201
I mean I would hope so. That's one of the biggest jobs of being vice president.
I hope that Biden gets reelected and then a few months in steps down and gives us the first female and black president. The maggats will lose their fucking minds and I'm going to have a trailer of popcorn ready for the show.
I don't really like Kamala Harris much, but I really doubt she'd be substantially worse than Biden. And probably miles better than virtually any Republican.
Right now I don't care about us moving forward policy wise. At the moment what we need is more stability and let the states work on progressive policy like protecting trans, queer, etc, access to birth control, abortions, etc.
Biden has been way better than people give him credit for (including the left). He has not only been able to (with help obviously) undo most of the damage trump caused but has also brought us back to a fairly roaring economy despite the insane inflation thanks to capitalism being capitalism.
Too many states are doing the opposite.
Not that many compared to the ones passing laws to reinforce it or even codifying it in their states constitution. 1 of 2 things will happen with the reddest of states.
-
They lose enough people moving to blue states that they keep taking more from the feds than they pay in and the status quo stays the same.
-
Enough progressives move to cities like Austin that they turn the state purple if not bright blue.
What we need is some kind of federal rule on how to draw districts and magically the maggats lose most of their power.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I didn't expect lollypops and ice cream when Biden was elected but if you really look at his accomplishments, he is doing a really good job. Certainly the MSM isn't reporting it so you have to dig to find it, and it's there.
I disagree that Biden is doing a really good job. I think he is not doing enough to combat climate change, labor rights, income inequality, or human rights abuses at every level of government. His foreign policy is status quo, which isn't good.
He's a functioning adult with a modicum of shame, which is to say he's worlds better than any Republican, especially Trump. He's doing his job and making thoughtful, considered decisions. In comparison to the previous administration, that's a grand slam, but compared to the leadership we need right now, it's not good enough.
If Harris becomes president and chooses to run for a second term, there's a good chance we're losing 2028. She lacks charisma and often comes off as unprepared even for softball questions, and her history does... not endear her to large parts of the Dem electorate.
Best hope for a non-dictator running on the GOP ticket.
Hell, maybe I'll be proven wrong, and she'll turn out great in the position. But I'm not exactly thrilled by her performance so far.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I'm not gonna say it would be wrong to happen that way, but I do feel like it would be a disservice to civil rights for the first woman president to be a matter of technicality, deigned to be given by an old white man. It would always be a bit marred by that.
While I don't disagree. I wouldn't be surprised if they had already discussed this possibility. And seriously, what is the difference between him stepping down after the next election or 3 months ago? It's more likely than not to happen legitimately versus "health issues".
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Is this her answer to defending Biden’s age? I am patiently waiting to become president when he dies?
Isn't this what every vice president does? It's literally the job of the vice president.
I'm sure Pence was just waiting for Donnie to choke on a hamburger.
From New York city conman to whack a doodle evangelical... There truly was no upside.
I mean for every president it's a valid concern. Not everyone can live to 95.
load more comments
(10 replies)
Reading the actual article, the context is not so awkward, at least not because she made it so.
The person asking the question specifically raised the "are you ready to serve if he can't?". The interviewer specifically took it there, rather than her voluntarily choosing to take the conversation there.
One of Biden's biggest mistakes was choosing Harris as his VP, she's been pretty much worthless as a VP, other than doing her tiebreaker votes, but I'm pretty sure anyone in that position would've done the same exact thing. Still though, apart from recent history, VP's have usually been pretty much ceremonial in that role, so maybe it's more a return to form having someone like her there, rather than a Cheney or a Biden actually being considered a key part of the administration.
Biden being a VP was the only other reason to vote for him besides his stated ability to negotiate with Senate Republicans...
They were both bullshit reasons. When a candidate the party likes can't win a primary, they make them a VP and then claim that makes them experienced.
Hell, with Biden they even said that wouldn't happen because of his age, then over a decade later he still became president.
