Im sure if you complain hard enough the Democratic Party will swap out Kamala for who ever you deem is appropriate.
this is some epic "who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes" BS. at this point, you're either willfully ignorant or you're posting in bad faith.
As president, Trump threatened individual journalists, groups of journalists and specific media organizations. Same for intimidation. His stance has led to more violence against journalists. Proj 25 wants to end funding for NPR and PBS. Trump repeatedly has asked to jail journalists for things like not divulging their sources (like when journos reported on the Dobbs decision leak and many others).
Even though there is overlap, I don't want to conflate Trump and "The Right". I don't blame Biden for Oregon's easily-foreseeable failed experiment of legalizing all drugs. I'm not going to condemn the entire Democratic party for the issues in San Francisco. The broad-brush approach to politics is a big reason that the temperature of the political conversation has increased. "If San Fran is a mess because of the policies of Democrats, then ALL Democrats support those policies and want to implement them nationwide if they get into power." That's not constructive.
The fear is real. For many Dems it's "You're either with us or you're against us" and it doesn't matter if that includes denying the fact that they were running a mentally compromised, unfit Biden or an incredibly underwhelming Harris.
I think there are pros and cons to any president, but no one President is a true threat to the country. We made it through the deadliest pandemic in our lifetime with Trump running things. If he wins, he'll do what he does, but it's simply not possible that he can do anything to truly put the country at risk in four years. If the system that our country is built on is designed that poorly then we have much bigger problems.
Your contention is that the person with plenary power to launch, direct and supervise military operations, order or authorize the deployment of troops, unilaterally launch nuclear weapons, form military policy with the Department of Defense and Homeland Security, and declassify sensitive intelligence, "can't do anything to put the country at risk"? I just want to make sure I am understanding your argument.
Well, for one thing, he could round up immigrants and put them in detention camps. For another thing, he can sell US policy for personal financial gain, which he has almost certainly done. He can order the DOJ to take legal actions against people he doesn't like, which he did when he tried to stop the AT&T Time Warner merger. He can direct federal aid only to his supporters, which is what he did in North Carolina when there was a hurricane.
Maybe we define "putting the country at risk" differently. Yes, a nuclear war could legitimately put the country at risk, but I see no reason to believe he would do that and the odds at nearly zero that he would.
claiming that there is just "some overlap" with trump and the right is disingenuous BS. he is the leader of the party, they're all in lockstep with him and cater to his every whim. anti-lgbtq legislation is extremely popular with the GOP right now. equating a core tenet of their platform with the failed drug policy (which has worked elsewhere) in one city that was under dem governance is farcical - wholesale drug legalization isn't even remotely part of the dem platform. the san francisco mention is even sillier - go look at those government assistance maps in the other thread and get back to us on which party is taking better care of the citizenry.
I agree with most of what you said.
I dunno, I'm pretty fired up about Kamala. I think she stacks up favorably to anybody the dems could currently offer up as a presidential candidate. Better than most, actually. She checks a lot of boxes. Now then, regarding Trump, I completely agree...
I think her media strategy is slightly baffling unless her team doesn’t trust her in some of these environments. I think we could’ve had a candidate who was better on the stump and in retail settings. I’d also prefer someone more willing to present a left wing message on healthcare and immigration.
We don’t often agree on issues but I appreciate you and your rational understanding of how voting is a choice between two options. Just because you vote for Harris doesn’t mean you “like” her necessarily. She’s just closer to you than Trump is.
I have no agenda or ulterior motive for asking this other than genuine curiosity, and I want to ask some of my Trump supporting family members this too, but what, if anything, would be disqualifying enough for you to *not* cast a vote for Trump? (And I don’t mean vote for Harris as an alternative, I mean just not vote for Trump). For example, I know you know my FIL, and his final line in the sand for not voting for Trump was the 1-2 punch of Trump’s pro-Russia/anti-Ukraine stance, combined with Trump’s single-handed blocking of the GOP border security bill. I am almost certain he will not vote for Harris, but he has said he will absolutely not vote for Trump. Just curious to hear your perspective- and in fairness you could certainly turn right around and ask me what would be disqualifying enough for me to not vote for Harris and I’d be happy to respond.
I think most people who are voting for Harris like her a lot. Same with the people who are voting for Trump...