greetings americans, it an honest question.
Outside of america i constantly see, especially recently as your elections are coming up that…well, it looks like a clownshow?
Your recent two contenders where a hugely dept orange clown who can barely keep a coherent thought advertising a product in the whitehows, who had to have his name constantly mention when being talked to or he will be disinterested.
The other one was a senile old fossil who couldnt even say a single sentence without his dementia kicking in.
Now you have trump again as a runner up and he seems so openly incompetently corrupt its almost funny, than we have the senile man who (to my extremely limited knowledge) got replaced by this kamala woman because he was too old, said woman seems to be at least present in mind and appears to see trump as what he really is, a manchild (the famous clip of her basically laguhing at him)
Like, are outside views are just so vehemently skewed by news, people and the like? Or am i just grossly misinformed?
is this kamala also at least half as decent as she appears?
I’ve warmed up to her and think she’ll make a good president, but I honestly haven’t liked Kamala for the past 4 or so years. I had actually hoped she would’ve disappeared off the face of the earth when she lost the democratic primaries, then Biden picked her up as VP and she’s been one of the most inconsequential VPs in modern US history. Considering how important/influential the VP has been since Dick Cheney seemingly redefined the role, Harris just hasn’t brought much, which is in keeping with how the role has been traditionally seen. I dreaded her stepping up for president, but she seems to have exceeded my expectations and I’ve come around to her.
As for Harris’ qualifications/positions, they seem like average middle of the road Democrat positions, nothing too exciting, but it would be nice to get a younger face in there who had some understanding of some modern technology.
She’s the only candidate on the ballot who is actively presiding over a genocide. That should be disqualifying, but I guess some people define decency differently.
I’ve seen the occasional post here on lemmy making this point. I don’t see anything factually wrong in saying she’d likely keep status quo or even make it worse. But when I see this said the one thing that I always wonder is never addressed:
How would the outcome be better if you voted against her?
Like, I have to imagine that someone making this argument thinks Trump would improve the situation. Because if that isn’t the case, then this is not a decision I’m making at the voting booth, so saying she’d continue genocide as a reason to vote against her falls flat (and, if you’re wondering, is why people are quick to downvote this argument). Is the hope that Trump will see the artillery shells sent to isreal as “librul policy” and axe it on that basis? Or that he’ll do such a bad job that he’ll get assassinated/arrested/overthrown? Something else entirely?
Enlighten me, because I can’t envision Trump making anything better.
Who’s saying that? It’s not about making the situation better or worse at this point. Neither candidate wants the genocide to stop and it’s debatable that it could be worsened. However, Harris is guilty of actively and materially supporting this genocide, which is more damning and disqualifying than any of allegations against Trump. Apart from that, losing the election is the closest that Harris and her party will get to actually being held accountable. Maybe this kind of feedback will get the Democrats to change their strategy. Maybe not. At least I won’t be cosigning genocide.
More damning? I would think trying to overthrow the government and trying to install himself as a dictator would be just as bad.
Worse
What an incredibly deranged response. Over nine hundred families have officially been exterminated in Gaza. Realistic estimates put the death toll there over the past year well above 100,000. How many people were actually killed on January 6th?
Oh fun, please explain how she’s presiding over the genocide when she’s not the president?
Biden reiterated in his ONLY press conference that she has been in agreement with every policy decision. She has repeatedly said she wouldn’t change a thing. And that $5m in AIPAC money comes with strings attached.
Apart from trying to sell the genocide every chance she gets, Harris is part of Biden’s cabinet. Ostensibly, she’s leading the team that’s making the genocide happen. Or are you implying that Harris has had a do-nothing job for the past three years? Not exactly a shining qualification for the presidency, but I suppose that would make her a little less complicit to genocide if it were true.
Do you understand the difference between president and vice president? She’s also not on the cabinet. That’s for cabinet members. My point is she’s not presiding over anything. Biden is in charge. And your claim moments seem to be repeating propaganda nonsense.
If you’re going to damn your soul by endorsing an ongoing genocide, at least get some basic facts right. The vice president serves on the cabinet by statute.