• TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
    1132·
    3 months ago

    Listening to the CNN talking heads after:

    Some douche-canoe said: “she’s running on the fantasy that the inflation is corporate price gouging!”

    That mother fucker thinks we are blind lmao.

    Part of the inflation was covid retaliated, but 70% of it was Corporate Greed

          • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
            241·
            3 months ago

            Yup, but if you want to win an election you don’t tell potential voters “So, yeah, I’m going to end your industry and put you all out of work. LOL. Learn to code or something…”

            • BreadstickNinja@lemmy.worldEnglish
              4·
              3 months ago

              Exactly. Talk about the new jobs you’re going to create. Do NOT tell people you are banning their present livelihood. She would be insane to tell Pennsylvania voters she was planning to significantly restrict fracking.

            • archomrade [he/him]English
              52·
              3 months ago

              Better to tell potential voters “so, yea, I’m just going to pretend your drinking water isn’t being poisoned by industrial fossil fuel extraction because that would hurt a private industry that’s important for this other constituency. LOL drink bottled water or something”

              • Bananigans@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                31·
                3 months ago

                The constituents have priorities, and for some of them, livelihood comes before long-term health complications. At the end of the day, votes tell us which of those they value more.

                • archomrade [he/him]English
                  11·
                  3 months ago

                  If only those long term health impacts were limited to the people who were deciding their livelihood was more important.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
      253·
      3 months ago

      It’s normal.

      JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, GHWB, Clinton, GWB, and Obama all appointed to their cabinet at least one person from the opposite party.

      And Harris didn’t say she would appoint a Republican politician. When Obama chose Bob McDonald for Veterans Affairs, people barely noticed he was registered as a Republican. And one of Donald Trump’s senior advisors was Ivanka Trump - who at the time was a registered Democrat.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        309·
        3 months ago

        And one of Donald Trump’s senior advisors was Ivanka Trump - who at the time was a registered Democrat.

        I’m literally shocked you thought this was a good thing to write to support your point.

        • Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world
          226·
          3 months ago

          It’s a comment about appointing people from the other side of the aisle. They posted an example of trump appointing a registered Democrat. There’s plenty of criticism about it which is valid, but being literally shocked is a bit of a melodramatic overreaction

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
            222·
            3 months ago

            It’s his literal daughter. She’s not “on the other side of the aisle”. There is absolutely no one with a smidgen of intelligence that thinks this was in some way evidencing bipartisanship or a concession to the left.

            • FlowVoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
              272·
              3 months ago

              That’s my point. “I will appoint a Republican” does not necessarily mean “I will reach across the aisle to the opposing politicians who are ruining America”.

              It could very well mean “I will appoint old friends from law school and the private sector, even if they happen to be registered Republicans.” People like Bob McDonald.

              • archomrade [he/him]English
                4·
                3 months ago

                I’m still confused why 'it’s normal to appoint old friends from the private sector" is being tossed around as if it’s a defense of the practice.

                • FlowVoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  41·
                  3 months ago

                  Because presidents, like everyone else, prefer to hire people their team knows and trusts.

              • gatorgato@lemmy.world
                52·
                3 months ago

                I’m with Zaktor on this one. NOBODY thinks Trump appointing his kid was comparable to this Harris promise or other historical examples. Sure, you technically made a factuql observation. But, it seems like a bad faith argument in this discourse.

                Or maybe some people really believe that Ivanka Trump (hang on, I’m laughing) is a Democrat.

              • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
                21·
                3 months ago

                That’s my point. “I will appoint a Republican” does not necessarily mean “I will reach across the aisle to the opposing politicians who are ruining America”.

                No, “I’m a Democrat” means that.

    • randon31415@lemmy.world
      44·
      3 months ago

      Would appoint a Republican to Attorney general, most likely. Don’t want a democrat going after the “wrong crooks”

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
    211·
    3 months ago

    Couple of softballs at the end, asking Walz about the Gus “that’s my dad!” moment and Harris about “the photograph”.

    Still 10 minutes left in the hour, not sure why they stopped short.

    CNN has asked Trump and Vance for a sit down as well.

    • kescusay@lemmy.world
      27·
      3 months ago

      All in all, a mediocre performance by the interviewer, while Harris and Walz were charming and good together. I got the impression they genuinely like each other.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
        22·
        3 months ago

        Get somebody who looks at you the way Harris looks at Walz for the “that’s my dad!” question.

    • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
      65·
      3 months ago

      It was a puff piece. Hostile would be following up “Will you appoint a republican to your cabinet” with “Will you appoint a Palestinian”. How can you ask 250,000 Muslims in Michigan to vote for you while you bomb people just like them, some of whom are their family members?

      “Do you realize every time you promote border security and migrant crime, you’re campaigning for republicans?”

      Just neutral would be following up her agenda with practical questions:

      How will you carry out your agenda? Do you plan to do it all in reconciliation? Will you tell the senate to abolish the filibuster? Executive orders? Will you increase the number of SCOTUS judges, ignore the SCOTUS’s orders, or throw your hands up if they block your agenda?

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
        32·
        3 months ago

        Among the new announcements on Monday, Target committed to increase its spending in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras by $300 million this year while Columbia said it would purchase $200 million in products in the region, creating more than 6,900 jobs over five years.

        Backstopping Coca-Cola and the United Fruit Company. Feel like I’m telling Sam Adams that we got a big new investment from East India Tea.

        • archomrade [he/him]English
          31·
          3 months ago

          It’s crazy to me that ‘convincing American businesses to move some production to an underdeveloped nation’ is being thrown around like it’s a good thing.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
            23·
            3 months ago

            I mean, the Marshall Plan was kind of a good thing. Rebuilding Japan and the half of South Korea we hadn’t completely flattened a good thing.

            But are we talking about developing enormous new blocks of housing, schooling, transport, and hospitalization in these countries? Or is Target just expanding the sweatshops?

            Imagine the North coming in after the Civil War and building more plantations…

            • archomrade [he/him]English
              31·
              3 months ago

              Oh, if they proposed something like the Marshall Plan I’d be fucking pleased.

              This is just convincing US companies to take advantage of the cheap labor, as if they really needed that much convincing.

              • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
                32·
                3 months ago

                Labor is cheaper overseas. The Philippines, Indonesia, and Bangladesh have people working in what amount to little more than slave camps. Latin American governments struggle harder to keep their populations in line, as evidenced by socialist uprisings in Nicaragua, Cuba, Bolivia, and Venezuela.

                • archomrade [he/him]English
                  31·
                  3 months ago

                  I think we’re in agreement. “Kamala leads a 4.5 gagillion dollars in private investment in central america” might as well read “American companies exploit central-American destabilization by securing their cheap labor”

                  It’s not a policy we should be celebrating as a success.

                  as evidenced by socialist uprisings in Nicaragua, Cuba, Bolivia, and Venezuela

                  What a crazy coincidence that the policy in question specifically excluded Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela lol

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
    92·
    3 months ago

    Really hammering Walz on mis-statements. “Carried weapons in war, didn’t have IVF, lied about DUI…”

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      113·
      3 months ago

      Nope, and there won’t be as long as AIPAC has a $100 million to throw at the election.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
          81·
          3 months ago

          Yup, and everyone told the Supreme Court this would be the end result of Citizens United.

          • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
            53·
            3 months ago

            AIPAC predates Citizens United. The military-industrial complex determining American foreign policy is as old as America.

            • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
              41·
              3 months ago

              AIPAC pre-dates Citizens United, but CU allows them to influence elections to a much greater degree than they could previously.

            • archomrade [he/him]English
              24·
              3 months ago

              Lol, idk why so many people think that our foreign policy is a result of defense contractor kickbacks.

              I’m just imagining Washington or Lincoln being taken out to a swanky dinner being wined and dined with a musket industry lobbyist, being persuaded into war for defense kickbacks.

              Like, no, America didn’t genocide the natives because they benefited from taking their territory, they did it because horse breeders and gunpowder manufacturers offered Jackson a lucrative cut from defense contracts lol

  • archomrade [he/him]English
    1524·
    3 months ago

    Anyone who comes away from this interview thinking that Harris is running a progressive campaign has their head in the sand. Just in the first 20 minutes:

    • affirms she does not support banning fracking
      • when pressed about why she previously supported a fracking ban, she deflects
      • when asked if she’s seen any scientific evidence to support a policy in favor of fracking, she deflects and says ‘we can do ‘it’ without banning fracking’
      • when asked about how supporting fracking squares with the rest of her climate policy she says “I believe we can do it without banning fracking”
    • affirms and reinforces xenophobic immigration stereotypes and reiterates her intent to enforce our border with mexico
      • says that strengthening the border would help reduce fentanyl smuggling, even though nearly all fentanyl is trafficked through legal entry
      • repeatedly alludes to illegal crossings involving drugs, guns, and human trafficking
      • does not mention asylum seekers or dreamers, or make any acknowledgement of the horrors and violence these migrants are fleeing from
      • fails to make any mention of the inhumanity of mass deportations and dragnet operations by ICE, or even any mention of the authoritarian mass deportation positions her opponent has been taking
      • fails to indicate any support for immigration reform to make it easier to immigrate or seek asylum, and actually says she supports the immigration bill that makes asylum more difficult
    • repeatedly insists on the importance of working with conservatives on conservative interests, including a willingness to place republicans on her cabinet, while simultaneously distancing herself with progressive issues, interests, or perspectives
    • When asked “would you consider withholding any arms shipments to Israel [to end the war in Gaza]?” she deflects by saying she “unequivocally supports Israel’s right to exist and defend itself”
      • in an rant on Israel, she repeats the unsubstantiated claim of mass-rape on Oct-7 and frames the event as a tragedy, but uses passive language and euphemisms while speaking of Israel’s response - “far too many palestinans have been killed”. Makes no mention of Israeli war crimes, genocide, West Bank occupation and settlement, ect
      • in discussing a ceasefire deal she only speaks to the Israeli conditions (hostages) but makes no mention or acknowledgement of the Palestinian conditions (assurances that the ceasefire will not end as soon as the hostages are released, a removal of Israeli occupation from Palestinian territory, the allowing of free movement in and out of Gaza, ect)
      • makes not even the slightest indication that Israel has done anything wrong, let alone any acknowledgement of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza still being caused by Israel