There's an obsession about name recognition, ignorant of the fact that even the most politically disengaged Americans will know both candidates before the general even starts.
Also, one of the critical qualities people seek for a VP is that they’re boring.
You dont pick a vp that’s popular- they might get more popular than you- and you don’t pick a vo that’s “controversial”
One might risk more, if the person is from a battleground state and is popular,
Biden gave her basically all meh jobs as VP too. Might have been on purpose. Give her something to do without setting her up to primary him.
she wasn't popular enough to primary him. there was some issues, IIRC, with her history as a prosecutor (of the "tough on crime" sort.) She's certainly more qualified that Trump, or anyone trump would pick as a VP at this point; but I don't think she'd win her own election... even if Biden had worked to set her up to replace him.
Can someone explain to me why I shouldn’t like Kamala Harris? And if someone says because she hasn’t been an effective VP, could someone show me an example of an effective VP in modern US history?
Peoples arguments stem from her political career before VP specifically due to her being a cop, her strong support for stop and frisk, and some terrible policies which harmed the black community by propagating their mass incarceration along with poor standards of education and access to public services. To be clear though, still better than the guy who states he'll be a dictator for "a day" whose lawyer claimed in court he could have his political opposition killed and as long as he wasn't impeached, it'd be legal
Additionally, Biden is one of the biggest proponents of the drug war and was more than happy to destroy people's lives over cannabis, all based on his own anecdotal fear towards drugs.
In 1986, then-Senator Joe Biden authored the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986–a critical component of the broader War on Drugs that devastated low-income communities of color through mass criminalization and systemic police violence.
Biden and Harris are just a step below Hillary Clinton when it comes to how muddy and shady they are. They really need more progressive people within the party who have the ability to rally Democrats to change. Like what Bernie tried, but find someone young who can actually bring about the change.
It's all better then Trump and the Republicans, but Harris and Biden are as right wing as you get from a democrat.
Cheney was pretty effective. Not that that was a good thing.
He was part of the Nixon, Ford, and both Bush Whitehouses...served in Congress during Reagan.
He knew where a lot of bodies went, which helps you get your things done.
As a VP backing up Biden, I think she's swell. As the candidate who has to beat Trump, I don't think she's strong enough. She shat the bed in the primary debates, and she has a complicated record as a prosecutor and previously supported policies that make it easy to criticize. She's either "evolved" on divisive issues, or she's on the wrong side of history.
The same could be said of Biden, but he has the decades of connections and experience, not to mention charisma, that helped him pull ahead in the primary and the general in 2020. I don't like him, and I think he's very beatable, but I think Harris would be much worse. In an open primary, I don't think Harris would win the nomination, even running as an incumbent (like if Biden stepped down). Maybe if Biden wins and then immediately steps down, giving her four years to establish herself, she could craft a new identity. But it is too late for that now.
If Biden were unavailable as a candidate, we'll get four more years of Trump.
To name a few:
-Championed and implemented legislation that put parents in prison if their child skipped school (truency)
-She blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so
-Put 1900 people in prison for smoking weed, while giggling about smoking it herself
-Blocked access to 12$ DNA tests, to check if the preserved DNA from a crime is from the defendant.
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/10/17/924766186/the-story-behind-kamala-harriss-truancy-program https://www.theblaze.com/news/kamala-harris-criminal-justice-record
Joe Biden.
load more comments
(1 replies)
That is the big advantage of the Dems here. If Trump croaks before the election, the GOP has nothing but a field of debris. If Biden does, Harris is still there.
You say that like it’s a good thing. She is very very unpopular.
load more comments
(12 replies)
Is she, though?
Right? Like, do we need to heat her up before she’s served or is she good at room temperature?
Has she even spoken about abortion rights yet? I remember this video where she doesn't even say the word lol
Kamala Harris' BIZARRE Answer To Abortion Question - TMR 2022
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
201 points (90.7% liked)
politics
19248 readers
2398 users here now
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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS