604
Democratic President rebuilds economy, just in time to hand it off to Trump — again
(www.huffpost.com)
this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
604 points (96.7% liked)
politics
19240 readers
2963 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If the democrats are so sick of getting swapped out maybe they should field some decent candidates.
Unless your idea of a good candidate is George Clooney or Oprah than this isn't a problem that can be fixed with 'better candidates'.
Those answers make me unreasonably angry. The absolute stupidity is astounding.
'Believe in Christ'? How the fuck do people see that?
Those aren't my idea of good candidates either. My idea of a good candidate would be someone ethical, that wants to improve life for our citizens, that values constitutional values and the rule of law. I am not sure such a person exists in the US that is capable of winning the presidency.
In your picture above, just because a few morons vote for silly reasons doesn't invalidate the value of having actual good representation.
There's value in good representation, but it's just not going to help us win elections so it's moot.
The most ethical, constitutional, kind of loving candidate in the world is worth jack shit if they can't win an election.
Sorry, I would not prefer an unethical, unconstitutional, unloving candidate to win. Actually, I think that's exactly what we did get.
The people in that image voted for Trump. They're describing Donald Trump.
Your idea of a good candidate is useless when Voters are morons that think Trump is the good candidate.
If voters demonstrated one thing this year, it's that the decency of the candidate is utterly irrelevant.
It's not relevant to Republicans, but it got Democrats to stay home.
Staying home was, in effect, a vote for indecency.
There was nothing wrong with Harris except seven million people who voted for Biden weren't ready for her to become president.
It is more like 250k in 4 states that flipped.
Harris got about seven million less votes then Biden.
In states that didn't matter. In every swing state but Pennsylvania they had record turnouts. She even beat some of bidens support in those states and still lost. 7 million isn't the story it is she didn't really gain 250k votes in 4 key states and lost.
I didn't enjoy what she did as district attorney. I would also argue if she was not electable in 2024, then she doesn't meet the bar of a "good candidate". Now her viability is irrelevant entirely, unless she plans to run in 2028.
I think it is more of a reflection of the voters and non-voters.
Harris, like Hillary, was put forward without the express will of the people - she didn't win a primary over Biden, because there was no primary elections.
Arguably the "will of the people" was exercised through them supporting the Democratic party. The Democratic party put forth a new candidate in accordance with their own guidelines, which were in place prior to 2024. This was no coup, it was the Democratic party putting forth a candidate as they may. This is not new. They can put forth anyone they wish.
Kamala was put into place by receiving the most votes during a virtual roll call: https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_delegate_rules%2C_2024
If one supports the Democratic party, surely one would sanction the process by which Kamala became the presidential candidate, as they were acting in accordance of their own party guidelines, which were in place long before this election. If a president would have withdrew prior to Biden, the exact same process would have taken place. A similar action took place in 1972 when VP nominee Thomas Eagleton withdrew. None of this is new.
The "will of the people" was Joe Biden, who won the Democratic primary quite handily. However, the Joe Biden people thought they were voting for wasn't the Joe Biden we actually had, as there was a very deliberate effort to hide his declining health by the party leadership. Hence the whole reason they had to change candidates, once it became too obvious that Biden wasn't fit to serve another term as president.
So while the Democratic party still followed their processes and guidelines by ultimately putting forth Kamala Harris as their candidate, it's not like they had to do it because Biden withdrew due to some freak accident or something like that. You can't really sanction what they did when the whole thing is rooted in the party leadership deliberately deceiving people.
I think the bigger problem is that she is a non-white woman.
Nah. Their masters wouldn't like that.
Or what? What are we going to do about it if they field another pro-corporate candidate?
The same thing people did this time -- vote Republican or stay home. I think the outcome of the latest election makes it clear how ineffective the democrats are. By a lot of metrics, Donald Trump was not that successful of a presidency, and despite that, the democrats were not able to field anyone that could defeat him.
facts. all their candidates suck. Kamala Harris was an embarrassment and the people who still support her after such a catastrophic failure are the exact reason she lost: echo chamber. out of touch with reality. delusional.
This is a false equivalency. Harris wouldn't send migrants to concentration camps. She wouldn't attack our allies. She wouldn't cut social security and VA benefits. Instead she wanted to help normal people like you and me.
Trump constantly praises dictators such as Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-Un and has a history of sexually assaulting people.
She said she wanted to help "normal people"... yet she didn't list a single useful policy prescription. In fact, when asked if she would do anything differently, she said she wouldn't change anything from what Biden did... despite Biden NOT helping normal people like you and me.
Honestly I liked her. I thought she'd make good decisions on the hot seat. But I think she let her advisors push her to the right, into a milquetoast corporate campaign. And that's what killed it.