Liberals continuing to shift rightward to appease the mythical center voter who will just pick the non-off brand fascism.
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
-6 points (45.5% liked)
politics
18993 readers
2234 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.
- 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.
- 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
She also flipped on Medicare for All.
At the very least, she is not Trump and believes in a woman's right to choose, which is enough for now.
Why it matters: It's the latest example of Harris flip-flopping on her past liberal positions such as supporting Medicare for All and banning fracking — proposals that aides say she now is against.
Driving the news: In her speech to the Democratic National Convention last week, Harris said she would sign the recent bipartisan border security bill — which Trump had ordered his allies to kill, fearing it would help Democrats in the November elections.
Flashback: In declaring her candidacy in her first run for president in 2019, Harris called the wall Trump's "medieval vanity project" that wasn't going to stop transnational gangs from entering the U.S.
He told Axios that Harris wasn't involved in the months-long negotiations: "We never saw any vice president staff here. ... She was a Johnny-come-never."
Sen. Alex Padilla, a Democrat from Harris' home state of California, opposed the bill and said it "fails to provide relief for a single Dreamer, a single farmworker, a single essential worker or long-term resident."
Zoom in: Beyond embracing the bipartisan bill, Harris' campaign has portrayed her as an immigration hardliner in ads.
The bottom line: Like the wall itself, Harris' changes on border policy reflect how Trump has shifted the political debate on immigration during the past decade.
Build the wall but girlboss style
Hahaha, reminds me of this:
Just that gross violation of human rights vibe....
She's really going to fuck around trying to court republican voters and alienate her base so trump has a shot. I legitimately thought it was a short enough timeline that she couldn't fuck this up.
This is what I get for being an optimist.
Pretty much what the article says. She expects it to cost $650 million instead of $18 billion in grift.
Yeah, she's got the "will work for cooperation" sign out front of her office.
She's a politician. They're all politicians.
This is very misleading. All she said is that she would sign the border bill that had been negotiated and had broad bipartisan support before Trump had the Senate kill it to try to help his campaign. That bill extends the timeline for spending the 600 million already appropriated for the wall under the trump administration. This is a far cry from Trump's 18 billion wall spanning the entire border. I don't support this bill but I think it is dishonest to claim she has changed her position, merely accepting what was negotiated in Congress and her liking other provisions in it.
Good luck getting a single commenter to pause long enough to consider what you're saying. They've already jumped on the outrage wagon, full steam ahead.
Post-downvote brigade edit: See?
Edit 2: Here's proof of the brigade, for anyone who's curious.
As expected, but someone has to say it. 🤣😓
The people want what they want
The vast majority who want the wall will never vote D...
And most people who would only vote D, don't want the wall
We keep fucking giving Republicans what they want, even when they lose
Which depresses Dem turnout, and gets republicans in office.
And the country keeps marching right.
She has professional teams doing polls and assesing what people want. So maybe their assesment disagree with yours?
i cant think kf another reason
polls and assesing what people want.
Again, almost all Republicans want the wall, and some "moderates".
That may mean over 50% of Americans, but it's not over 50% of people who would ever in any circumstances vote D.
Which is why I said
We keep fucking giving Republicans what they want, even when they lose
Which depresses Dem turnout, and gets republicans in office.
Like, I feel that I've already put that as simplely as possible, I can't do anymore if you really don't get it
i cant think kf another reason
The thought that a politician would do what her billionaire donors want and not what her voting base wants...
That's not something you could think of?
It's not exactly a rare thing man, shit happens frustratingly often, but it never even crossed your mind why a Dem.politican would go against their base is the half a billion dollars they just raised in a country where the do or limit is essentially a million dollars a head in 2024?
Your mind just draws a blank when you contemplate why that could happen?
Why would the donors care about the wall?
You know trump gave so much money to Dems that Bill and Hillary showed up to one of his weddings right?
Lots of shitty billionaires give millions of dollars to both parties to ensure what they want will happen, regardless of who wins an election.
And this may shock you. But sometimes wealthy people are shitty and want shitty things.
Axios - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Axios:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.axios.com/2024/08/27/kamala-harris-flip-flops-border-wall