    This interview could have just as easily been one for a republican candidate. The good news is that if your only concern is beating trump then this interview was fine, bordering on good. The bad news is if you care at all about the overton window shifting even further right, this looks like a leap to the right, not just a step. Harris is running on strengthening our border/military and prosecuting undocumented immigration criminally, soft-touch climate legislation, palestinian genocide denial (expected) and unconditional lethal aid to Israel. The only positive positions she’s come out with thus far are are child tax credits and reproductive rights, and maybe an under-formed plan to produce more houses (but no mention of action to prevent those homes being commercially owned as investments)

    She’s affirmed a number of fascist concerns and positions while distancing or outright rejecting progressive/leftist interests. She’s given credence to the xenophobic notion that immigrants are a national security risk, that we need to increase military spending and presence abroad, and indicated that private industry is a priority over existential concerns over climate change/pollution (being unwilling to acknowledge the problems caused by fracking because it might damage PA industry indicates (to me) that she’s unwilling to take action that may threaten private interests). This is a return to Clinton-era “tough on crime” neo-liberalism. Not only do these positions actively make things worse, they also make it extremely difficult for anyone next cycle to run on reduced military spending, more aggressive climate action, international cooperation on human rights and climate, or a reduction of hostilities in foreign affairs. If you’re of the opinion that climate change is accelerating toward the worst-case scenario for the planet, then any indication that there are other interests (especially interests in protecting a specific industry) that are more important than averting climate catastrophe is beyond stupid. It is the same political calculation as deregulation and presents the same obstacle to meaningful climate policy.

    Doubling-down on the most aggressive and xenophobic fears while the working class continues to decline is historically what tends to precede a slide into fascism. Even if she beats trump in November, all signs point to an even more active fascist movement for the next four years.

    Now is absolutely not the time to be calm or complacent.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      94·
      3 months ago

      On immigration if you look at the polling, we just straight lost. The only part that Americans still have sympathy for is DACA. Other than that, support for walls, deportation, and not accepting asylum are all up.

      Because of FPTP we don’t get to have presidential candidates lead the way. They follow the votes.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              22·
              3 months ago

              It’s the driving force. If we get ranked choice in most states then we can start seeing some leadership on issues during campaign season instead of trying to get badly measured independent votes.

              • archomrade [he/him]English
                52·
                3 months ago

                I don’t want to alarm you, but ‘getting ranked choice’ will also face resistance from the parties, and will also involve damaging the democrat’s electoral chances.

                I’d argue the real problem is a lack of class consciousness and complacency from liberals, but I have a feeling you probably disagree.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  12·
                  3 months ago

                  No I agree that those are contributing problems. The question is how do we educate people on them. Which is why ranked choice is such a big deal. Most people pay the most attention during the campaign season. So we need to open it up. As far as difficulty, yeah it’s not great but some states are already instituting RCV.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      75·
      3 months ago

      Oh, there’s no question she’s not a progressive… but when the alternative is Trump, Reagan and Nixon look progressive.

      • archomrade [he/him]English
        102·
        3 months ago

        Well it’s a good thing that Reagan and Nixon didn’t cause any lasting damage, then.

        • kescusay@lemmy.worldEnglish
          22·
          3 months ago

          Hard, hard disagree on Reagan. That fuckwit screwed up damn near everything, and was responsible for the single largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in history. He gutted the EPA, he engaged in illegal arms-for-hostages trades, and generally fucked up everything he touched.

          Make no mistake, we’re still suffering with the effects of his presidency to this day. Not going to say he was worse than Trump, because it’s hard to imagine anyone being worse than Trump, but lordy, he still wasn’t good.

      • CodandChips @lemmy.world
        5·
        3 months ago

        There was the same feeling here in fhe UK with Starmer, although he’s not the leader everyone wants, he at least is driving the bus in fhe right direction.

    • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      64·
      3 months ago

      Save your ire for a few months. No sane politician is going to spout exacting policy this close to an election. Why give your enemy so much as a single bullet?

      We get her in, then we go into analyses like yours, feet to the fire. ATM, I’m going to STFU, not say a word against her until she’s soundly whipped Trump, idealism comes later.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
        71·
        3 months ago

        We get her in, then we go into analyses like yours, feet to the fire.

        Except that will never happen. Because we saw it not happen with Biden.

        I’m going to STFU, not say a word against her until she’s soundly whipped Trump, idealism comes later.

        The date at which it will become acceptable to do anything other than STFU will keep getting pushed back. Later means never.

      • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
        21·
        3 months ago

        Politicians exist to get elected. How do you expect to hold their feet to the fire after you elect them? Give them four years to do a bunch of nothing then switch back to saying “now isn’t the time to ask for change, we have to defeat the Toupee 2.0!”?

        I’ll save you some time and respond for you: “yOu MuSt WaNt ToUpEe To WiN!!1!”

      • archomrade [he/him]English
        35·
        3 months ago

        I MUST make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection