.
It baffles me that we have to talk about this stuff like it’s new. It’s simple and it has been for years:
You want a party that runs the economy like adults, and works for the middle class and the well-being of the people: Democrats.
You want a party that works for the rich and corporations, blows up the budgets recklessly, and thinks the low and middle classes are a resource to be used and drained: Republicans.
While we are on this spicy topic today, someone please remind me, what did Jill Stein do?
The last time this country had a balanced budget it was Democrat.
Not even balanced - Clinton produced a surplus during his last couple of years in office. Had we continued on that path, we would now be debt-free as a nation, instead of in debt to the tune of $35 fucking trillion (equivalent to a full seven years of tax revenues).
what’s on offer is simply the Dem agenda with a younger change of guard
See, that’s what I’m not thrilled about.
You want a party that works for the rich and corporations, blows up the budgets recklessly, and thinks the low and middle classes are a resource to be used and drained: Republicans.
While we are on this spicy topic today, someone please remind me, what did Jill Stein do?
You’re only arguing the “I’d vote for a ham sandwich to keep the GOP from power” side. You don’t need to argue that part, we all know this, and it isn’t what the person you’re replying to was asking.
No one even said anything about Jill Stein here, bringing her up now feels like a very bad faith argument.
Amazing.
90% of my comment was to explicitly say what Democrats do. And you managed to single out the 10% that wasn’t about Democrats.
Why stop there? Throw in some “both sides” stuff too.
Yep. I agree with you 100% and is why I’ve tried to stop engaging regarding politics on this site. It just seems like 99% of the posters are posting in bad faith, or insane levels of naivety. Perfection the enemy of good personified.
Nah, it’s just a few legitimately bad actors and a few naive folks. Most people here are pretty reasonable but it’s hard to remember the guy dressed normally that walked past you three days ago while you will always remember the dude in the thong onesie holding a sign saying the great old ones are coming back any day to battle the frost giants.
I didn’t feel the need to go over the DNC point-by-point. I said the Dem agenda is what I’m not thrilled about.
Do I have to go point-by-point before I can ask why you felt the need to bring up the Republicans and even Jill Stein at all when it’s clear that wasn’t the question being asked? We all know they’re bad, but the fact that it seems like the only way to talk about the DNC is to keep reminding us that they’re not the other guys, you were explicitly asked to actually say what’s good about Kamala without doing that.
90% of my comment was to explicitly say what Democrats do
To which their response was “yeah, that’s not exciting, we’ve seen it before”, they addressed it. You didn’t need to write out all of those words when you’d already summed it up well with “basic democrat”
Being a Democrat does not make you an inherently great president, it makes you the not-shit option
So, when asked for an argument that’s void of any anti-trump points you basically said “they’re Democrats. Plus they’re not trump!”, which isn’t an answer and includes the thing they said not to
Why stop there? Throw in some “both sides” stuff too.
Lol, “any criticism of the Democrats is right wing infiltration” is some shit taking for sure
She used to be a prosecutor. That means she can see things from both sides and look at things objectively and not make rash decisions. It’s a good quality for a president.
I mean My Only Hope from her being a prosecutor is that she actually prosecutes crimes, I’m not very hopeful of that especially with her seemingly not wanting to bring back Lena Khan, but I can dream. However normally being a prosecutor would disqualify you for me, good people don’t become prosecutors.
We larping pigs now?
JFC… Is there anything liberal about the modern moderate democrats?
Disgusting statism and corporatism is all they seem to be about.
They got theirs, fuck everyone else.
No…that’s the Republican Party platform. The current Democratic Party is very much about make the government work for the people and do at least something to rein in the rich and corporations
do at least something to reign in the rich and corporations
I need whatever this guy is smoking
I mean there’s been a lot to help corporations and the rich I don’t agree with but the current administration has also given tons of resources to the IRS to claw back evaded taxes from the wealthy, made moves to bust monopolies and price-fixing practices, and while they aren’t directly responsible there has been a historic expansion of unions not seen in my lifetime
He’s smoking you lol
I mean Kamala will be a horrible president. It’s not possible to be a good president when it is a job to uphold the American empire and its power. Kamala will be horrible though with her support for the ongoing Gaza genocide, terrible and half arse healthcare and environmental plans when we can afford to be half arse on neither, she is also trying to outflank Trump to the right on immigration and police violence.
A cop won’t be a good president for freedom, not a shock to anyone who doesn’t idolize a political party.
