this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
181 points (90.2% liked)

politics

25084 readers
2487 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 79 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I mean I would hope so. That's one of the biggest jobs of being vice president.

[–] rdyoung@lemmy.world 38 points 2 years ago (5 children)

I hope that Biden gets reelected and then a few months in steps down and gives us the first female and black president. The maggats will lose their fucking minds and I'm going to have a trailer of popcorn ready for the show.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 36 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I don't really like Kamala Harris much, but I really doubt she'd be substantially worse than Biden. And probably miles better than virtually any Republican.

[–] rdyoung@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Right now I don't care about us moving forward policy wise. At the moment what we need is more stability and let the states work on progressive policy like protecting trans, queer, etc, access to birth control, abortions, etc.

Biden has been way better than people give him credit for (including the left). He has not only been able to (with help obviously) undo most of the damage trump caused but has also brought us back to a fairly roaring economy despite the insane inflation thanks to capitalism being capitalism.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

let the states work on progressive policy like protecting trans, queer, etc, access to birth control, abortions, etc.

That's a great way to make those into Red State Problems that will never be fixed for the whole country, because legislators from blue states represent people for whom the problems are solved and experience no pressure to address the problems beyond that.

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I didn't expect lollypops and ice cream when Biden was elected but if you really look at his accomplishments, he is doing a really good job. Certainly the MSM isn't reporting it so you have to dig to find it, and it's there.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I disagree that Biden is doing a really good job. I think he is not doing enough to combat climate change, labor rights, income inequality, or human rights abuses at every level of government. His foreign policy is status quo, which isn't good.

He's a functioning adult with a modicum of shame, which is to say he's worlds better than any Republican, especially Trump. He's doing his job and making thoughtful, considered decisions. In comparison to the previous administration, that's a grand slam, but compared to the leadership we need right now, it's not good enough.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

If Harris becomes president and chooses to run for a second term, there's a good chance we're losing 2028. She lacks charisma and often comes off as unprepared even for softball questions, and her history does... not endear her to large parts of the Dem electorate.

Best hope for a non-dictator running on the GOP ticket.

Hell, maybe I'll be proven wrong, and she'll turn out great in the position. But I'm not exactly thrilled by her performance so far.

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 1 points 2 years ago

Wouldn't it be funny if it were Harris v. Trump in 2028? I mean Donald to be clear:-P.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ech@lemm.ee 20 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm not gonna say it would be wrong to happen that way, but I do feel like it would be a disservice to civil rights for the first woman president to be a matter of technicality, deigned to be given by an old white man. It would always be a bit marred by that.

[–] rdyoung@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

While I don't disagree. I wouldn't be surprised if they had already discussed this possibility. And seriously, what is the difference between him stepping down after the next election or 3 months ago? It's more likely than not to happen legitimately versus "health issues".

[–] ech@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

To clarify, I mean becoming president through the vice presidency, vs being elected as president outright.

[–] rdyoung@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Right and that was my point. She agreed to be his vp and had to be aware that he is more likely to have health issues that have him step down even if only temporarily. For her legacy and the "look" or whatever, there is no difference between him having to step-down today or after the election it's also how she could (in theory) get 3 terms in office.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] FoxBJK@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

That’s one of the biggest jobs of being vice president

That's one of the only jobs of being VP. Be ready in case your boss dies, and cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. The position serves no other purpose. Just ask the first guy who took the job:

My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived

-- John Adams

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago (1 children)

One of Biden's biggest mistakes was choosing Harris as his VP, she's been pretty much worthless as a VP, other than doing her tiebreaker votes, but I'm pretty sure anyone in that position would've done the same exact thing. Still though, apart from recent history, VP's have usually been pretty much ceremonial in that role, so maybe it's more a return to form having someone like her there, rather than a Cheney or a Biden actually being considered a key part of the administration.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Biden being a VP was the only other reason to vote for him besides his stated ability to negotiate with Senate Republicans...

They were both bullshit reasons. When a candidate the party likes can't win a primary, they make them a VP and then claim that makes them experienced.

Hell, with Biden they even said that wouldn't happen because of his age, then over a decade later he still became president.

There's an obsession about name recognition, ignorant of the fact that even the most politically disengaged Americans will know both candidates before the general even starts.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Also, one of the critical qualities people seek for a VP is that they’re boring.

You dont pick a vp that’s popular- they might get more popular than you- and you don’t pick a vo that’s “controversial”

One might risk more, if the person is from a battleground state and is popular,

[–] tacosplease@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Biden gave her basically all meh jobs as VP too. Might have been on purpose. Give her something to do without setting her up to primary him.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

she wasn't popular enough to primary him. there was some issues, IIRC, with her history as a prosecutor (of the "tough on crime" sort.) She's certainly more qualified that Trump, or anyone trump would pick as a VP at this point; but I don't think she'd win her own election... even if Biden had worked to set her up to replace him.

[–] aew360@lemm.ee 14 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Can someone explain to me why I shouldn’t like Kamala Harris? And if someone says because she hasn’t been an effective VP, could someone show me an example of an effective VP in modern US history?

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Cheney was pretty effective. Not that that was a good thing.

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

He was part of the Nixon, Ford, and both Bush Whitehouses...served in Congress during Reagan.

He knew where a lot of bodies went, which helps you get your things done.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

As a VP backing up Biden, I think she's swell. As the candidate who has to beat Trump, I don't think she's strong enough. She shat the bed in the primary debates, and she has a complicated record as a prosecutor and previously supported policies that make it easy to criticize. She's either "evolved" on divisive issues, or she's on the wrong side of history.

The same could be said of Biden, but he has the decades of connections and experience, not to mention charisma, that helped him pull ahead in the primary and the general in 2020. I don't like him, and I think he's very beatable, but I think Harris would be much worse. In an open primary, I don't think Harris would win the nomination, even running as an incumbent (like if Biden stepped down). Maybe if Biden wins and then immediately steps down, giving her four years to establish herself, she could craft a new identity. But it is too late for that now.

If Biden were unavailable as a candidate, we'll get four more years of Trump.

[–] mydude@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

To name a few:

-Championed and implemented legislation that put parents in prison if their child skipped school (truency)

-She blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so

-Put 1900 people in prison for smoking weed, while giggling about smoking it herself

-Blocked access to 12$ DNA tests, to check if the preserved DNA from a crime is from the defendant.

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/10/17/924766186/the-story-behind-kamala-harriss-truancy-program https://www.theblaze.com/news/kamala-harris-criminal-justice-record

[–] cyd@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That is the big advantage of the Dems here. If Trump croaks before the election, the GOP has nothing but a field of debris. If Biden does, Harris is still there.

[–] kiljoy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 49 points 2 years ago (8 children)

You say that like it’s a good thing. She is very very unpopular.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Has she done something to earn that status? As far as I can tell, I just never hear about her. Over the last three presidents the only time I recall a VP being particularly prominent was when his president's followers called for his hanging.

[–] kiljoy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago

People don’t like that she aggressively prosecuted people for weed. She’s a bland neo liberal like the rest of them.

[–] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Has she done something to earn that status?

Does that matter?

If she's unpopular, it really makes no difference why.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Has she even spoken about abortion rights yet? I remember this video where she doesn't even say the word lol

Kamala Harris' BIZARRE Answer To Abortion Question - TMR 2022

[–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

At least this authoritarian will have a big ol (D) next to their name! That's what's important right guys?!

God I can't wait for HiroCheeto to croak so I can go back to hating on Dems without immediately getting some schpeel about solidarity. Yes, I'll vote Democrat, but fuck do I want an actual progressive party.

load more comments
view more: next ›