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.
Were there a normal option available to vote for, she'd be worse. But she's better than Trump because Trump is just an acceleration of the ongoing trash show, while she is said show going on as planned - she's the candidate from the folks who planned it, as in "establishment" and "big financial interest".
I’m fine with how Afghanistan went. The military would have dragged it out for another 10 years. I’d much rather have a suboptimal quick withdrawal.
Nobody's arguing it was short-term better for the US. It abandoned to the wolves all of the people who worked with it in Afghanistan, though. And did that abruptly. Betrayals tend to have long-term consequences. Those who think they've seen a few betrayals go well without those, just have blind spots.
Yeah, actually. I agree that Biden handled the Afghanistan situation as well as anyone could. I guess I'd forgotten that with all of the things happening now.
Edit:
Did anyone die? A quick Google search shows yes. That's horrible. I've read several news sources on it but I'm wondering if you've found out the facts about that bombing? It's more digging than I have the time for right now.
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.
And supported labor better.
And supported labor
better.
Maybe she's just waiting for the election to be over before she disbands AIPAC and cuts ties with natenyahu?
And then personally arrest Trump and abolish the Electoral College while smoking a fat blunt.
The bar is so fucking low man...
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.
This is not obvious. There's appropriate time for everything, breaking things involved. Any meaningful action you take is destructive. Ouroboros is a thing.
Just right now picking Trump wouldn't break what should be broken. Just be a gift to a lot of mass murderers around the world for 4 more years and maybe more.
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.
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.
It didn't happen to FDR.
Yeah but he didn’t integrate the population racially so he got to keep power.
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.
"Voting for the Lesser Evil is still Evil"
Makes sense.
I throw out all my old uneaten perfectly edible still in the packaging food that hasn't expired yet instead of donating it to a local food bank because if I can't give the nutrition-insecure folks a gourmet dinner, why should I even fucking bother?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Except for embracing firearms, I dont think she has a few poicy positions for anyone to evaluate. She just adopts whatever Bidens policies were. She did the same thing when she was running for president before Biden tapped her for VP. Couldnt formulate a policy position to save her life.
"Objectively" is such a fun way to describe what will always be a divisive position of power. Was any one president considered objectively good?
FDR. Fight me about it.
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.
George S. Washington
The slaver?
george samuel washington was so good
FDR because one can be wrong about objective things
James Garfield.
As someone who genuinely doesn't understand American politics too much, wouldn't Trump be better for the Middle East? I live in Lebanon right now and most people that I talk to say that Trump would be far better than anyone else for the Middle East, considering what he did in his first term. They'll also back this up with "he's a business man, and war is bad for business", but I don't entirely buy that considering how profitable war is for the US. Could someone put my in the loop?
Trump is a Zionist so he'd probably start backing Israel with more weapons and escalating the current situation with Iran.
I too hate Hezballah, as most do, but issue is that I also live in the same country where they live. I used to feel bad for Americans that had to do active shooter drills. My school just did a "we're being bombed" drill.
Trump literally said he’d make sure Gaza stops existing.
Although Russian propaganda loves to portray him as being better for the middle east.
Haters gonna hate
Hamala
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.
But the Democratic strategists are not idiots. They must know this.
They always move to the middle in every election chasing "independent" votes that they never get. I see no evidence from history that they "arent idiots".
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.
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.
This person sandwiches...
Absolutely correct on all accounts. These are important laws, and many of us have independently arrived at them due to previous errors in sandwich construction.
The video's reversed, dummy...
well we already the "Worst President" < that dump inept man!!! so anything is better! Kamala will be AWESOME!
drumpf!!!!!
It would be a very quick debate too. Assuming she's not vegan like me. But hey if it was me against a vegetarian Vietnamese sandwich 🥪, bring it on bitch! You going down!
Nothing quite like some pickled daikon...
Yup! My favorite ingredient in a sandwich trying to compete for my position.
I don't think Mama Cass would vote for a ham sandwich.
Dunk The Vote in Aju
This meme is pseudo-scientific without any understanding of objectivity.
I'd vote for a ham sandwich if I lived in a magic place where it mattered. This sham democracy is why we're stuck with worthless votes for garbage people. There's no way to vote ourselves out of a fundamentally corrupt system.
Voting matters. Don't be so defeatist that you stop trying.
It is exactly what the people, this person doesn't like, want them to do though! So clearly they are morally superior to those who choose a lesser evil, and work to push better candidates where it is possible, like their local governments, courts, and sheriff's offices.
I mean, it's not like locking in a party federally, while pushing for close attention on the local level. Locking in a large amount of voting districts. Then selecting for further, and further, right wing options, for those positions, ever worked for the GOP. Oh wait, no, that is exactly how the ethno-state evangelicals formed both a death grip on the GOP, and the GOP a death grip on the government, despite being minorities.
It is a sham democracy, but the votes do still matter. Worst case, we have a choice between half assed climate policy that at least acknowledges it needs attention, or climate accelerationism. We have the choice between half assed women's rights, or women being pushed further towards being second class citizens. We have the choice between half assed protections for the queer community, or the continued dehumanization and harm towards the queer community.
The list goes on. The two candidates aren't equal.
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
I see you have trouble reading, I'm sorry about that, I wish you luck with that
Trump is just as much of a warmongerer as anyone. He nearly started WWIII with Iran by assassinating Soleimani. Dick Cheney just doesn't like him because of personal reasons.
The only isolationists/doves are third party candidates, as has been the case for well over 20 years.
No he didn't. We're far closer to WWlll now than we ever were under Trump. Ukraine/Russia, Israel/Palestine, China is creeping up to attack Taiwan... And now Russia and China are tighter than ever, which is not good for the west.
Dick Chaney doesn't like him because Dick Chaney makes all his money on War. He was literally one of the masterminds behind our war with Iraq.
Now, Mark Cuban... He doesn't like Trump for personal reasons, lol.
Holy shit you're actually braindead or something. I dislike Harris but I'd be dead before I voted for Trump.
Same, but opposite.
lemmy.ml moment
Thank you for being honest and not trying to pretend you care about Palestinians.
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.
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.
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.
Sure the meme is Kamala can be a terrible President, but I would vote for a Ham sandwich to keep the GOP from power ?