Thank you for being honest and not trying to pretend you care about Palestinians.
deleted by creator
Is there a candidate that would help protect the Palestinians? Like a legitimate one that has even a remote possibility of winning? Nah? OK I’ll vote for the other things I care about then since that one is out of reach.
I think Kamala will be an objectively great president
That means, not just in comparison to Trump, but actually good in general. The moment you say or endorse that statement, talking about Trump or whether there’s a viable alternative is 100% whataboutism.
I respect you less than OP because you’re now pretending like you care about Palestinians, and it’s just because there’s no alternative that you support Harris. I prefer it when y’all take the mask off, because it’s pointless to argue against something the other side is only pretending to believe or value.
Did you have a seizure or something?
No, why do you ask?
Because your comment is so disconnected from reality that it’s the only thing that makes sense to me. Genuinely concerned for you.
The absolute liberal irony in this is fucking hilarious.
You people are just genuinely lost in hyperreality, aren’t you?
p.s. try sneering harder, you’re totally winning over the working class.
“If I act like a smug asshole, people will want to vote who I like!”
It doesn’t work for Musk, it won’t work for weirdos online who think bad polices are okay when it’s blue.
In what way is anything I said disconnected from reality? What are you confused about?
The fact that you’re asking just leaves me more concerned for you.
And that’s cool…
As long as when people want her to align more closely with the Dem voting base, you don’t yell at them for questioning the only option and imply they’re trying to help trump.
That bullshit only depresses Dem turnout and actually helps trump.
It’s just completely nonsensical to hear all the “moderates” claim they’d vote for anyone not trump, then go feral when someone points out banning fracking would hand the Dems Pennsylvania which trump needs to win the election.
There are multiple issues like that where if Kamala moved to the left she’d lock this election down.
If you truly only care about beating trump, your time online would be more productive trying to pull the party left than trying to pull tens of millions of voters to the right…
With the obvious benefit of getting those popular policies on top of beating trump.
If it’s not been posted already…
https://theintercept.com/2024/09/10/polls-arms-embargo-israel-weapons-gaza/
Banning sales of arms to Israel would not only attract a huge proportion of otherwise reluctant leftists, but might even steal votes from Trump as a small but not insignificant number of voters have been fooled by his ‘started no wars’ con. The idea that doing so would lose some key demographic is clearly not supported by the data.
But the Democratic strategists are not idiots. They must know this. So one of two things is the case; the polling is wrong, or the Democrats have absolutely no desire to move leftward on this and are willing to risk a Trump win to hold out on their position.
We can rule out the first because if the Democrats had better poll data they’d share it. Nothing to lose by doing so.
So we’re left with the second.
Odd then that the online vitriol is delivered not to the Democrats for cynically risking a Trump victory, but to leftists for being opposed to genocide.
The idea that doing so would lose some key demographic is clearly not supported by the data.
They wouldn’t lose significant voters, theyd lose a bunch of donations…
It doesn’t cost a billion plus to beat donald trump, but the more money there is, the bigger everyone’s slice is and the bigger the bonuses for personally bringing more money is.
The DNC isn’t being run to get Dems in office, it’s a fucking grift where sometimes we do get a Dem in office.
Just never one who’s political policy matches Dem voters.
Look at current DNC leadership, it’s not people that know how to win elections, it’s just whoever can bring in the most donations.
The result is ridiculously expensive and incompetent campaigns. The solution is clearing house at the DNC.
It doesn’t cost a billion plus to beat donald trump,
…
The DNC isn’t being run to get Dems in office, it’s a fucking grift where sometimes we do get a Dem in office.
True. And a cushy consulting job, or a few thousand in bonuses seems like an understandable inventive, if a misanthropic one.
But for those who do the footwork supporting such a system, I just cannot see why. What have the Democrats done to deserve such blind obedience? Is being not-Trump just that impressive these days?
Is being not-Trump just that impressive these days?
Today? Yes. Come inauguration day? Absolutely fucking not. If Kamala wins I’ll talk shit, write letters, donate to causes, protest, and cause trouble from the first day she’s in office until the end of primary season 4 years from now. Then I’m back on the train.
Unless we can get rid of FPTP. Then I’m talking shit every day all fucking day long while happily voting for a candidate who agrees with me most instead of the one I disagree with the least.
