this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Politics

10186 readers
749 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
kalanggam@beehaw.org
circularfish@beehaw.org
knokelmaat@beehaw.org
Gaywallet@beehaw.org
JuBe@beehaw.org
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
JCPhoenix@beehaw.org
remington@beehaw.org
0
Why is Kamala Harris disliked so much as VP? (www.axios.com)
submitted 1 year ago by SemioticStandard@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

She has some criticisms for her past as an attorney, but I’m not sure why she’s so disliked now. What has she done to engender such distaste from the public?

top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Cylinsier@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The single biggest problem standing between the left and sustained and meaningful control of the federal government is the complete lack of ability of voters to circle around a consensus candidate. There are several valid reasons to be critical of Harris just as there are pretty much every single Democratic Presidential decade basically of my lifetime. But Republicans vote consistently for candidates they dislike or even hate just to beat Democrats. Every single candidate for the Democratic nomination in 2016, 2020, and undoubtedly in 2028 will have some vocal subset of registered Democrat voters telling you exactly why they will never in a million years vote for them. I saw it constantly on Reddit and I don't see any reason why it won't continue.

Until somebody drops the magic "consensus candidate" name that somehow pleases everyone, Democratic voters are always going to be a major hurdle to their own success. And frankly I don't think that "consensus candidate" name exists. Such is the curse of being the big tent party opposite the GOP. Republicans know they can continue winning elections for at least a little longer thanks to Democratic infighting alone.

[–] Ethereal87@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago

Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line.

It's reductive, but look at the Christian Right and Trump. Trump is nowhere close to the picture of a Christian. It's astounding he can safely cross the threshold of a church. But he promises to make sure abortion is illegal and men can't pretend to be women to steal kids, so they vote for him. Replace the abortion issue with guns and you get another set of voters who will vote Republican regardless of what they might personally feel.

Meanwhile and to your point on the left, each candidate's worst flaws are held as some kind of uncrossable line by people who are terminally online (which isn't helpful) and the Democratic Party does what they can to feed this and make sure they don't have to enact meaningful change. They just want to maintain the status quo but they get to do it with a pride flag waving behind them. If the Party establishment would just stop putting a thumb on the scale (not just against Bernie but ANYONE remotely progressive/left of the neoliberal center) and let the primary process shake out the most popular candidate, they might actually find themselves winning elections.

[–] StrayCatFrump@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

She's a racist, classist noeliberal and a fucking cop (or close enough).

Her political career has been chock-full of attacking public institutions like schools, protecting white-collar crime which destroyed countless lives, protecting child molesters in the church, implementing policy against the poor, and protecting prison slavery. I'm not sure where exactly the confusion lies.

[–] BaconIsAVeg@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This isn't Facebook grandpa, you need to show your work.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At some point you need to take a degree of personal responsibility and research things for yourself. This isn't a debate, you don't get the luxury of being spoon-fed everything.

[–] yunggwailo@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Asking people to research things themselves is how you have genius' like op spreading fox news smears but from the left

[–] rackmountrambo@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But like this is all common knowledge if you want to have something of use to offer to this conversation. She was the California AG, literally the top policing position. Before that she was San Francisco's DA and ran on a platform of Tough On Crime. She's literally is cop and many would argue by extension, racist, as in systematic.

As for her neoliberal status, I don't think that needs to be explained.

I hate when people say "do your own research" as much as the next guy, but there is a certain degree of familiarity with the subject matter that should be expected to participate, even ACAB dude up there knows what he's talking about.

[–] ChemicalRascal@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Well, her being a cop is self-evident, but let's review the entire comment:

She's a racist, classist noeliberal and a fucking cop (or close enough).

Her political career has been chock-full of attacking public institutions like schools, protecting white-collar crime which destroyed countless lives, protecting child molesters in the church, implementing policy against the poor, and protecting prison slavery. I'm not sure where exactly the confusion lies.

I would argue that, frankly, her being a neoliberal should be explained, for the sake of discussion, but her being racist and classist should be. The details of her career being "chock-full" of various acts should be coupled with specific citations to reporting of those acts. And so on.

I don't like Harris, mind, but the comment being discussed could have established its evidence in a more convincing manner.