This stupid topic again
But sure
I’ll admit it, I don’t want her, either (not that someone like me has any influence). But she’d be a better option than Joe.
Especially if she picks the right VP. And please, for fucks sake, I hope they do a good job picking a VP. Don’t rule out cishet white males, as a for instance, FFS. The Democrats love to play stupid identity political games and constantly do these self-owns. Although if AOC has a clone they could choose as a VP, that would be fantastic. But that’s not because they tick some arbitrary set of diversity checkboxes…it’s about policies.
Reading these comments here, it’s obvious either 1. This thread is filled with shills or 2. Democrats have learned NOTHING from Hillary and are ready to score an own goal at the 89th minute.
deleted by creator
Good. Kamala isn’t a great VP and is not especially popular.
She is spot on. Harris doesn’t make a better top of ticket.
The whole “but they might not be on the ballot in Ohio” rings a lot less worrisome when you see that Trump is +9 in the state vs Biden:
Well it’s risky either way. That said Kamala as vp was supposed to represent the “in case of emergency break glass” younger democrat - not too left, just neolib enough for the party, yet younger - that would step in if Biden’s age became an issue.
It’s now an issue and she didn’t play a role in reassuring the public, so…
I think that’s fair though? If you bring in a new candidate for president, it’s only fair that they get to bring in their own team. I don’t mind Kamala, the ticket should be whoever makes the strongest pair and would want to work together
I will vote for any Democrat but I would prefer it not be Kamala
If they replace Kamala then they lose the black vote, so that is not happening.
This is one of the single most oversimplified political analyses I ever have seen
And it is correct as we just seen.
Moderate Democrats like Harris are like broccoli. Nobody really wants it, it’s not the highlight of the meal, but you need your veggies to get the proper nutrients to fight fascism. (Plus, if your diet has too little fiber you end up full of shit.)
Eat your broccoli!
Instructions were unclear, Secret Service did not approve of me nibbling on Kamala Harris’s elbow.
Kamala looks like she might enjoy it
I never would have picked her. But the excitement and unity she’s inspiring in like 2 days time is undeniable. It almost feels like a bad tv show plot twist.
I preferred not to vote for Biden but he turned out to be a good president.
He turned out to be a decent president, except for the massive, glaring failure to build any sort of meaningful bulwark against fascism. He had, like, the absolute best justification and mandate to aggressively crack down on the neofascists with Jan 6, but he pussyfooted around and dragged his feet on fucking everything so much that basically nothing has been dealt with or constructively changed since the coup attempt occurred.
What should he have done against fascism?
Well, not picking an AG with no interest in prosecuting perpetrators of a literal fucking coup attempt would have been a start.
Very true. I’m wondering if Garland is still holding out hope that he somehow gets on SCOTUS, as well.
I’m not exactly excited about Harris, but putting a former prosecutor in office at least makes me think she couldn’t possibly put in a worse AG than Garland, at a time when we desperately need a firebrand in the position.
Plenty of opportunity to be proven wrong though 🙄
I love how you skip the part where Congress blocked everything the SCotUS didn’t. That’s so efficient.
There are a LOT of things he could have done in a lot of areas that require neither Congress nor the courts.
Not to mention, he was so goddamn focused on “reaching across the aisle” that he picked a guy for AG that clearly doesn’t have a strong interest in, you know, preventing the fascists from winning, because he’s in the same party as the fascists.
There are a LOT of things he could have done in a lot of areas that require neither Congress nor the courts.
Go on
Well he has absolute immunity now. Could hang them all on the Whitehouse lawn. /s
/s ?
The President using the armed forces to assassinate a political rival would be immune to prosecution under this ruling.
A President’s use of the military is a power granted to them under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. In order to prosecute for this hypothetical assassination, they would first need to prove that providing orders as Commander in Chief was somehow an unofficial act.
This is one of the specific examples Sotomayor listed in her dissenting opinion on this ruling.
SCOTUS would just rule that political assassination was not an official act, assuming they were a Democrat of course. It’s not like they’re consistent.
That’s why if Biden were to ever use this power, he’d have to go after SCOTUS first.