If Kamala wins I’ll talk shit, write letters, donate to causes, protest, and cause trouble from the first day she’s in office until the end of primary season 4 years from now
Why?
Most people in America want to end sales of arms to Israel, don’t want to be complicit in genocide.
And Harris is abusing her power by ignoring that to satisfy a few wealthy donors by threatening you all with Trump if you don’t let her do what she wants.
The only way to stop abuse of power is to stand up to it. If you let her (or her replacements) just frighten you into submission with bogeymen you might as well give up any hope of progress.
Edit: this started out as a single word question. The diatribe came after my reply.
It’s a reasonable question. Because I don’t think she’ll go far enough. And if she goes further than I think she will, I’ll push her to go further left than that. I’m not nearly as far left as a lot of folks on Lemmy. I probably fall into Social Democrat on a good day. But that puts me further left than most US politics and pretty much all the politics in my home state.
I’m a pragmatist when it comes to elections. She’s good enough to where I don’t think she’ll sponsor hunting parties for LGBTQ+ folks but I don’t think she’ll be trying very fucking hard to get universal healthcare or working with states to try to get rid of FPTP.
Unless your question is why I won’t do it after primary season. That’s because we don’t fight in front of the kids. I’m going to support the furthest left feasible candidate because, again, pragmatic. I’ll shut my fucking mouth, back the least fascist, and start trying to affect change again the second I can without shitting on that candidate during election season. Plus I like to take a break between election day and inauguration day because it’s all so mentally exhausting and I’ll be drinking more than usual for the holidays.
Sorry, I thought you were here asking a reasonable question with my other reply. If I had known you were like this I wouldn’t have bothered. Is that why you replied with a single word then edited it instead of spewing your tripe initially?
If “Israel should finish the job” Trump tickles your butthole, just say so.
Sorry, I thought you were here asking a reasonable question with my other reply. If I had known you were like this I wouldn’t have bothered.
Yep. So when you thought I was going to play the part of the meek little student at their teacher’s knee you were happy to respond, but as soon as it was clear I might actually disagree… Instantly I must be a Trump supporter, because literally the only option you can think of that isn’t agreeing with you entirely is ‘Trump’.
It’s pathetic.
This is absolutely correct. I’m sure the 40% of voters who want to keep sending weapons to Israel aren’t even Harris voters. So clearly the Democratic party is only doing it for the love of genocide and it seems obvious that after they finish the genocide in Gaza and Lebanon they’ll shift their focus to genocide of Palestinians and other arabs living in America. This is completely unacceptable to me which is why I voted for Trump.
I thought about voting for a third party but I live in a swing state and want to minimize the chances of Koncentration Kamp Kamala from getting elected so I directly supported Trump rather than indirectly.
A lot of my relatives died in concentration camps. Why the hell are you trivializing them?
Sooooo… because you can’t be bothered to understand how things work. You voted for someone that suggests that Israel “finish the job.”
That sure showed those pesky libs!
You’re about as bad-faith as it gets. You’re MAGA, through and through. Drop the act that it has anything to do with genocide.
“Koncentration Kamp Kamala”
Listen to yourself. You’re beyond delusional. Seek help.
I live in a swing state and want to minimize the chances of Koncentration Kamp Kamala from getting elected so I directly supported Trump rather than indirectly.
I could no more vote Trump ‘tactically’ than I could Harris. I think one ought vote according to one’s concience. The whole notion of tactical voting makes a mockery of democracy, if no one could be persuaded to vote tactically there’d be significantly less ‘electioneering’. More like the Nordic model, with way more parties catering to a broader range of political views.
You only have to look at the current Democrat campaign, they barely need a policy at all, they’re running almost entirely on being not-Trump.
Hamala
Doubtful on part 1. The senate seems to be flipping red this time. No senate, no new laws. Kamala won’t be able to do shit without the Democrats passing legislation.
I don’t know why you’re being down voted. The Financial Times laid out the same dire situation yesterday. The New York Times said it two days ago. The best she can do in the first term is play defense and home the ground game gets good. But it’s a hard position to be in because people are looking to either winners change. Without legislation, I don’t know how she can do that.
And the protest vote contingent will blame her for it entirely
What’s the protest vote contingent? The third party ppl?
Yup, a frequent refrain of there’s is that the dema should be more effective since they’ve “been on power” multiple times over the last 50 years, during which a grand total of four of those and change featured a majority that could have actually done anything, and which alao had several members that would actively sabotage that majority doing anything.
