politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Do you think Harris wouldn't have backed Israel? Biden's policy on Israel seemed to be publicly aligning 100% while quietly whispering, "Are you sure you know what you're doing, Bebe?"
I do not think Kamala, or Biden, would have attacked Iran at the behest of Israel.
Biden also was not ”publicly aligning 100%" with Israel. For example, he publicly called for humanitarian restraint [in their response to the Oct 4th attack] to protect innocent civilians and also for a two state solution in his 2024 State of the Union address.
Love it when people know everything that might have happened, as long as it makes Republicans look less shitty
I asked a question, not predicted an alternate timeline. And I certainly didn't say Republicans were less shitty.
Harris was campaigning as a continuity of Biden's administration. Did Biden ever give an impression that he would actually break with Israel over anything? If so, I didn't see it. Just rumors and leaks of backdoor talks that he disapproved of the Palestinian genocide.
According to John Kerry, Netanyahu had pitched this kind of attack on Iran to George W. Bush, Barrack Obama and Joe Biden while they were in power. Every president said no, until Trump said yes.
Do you have anything to point to that would suggest Harris would give a different answer than Biden?
Nothing as concrete and firsthand as that interview. Thank you for answering my question.
I would say that Biden did take small steps that were good on some things. I don't know. I don't think it's crazy to guess either way. I just feel like a lot of people are overconfident about that (and so many other things).
I'm going to blow your fucking mind: Biden and Harris are different people.
I can't believe I'm the first you're hearing this from, but a common criticism of Harris' campaign was her failure to distinguish herself from Biden.
She even campaigned as the only one who could stop Trump. Which sounded very similar to Biden's campaign for the soul of America.
So, yeah, I guess I was misled into thinking they both might govern the same way.
That’s what her campaign of ‘corporate approved small change government’ wanted her to say. Biden’s team also did not want her to separate herself from Biden on the campaign trail.
That line helped to sink her, in driving out anyone not already sold on the plan. Harris avoided taking any risks to not come across as over-selling and under-delivering, but no one wants a leader that doesn’t even believe in the message they’re selling.
I think most people understand that Harris would in practice have been quite different from Biden, but for most larger policies she would have not have differed.
What is this? Harris said that she didn't disagree with what Biden had "done," so she must agree and plan to implement everything that Biden was even thinking or hinting at, or at least what you personally thought Biden was thinking or hinting at?
I don't think that has any reasoning in it. I'm not sure it counts as an argument.
Harris appearing completely uncritical of Biden's administration and doing almost nothing to put forward her own policies or priorities does imply she liked what was happening and wanted to keep doing it. I'm not pulling rabbits out of a hat here: this was a criticism consistently levied during the campaign and discussed in the autopsy report that the DNC reluctantly put out. I cherry picked one quote as an example out of a whole article discussing missteps the campaign made. I even included the link so you could see the context, including the part where Harris seems to realize she made an error with that quote.
But I appreciate the unduly condescending tone. It really makes this place feel like Reddit.
The problem is that the argument requires taking sweeping generalizations and trying to make a specific conclusion. Even if people are 98% the same, they are still 2% different, and so you can't just say, "Well, they're similar, so I'm sure that they have the same views even in the most extreme issues."
This is a stunning admission. You're previously claiming that Harris will do all the same things that you imagined Biden might do, and now you're saying that she claimed the quote you used to prove it was an error.
So, you have no argument at all.
I was condescending towards the argument, not you, because the argument really was that worthless. I felt embarrassed responding to something so obviously empty and wrong. Since I have made the point and now you seem to be making it personal by attacking me, I'm done here. Adios.
“I think there’s an obvious one in mind, which is Iran,” Harris replied. “Iran has American blood on their hands. This attack on Israel, 200 ballistic missiles.”
“What we need to do to ensure that Iran never achieves the ability to be a nuclear power, that is one of my highest priorities,” she added.
Whitaker followed up, asking, “If Iran is building a nuclear weapon, would you take military action?”
“I’m not going to talk about hypotheticals at this moment,” said the vice president.
-60 minutes 2024
A chance to say no, and she didn’t take it. Im not a fortune teller but so many downvotes for a comment that has just as much merit is ridiculous to me.