SCOTUS would just rule that political assassination was not an official act, assuming they were a Democrat of course. It’s not like they’re consistent.
Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
Determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.
The President’s authority as Commander in Chief is a core constitutional power, as granted in Article II, Section 2. This example is not hyperbolic.
If you don’t mind Genocide, i guess
He’ll be remembered fondly if he doesn’t fuck up this election (i.e. not stepping aside).
But what if he doesn’t step aside and wins reelection?
Yeah that’d work too. But it won’t happen.
Pack it up bois, newnewaccount called it. We are done here.
Instead of pissing about how it won’t happen go do something else why don’t you? Your usefulness here - Now - has run its course.
For the millionth time: every time they’ve done it before, they lost in a landslide. NOT stepping aside is the marginally better play.
And as a voter more on the DNC side of the floor, after the news today I weep for the next 40 years in America.
All 2 times this happened before? If that’s the best argument you have for running a candidate that is clearly too old both for campaigning and for the presidency, I think I would take my chances for a third try.
The best play is to roll the die on a real progressive but there’s no data to back it up because there is no time to test it.
deleted by creator
I would vote for any viable candidate not Trump. I would prefer not Biden and not Harris. In fact I’d prefer a sane Republican… but there seems to be a distinct lack of them.
I’d vote for AOC though. She reminds me of the principled republicans of yore, albeit with different views
I’d prefer a sane Republican
It’s funny to me that Biden is currently both the most liberal and the most conservative presidential candidate.
In fact I’d prefer a sane Republican
I can’t think of a single one. Even the ones that pretended to be sane and were pushed out by the party were horrible.
You would prefer a sane Republican but you praise AOC that is at the opposite end of the spectrum…
The thing I really admired about Republicans was that they had principles and held to them. AOC fits that bill. Plus, I believe that you have a right to your viewpoint even if I disagree with you.
What principles exactly are you referring to?
Crushing union strikes with a joy in her eyes that you wish you had when you looked at your kids.
It doesn’t matter to me what principles. To me, even I disagree with them, having principles and holding to them is what I like in a politician.
And I hate everyone who tells me how to vote. Everyone voting who they actually believe in is how democracy works. You can disagree and debate, but at the end of the day everyone should be free to make their own decision and have their own opinion.
How does not caring what the principles are make any sense at all? You don’t have any principles if that how you think.
I have principles. I just don’t feel the need to broadcast them. And it’s irrelevant here because the point is I like people who have principles and stand by them - no matter what their viewpoint is. I may disagree with them, but I can respect that.
What I can’t stand are the spineless people who change their viewpoint at the drop of a hat.
The thing I really admired about Republicans was that they had principles and held to them.
🤨
In 1953 they did, yes
Some weird little holdouts like John McCain and Liz Cheney survived into the modern era, somehow, but they’re about as rare and as realistic in the modern-day GOP as Bernie Sanders and AOC are in the modern Democrats.
If you wanna be able to vote for Adam Kinzinger, say so. It sounds like a good idea to me. But don’t pretend it is because he is a Republican when his principles are exactly what got him run out of the Republican Party on a rail.
I mean, as a kid, it certainly appeared that they did to me.
And people with principles getting kicked out of the GOP for having a backbone is exactly why I am very hesitant to vote GOP at the moment.
As a conservative independent, I don’t /mind/ voting GOP but you have to give me a real candidate. I’m not going to vote for any republican who capitulates to Trump or endangers healthcare.
Like, I don’t personally believe we should be pushing LGBT or abortion. But if someone is actually LGBT or actually requires an abortion, we should treat them humanely because they are, well, humans.
What I really don’t like are the vote Republican or vote Democrat no matter what people. It’s contributing to the terrible political climate. Like I don’t like people who do things just for donors or votes. That’s where the principles come in. I want people who believe in what they are doing, or trust the people who know what they are doing.
At the risk of sounding like an asshole, everything seems simpler when you’re a child. I’d recommend going back and looking at the actual debate happening at the time with the eyes of an adult.
Not an asshole at all. In fact, you make a great point.
In fact I’d prefer a sane Republican…
This is a trap. Even with a “sane” Republican in office, the administration will still work to accomplish the policy goals of the GOP.
