this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
226 points (93.5% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7124 readers
797 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

More than a dozen former Ronald Reagan staff members have joined dozens of other Republican figures endorsing the Democratic nominee and vice-president, Kamala Harris, saying their support was “less about supporting the Democratic party and more about our resounding support for democracy”.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 23 points 4 days ago (3 children)

They're alienating people who hate Reagan.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 18 points 4 days ago (15 children)

Are they? The campaign is not speaking in support of the Reagan administration. Harris is supported by the former administration over a corrupt and narcissistic megalomaniac.

Personally, I don’t see this as anything other than validation that Trump is that bad.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 19 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If you get endorsed by Hitler it reflects pretty badly on you.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (6 children)

Putin endorsed Biden, and now Harris. Do you honestly think that he wants Democrats in charge during his invasion of Ukraine? Politics is a game.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Right, his endorsement doesn't help. That's my point? Liberals shouldn't be cheering because Reaganites endorsed Harris.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Who said Liberals were cheering? This is aimed at disenfranchised conservatives.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 9 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Do you think conservatives read The Guardian? This is for internal consumption, to make liberals think "wow even Reaganites are on our side, we must be doing something right!"

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee -2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

The Guardian is a newspaper. They are just covering the news.

Other outlets are covering this also, including conservative ones.

You are way too eager to find a conspiracy here... I promise you, this British newspaper isn't run by and for American Democrats.

[–] CooperRedArmyDog@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago

no one is saying that is, but what queermunist is doing that you are failing to do is annilise the bias of the source, and consider the reasons for why they wrote something and the way they wrote it ... this is basic media literacy

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago

There's no conspiracy? This is just liberals telling other liberals about the "good news"

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

So you’re critical of The Guardian then? Do you believe they should have left that story out based on their reader demographic?

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No? I'm critical of Harris accepting the endorsement of ghouls.

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

As far as I can tell, The Harris/Walz campaign hasn't officially responded to this endorsement. Are you getting mad about stuff that hasn't even happened?

Believe it or not, the Harris/Walz campaign doesn't orchestrate endorsements. Anyone can endorse a candidate with or without that candidate's knowledge, permission, or acknowledgement.

Harris may be getting the endorsement of old-school/moderate Republicans, but Trump has the endorsement of extremist/far-right Republicans and Neo-Nazis.

If you can't pick a side here, that's entirely your own moral failure.

[–] CooperRedArmyDog@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago

both sides are Fasistic, and engage in class colaberation. If I look at the endorsements for haris coming from the right, there are people I would not want to even agree on what pizza topping is best with, let alone who should run a country.

Second your right, anyone can, however the canidates can also reject their endorsement, and tell them to shove it where the sun don't shine, they have not done that, and that is damning.

3rd ... REAGON AND CHENEY ARE MODERATE NOW... do you not see how abserd you are talking? they are not moderates

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago

Her silence is damning.

[–] CooperRedArmyDog@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 days ago

No one said that. maybe they should have been crtitical of her not disavoying it

[–] CooperRedArmyDog@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago

The liberals cheering is what told me the liberals where cheering. I mean ... Haris even gloated that Ronald Reagon himself would vote for her.

as for disenfranchised conservitives, this is a group that does not exist, like both halvs of the uniparty pander to the conservitive.

[–] anarcho_blinkenist@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

"disenfranchised conservatives" he says

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

That's a good question, but I think Putin's being honest. Trump is more likely to try to negotiate a peace deal, but if that goes badly, he's also much more likely to order some off-the-wall shit like giving Ukraine ICBMs and permission to use them. Remember this was the guy who was presented with a range of options to retaliate against Iranian sabre-rattling, and for seemingly no reason chose the most extreme, drone striking their top general! There's lots of reason to not want Trump in charge.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

~~What makes you think Trump would negotiate peace? He’s already said Israel should finish the job and stop recording their atrocities. He also repealed restrictions on Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory. Netanyahu was so grateful, he named a settlement after Trump in Golan Heights.~~

Accidental and unrelated reply. My mistake.

[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 days ago (14 children)

I'm not saying he's a dove or anything, but he doesn't really give a shit about NATO therefore isn't terribly invested in protecting the Zelensky regime, and he has been consistent about saying the war should be ended so Ukrainians survive, [which, to be clear, I doubt he personally cares about, but it's his platform] and even said this when he was pressed with the insanely unprofessional and ridiculous bait question "Do you want Ukraine to win?" at the debate.

Anyway, it's no guarantee, he's a very unstable and erratic guy, but I think he sees the war as a waste of money and would prefer friendlier relations with Russia.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I read it as the neoliberal warhawks are enthusiastic about a more level-headed maintainer of Empire who has promised the most lethal military in the world and to always support Israel.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Believe it or not, the President does more than determine support for Israel.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Yep, but the part that specifically draws the Reaganite fascists to Kamala is her promise to maintain the most lethal military in the world. Forever wars and endless profits for the MIC, endless support for Imperialism.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world -5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

And Trump has already proven to support Israel’s eradication of Palestinians and expansion into Gaza and the West Bank. Israel is not the point of comparison between them, although Trump is worse for Palestinians.

More money in the hands of the lower and middle classes stimulates the economy and drives stock prices. The middle class is considered the most wasteful class. That consumption drives consumerism, which increases stock value.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 4 days ago (4 children)

And Trump has already proven to support Israel’s eradication of Palestinians and expansion into Gaza and the West Bank. Israel is not the point of comparison between them. Trump is worse for Palestinians.

Trump is the same as Harris with respect to genocide. He can't just buy bombs on his personal card and ship them via DHL, this is a bipartisan effort because the basis is economic, not moral.

More money in the hands of the lower and middle classes stimulates the economy and drives stock prices. The middle class is considered the most wasteful class. That consumption drives consumerism.

No idea why you're bringing this up.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Having read about Hitler's meeting with the military heads that line was bonechilling when she said it

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago

What are they going to do about it?

Please say campaign for electoral reform in their respective states.