Yes, this. No Republicans at all should be allowed into office. Ever. Don’t let them fool you, the agenda marches on regardless if they are “moderate” or “reasonable” or not.
Yup, Project 2025 is not just Trump and a few MAGA extremists, it’s signed off on by all the right-wing think tanks. If people want to avoid Project 2025 they need to make sure Republicans are out of power for multiple election cycles at a minimum.
How about implementing Ranked choice voting so there is a chance Republicans would vote for a more moderate group of people ?
I’m all for ranked choice, there’s no real downside. I think though that Republicans, rather than become less extreme, would simply challenge ranked choice when it started to benefit the left. They are actually doing this now in Alaska, where there is ranked choice voting and they’re trying to make it illegal with a ballot initiative.
They’d have to have their judicial power reduced I think. With the extremist supreme court there isn’t much in the regard that would stand I don’t think. Could be wrong though.
Basically all sane republicans have been pushed off the national stage in the last 8 years.
I would not say they were “sane” per se, it’s just that they’ve been replaced by even more overt bare-faced extremists. The Overton window on what is extremely right wing keeps getting pushed more and more to the right. A loud mouth performative asshole they believe is beyond punishment due to his “billions” has given them a permission structure to be who they always really wanted to be. These are the people that didn’t understand that Archie Bunker was supposed to be a parody, not a hero.
There’s never really been such a thing. Anyone who would be an old school republican today has just become an obstructionist right-wing democratic, so arguably worse than a Republican because they sabotage from the inside.
Besides McCain, which notable sane republican existed in the Obama era?
Pre-Obama we were dealing with the Bush-era neocons.
They haven’t been sane for at least the last twenty years.
Which ones were sane in the Ronnie Raygun era? Most of the Bush team were retreads from those days.
Compared to today’s Republicans, I’d argue Mitt Romney was relatively sane, though he’s still quite problematic.
Sane in a, “I’m a total Mormon and all the shit that comes with that” type way. I blame the Bible belt for mainstreaming mormonism.
Oh for sure, and he was very deep into Mormonism too, but at least he’s not an out-and-out Nazi and has been very vocally against Trump.
In fact I’d prefer a sane Republican… but there seems to be a distinct lack of them.
The three I can remember from the Trump years (Kinzinger, Cheney, and Romney) have pretty much been run out on a rail haven’t they? Republicans don’t want sane Republicans, and anyone who appears to be one is going to get ostracized within the party, or turn out to be just like all the rest.
They are walking around with bandages on their ears in solidarity with a man who immediately rushed to sell shitty Chinese shoes to commemorate and make a profit off of the assassination attempt which killed one of his own supporters. There are no sane Republicans. There are crazy Republicans, cowardly Republicans, and probably a few with Stockholm Syndrome. They let the inmates take over the asylum and there is no cleaning house now.
Yeah most conservatives who are republicans are getting pretty psychotic. The independents and the ones who switched to Democrat can still be okay though
principled republicans of yore
Is that before all the GoP and DNC switched sides over slavery?
I’m not that old, no
I mean nobody really wants Kamala but it sounds like that may be the best path. It’s one thing to have the president step down for health reasons, but it’s another to unilaterally replace the candidate after the primary as a response to bad polling.
If the second case happens you’ll see a bunch of pushback from democrats who don’t like the pick, donors who backed Biden, and virtually every Republican trying to portray the democrats in a negative light. That’s just the PR angle ignoring that there will also be legal questions around using Bidens donation money and getting a different candidate on the ballot in all 50 states.
As damning as it is to the US, the best bet for winning is a good-looking, smooth-talking white guy who will look presidential when compared with Trump.
Gavin Newsom you say?
You know, I’m not picky. My primary requirement is must be able to win.
Under conventional rules he has the best fighting chance.
the best bet for winning is a good-looking, smooth-talking white guy
Oh no, they’re trying to run Beto O’Rourke again, aren’t they? Dude’s going to come out on a skateboard playing the guitar and lose by double digits.
It would be very in character for the democratic party to disarm the population right before the Republicans force through their fascist plans.
Jon Stewart. He adamantly opposes the suggestion he run, which is exactly what we need. He’s got decades of experience in global politics, he’s likeable, got name recognition. And to your suggestion he’s a smooth talking attractive white man
He’s got decades of experience in global politics
It’s hilarious that people genuinely believe this.
He made the right call on a whole bunch of foreign policy issues that the Very Experienced Professionals were assuring us they had a handle on. Just because he doesn’t have the relevant real skills, doesn’t mean the establishment candidates have any of it, either.
He made the right call on a whole bunch of foreign policy issues
You’re confusing setting actual foreign policy with heckling from the sidelines. Stewart wasn’t overseeing any US Departments or writing big policy whitepapers adopted by either of the parties. He was spitting jokes from a news desk in a 30 minute segment four days a week.
Just because he doesn’t have the relevant real skills, doesn’t mean the establishment candidates have any of it, either.
Whatever you might say about Biden’s policies (re: bellicose, economically ruinous, genocidal), he definitely has the skills to implement them. That’s a big part of the problem. If he was properly incompetent, a bunch of these nightmare programs wouldn’t be put into effect.
Have you noticed a worrying shake to his movements ever since he started back with the daily show?
A little bit of Palsy would help him fit right in with the octogenarian candidates
Dunno about him, but I did. I hope he’s okay, he’s a national treasure.
Being a comedian/activist is different than running a country, John Stewart has power outside the government and would be broken inside.
Ask anyone that wants to remove people off the ticket: Who should they be replaced with?
I haven’t heard a good answer yet.
Your ears must be full of wax.
Kelly, Duckworth, Whitmer, Newsom, Buttigieg, Warren, Franken.
You legitimately think the Democratic party will get behind any of these nominations enough to defeat Trump? I’d say most are considered more controversial than fuckin Hillary was.
I legitimately think that this was what you intended to reply with regardless of what I said, and I very much doubt you actually bothered to read it.
Incorrect, I actually looked up both Kelly’s and Duckworth’s backgrounds as I wasn’t familiar - I see why they were first!
Seriously. This is a pretty mild list of semi-proven politicians with national recognition. Warren (or maybe Franken) are the only ones I can see being potentially controversial and even they’re both still broadly liked within the party.
Also, how does someone who’s not familiar with Kelly or Duckworth have a strong opinion about who’s controversial in the Democratic party? They’re not superstars, but you weren’t exactly digging up no-names.
It is extremely notable to me that the “get rid of Biden” is so HUGELY emphasized over “let’s figure out who instead”
It makes me look suspiciously at what would initially be the pretty sensible idea of subbing in someone younger
until he’s gone, every other name is moot.
That continues to be a piss poor rebuttal because the two questions are separate. Many people literally don’t care. And anyone who thinks this is some sort of ratfucking is either detached from reality or doesn’t actually know that many Democrats. The calls to step down (and frankly depression) have been coming from across the party right from the night of the debate. The gaslighting is just the worst possible response to an already bad situation.
You look suspiciously at anything but blind unthinking worship of Biden.
If you’re gonna call me a bot, come out and say it instead of hiding behind vague language like a coward.
No one is calling you a bot.
We’re calling you a right wing agitator.
Whitehouse would be solid as well. AOC would also be a fine pick if we got party unity behind her.
AOC would be a better VP pick than top of the ticket. Let her ascend later when she is more experienced.
AOC would also be a fine pick if we got party unity behind her.
Centrists would vote for Trump.
I think you misspelled conservatives - nobody sane would vote for Trump.
Right. Like I said. Centrists.
AOC could unify the party behind her, but she’d need to do it with a primary. The Biden delegates and/or the party establishment aren’t going to make a wild swing-for-the-fences play like that with an appointment.
I don’t disagree. I think she’d be an excellent choice and absolutely trounce Trump but it’d be a hard fucking sell to the DNC.
She’s got more name recognition than Harris though so the “Harris is the only one voters would recognize” bunch can get fucked.
I would legit take time off and drive to a battleground to campaign for Franken…
Harris/AOC. I’m not stoked that Harris is a cop, but she is a centrist and that’s what the owners want. AOC as the VP pick to actually motivate real people to vote, and to give her experience to run for President in the future.
And, ideally, every bigot’s head would explode simultaneously upon electing two women of color into the highest offices in the land.
doyee
Literally no one wanted Kamala in the primaries. Everyone knows she got picked as a token diversity VP and not because she was actually popular or anything.
She has a higher chance of losing than Biden. If we’re gonna axe the incubent, then you better open up some serious candidates, otherwise this will be a repeat of 2016 and no one will vote.
Harris has done so little I had to think for a second to remember what her name was. Other VP have really gotten coverage, like Pence or Gore. But Harris has really stayed mostly on the sidelines.
I’d vote for AOC, tbh
Bernie is too old, she’d be my top pick in Congress by far.
But the Party probably wants to go maximum hail corporate neoliberal, especially when there isn’t a pesky primary to deal with, because thats what they’re paid to do.
You know, someone who will come to continue to protect our beloved economy… from our society and the needs of our people. Better than fascism, but just extending the meaningless subsistence in service to the owner class.
It’s she old enough right now? Can she be a candidate at 34 if she will be 35 before Jan?
She’s 35 on October 13th. Fully qualified.
Yes. The age requirement is for serving, not for running.
I don’t want AOC to run yet. She’s got a long political career ahead of her and folks tend to bow out of politics after they’re president.
We should bring back the idea of a former president running for senator. Show the world that the President isn’t any more special than Congress.
Just not anyone old enough to collect social security. We should also bring back the idea that retirement means actually not working anymore.
Is there any reason she couldn’t serve a different position after 2 terms as president?
No reason, it’s just the way things tend to be.
She would be an amazing elder statesperson after her time in office. I hope to some day see it.
Bruh, why are you getting excited about the idea of crusty old genocidal American beaurocrats who inevitably sell out? No US senator is a friend of mine.
Generalizations are neat. Sorry you hate Bernie Sanders.
yeah but the democratic party would rather lose the election than nominate her.
AOC is standing with Biden, as is Bernie Sanders.
Fucking Fox and CNN are calling for Biden to step down.
That doesn’t seem strange to you?
not at all. Bernie and AOC are already hated by their party and they have no pull. openly calling for him to step down is not going to help anything, if not have an adverse effect. with biden insisting on staying all they can do is try to appeal to their progressive base who doesn’t like biden at all to vote for him because they know biden will depress the vote.
also i saw people on fox defending biden against these calls. it was basically “just let him run again dude, is he loses TFG gets to be president for 4 years then he’s gone forever… you can’t lose ONE election???” it was ridiculously desperate.
Oh so now when they’re supporting Biden they’re just liberal shills?
what? where did i say that?
You’re saying they’re only supporting biden in a cynical calculated move to try to help Democrats win. That’s what “liberal shill” usually means.
no it doesn’t. it’s not cynical to want to defeat the openly fascist candidate. why do u think Bernie told people to vote for Hillary in 2016? because he loved her policies so much?
And Katy Porter
I don’t think she could win even though I think she’s perfect. The US isn’t ready for a woman president, and a non-white one on top of that. I think that’d be pretty cool if Adam Schiff ran with her as his VP.
Why? Do you loathe organized labor and want to see them crushed to maximize corporate profits?
She’s done far more good than bad. This kind of purity testing is why the left in this country is so weak.
AOC isn’t even in the conversation though. I think she’d face fierce opposition to even getting the nomination. She’s a pretty divisive figure.
So what if she’s divisive? Trumps running mate called him hitler at one point. No one wanted Trump, he came in and won the voters hearts with his vision, grotesque as it may be for other people. People want certainty and vision in uncertain times.
Narrowly and due to lies, intimidation, and structural advantages the right has in this country. Wouldn’t work for the left.
Besides, I was just saying that we the people aren’t really making this decision, and the ones that are won’t pick AOC.
I get your point, but I was saying that the RNC was super anti-Trump to start
Oh well I actually agree that the left can push through a candidate that party leaders dislike if we got organized. But usually the left isn’t very good at that, and there’s no time to do so in this specific case.
Wha…what do you mean not in the conversation, you are literally conversing with someone about her, on a front page post about her. She is popular, and no presidential candidate has ever not been divisive. Not being trump is divisive.
The conversation among those who will decide the nominee. I’ve not heard anyone seriously discuss this outside of online forums.
not in the conversation, you are literally conversing
- big-c Conversation
- a comma is not a colon
- there are other adverbs
No its a little c
She’s a pretty divisive figure.
Not for anything she does, AFAICT.
When she voted to disallow train workers striking was pretty disheartening. Who’d expect someone so pro-worker to knock the teeth out of a union.
Probably voted that way because she was assured Biden would continue to hammer out a better deal for the rail union, which he did! Better healthcare, more PTO, and the addition of paid sick days!
Here’s the article right from the rail union thanking Biden for not giving up on their fight. https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid#:~:text=These 12 unions represent more,agreement for paid sick leave.”
Republicans are terrified of her. She’s young, attractive, charismatic, outspoken, and intelligent to say nothing of her being a woman of color. They are giving her the full Hillary treatment. It seems like she’ll be a bit harder for them to tarnish that way, but not for lack of trying.
she’ll be a bit harder for them to tarnish that way
Well Hillary is only one or two of those traits you listed. I like Hillary, but she is not charismatic. I think she had good policy sense and could have been an excellent president, but policy doesn’t win elections.
Yes, I agree, but we ought to draw a distinction between someone who acts divisively from someone who’s the target of the right-wing hate machine.
But we never do.
I should be clear I’m talking about public perception here, not my personal opinions or any assessment of her policies.
The fact that she’s a conservative bogeyman is kind of besides the point. The neoliberal, corporate-friendly leadership of the DNC would NEVER let her get close to the nomination. They did the same thing to Bernie 8 and 4 years ago.
That’s exactly what I was referring to.
To be clear, the Democratic leadership is not all powerful. The people can push through a nominee leadership hates if we unite. But given the nature of this nomination process, party leaders have an exceptional amount of power this year, and the people have very little.
She gets labeled as “divisive” because she’s a woman and she’s not a centrist. Name one woman who gets listed as a potential candidate and isn’t under this same garbage rhetoric.
To be clear, women can and should still be scrutinized, but not to the point where the only woman who would be a great presidential candidate is the most perfect candidate who ever lived.
She’s a “radical” to centrists
“Centrists”
Hence the " "
She’s not old enough anyway, need to be 35 to be president, she’s 34
Downvoted for stating facts lmao
You also can’t be president if you participated in an insurrection after taking an oath, but here we are.
Why is he being downvoted for providing the correct answer?
Because it’s not correct, she would be 35 by the time she took office.
It is correct if you understand American politics. The candidates are officially nominated in August and she will still be 34 then.
The law says you have to be 35 to BE president, it says nothing of nomination. She would be fine by the time she was sworn in.
That’s not how it works Sonny Jim.
People don’t like facts, I guess
Hmm interesting, looks like she turns 35 in October. I’m assuming you have to be of age to run? Or is it to be elected? I’m actually not sure.
Who knows, maybe she’ll give it a go next cycle
On the day you take the oath of office. She could turn 35 on January 19th and it works.
If you will be of age to serve before inauguration you are eligible, AOC is legally eligible to run for president.
Not to mention that she’d be 35 before the election.
She IS old enough. She will be 35 before inauguration.
@LibertyLizard @pearsaltchocolatebar
Lol, it’s what happens when you speak truth to power.
I’d vote for her because of a myriad of reasons though.
She is the future of the party.Maybe maybe not but there’s 0 chance she’ll be the nominee this year.
Agreed, it’s not in anyone’s interest to test the supreme court ATM.
I said it once here, a couple times before, & I’ve said it a few times in passing conversation in person. I would vote for AOC and I think she’s wonderful. 👍I like her too but I personally am not sure her popularity is broad enough to be president. But we’ll see. I hope you’re right.
She’d be the best populist candidate, since Bernie is too close in age to Biden. I also think she could really drum up support with her charisma. The only way to fight a populist like Trump is with another populist. Remember how far Bernie got with his campaigns that refused to take corporate money?
Honestly, the only people that would get in her way are the same DINO Democrats who didn’t get behind Bernie. Funny how the progressives in the Democratic party are always the ones who are told to compromise and vote for the centrist and never the other way around.
