c/politics · by return2ozma@lemmy.world · 209d

Not Now, Kamala

https://www.thecut.com/article/what-is-headquarters-kamala-harris-launch.html

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/42731267

Paywall removed https://archive.is/d8OQv

76 points · 24 comments · view on lemmy.world

24 Comments

For the love of cod...Kamala Harris is not a "progressive". These fucks just keep pretending to be something they're not, and then can't understand why people aren't buying it. Either walk the talk, or shut the fuck up.

return2ozma@lemmy.world · 35 pts · 209d (13 replies)

Is this the sort of thing that’s going to get Gen Z excited about progressive politics? I doubt it. I’m no 17-year-old, but when social media is filled with videos of masked immigration officers indiscriminately attacking protesters and separating children from their families, I don’t think what young people want is a “progressive content hub.” I might be going out on a limb here, but I think what Gen Z wants is for their elected officials to do something that actually helps their constituents. Does this feel like the right time for a Substack essay?

tidderuuf@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 209d (12 replies)

It's starting to feel like whoever is behind her political planning is the same person behind Hillary Clinton's and now I'm wondering if that person is getting their ideas from someone determined to torpedo the U.S. political landscape with constant cringe and feelings of helplessness.

return2ozma@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 209d (1 reply)

Remember this? Ugh...

TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 209d

ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 209d

It's still probably David Brock/Media Matters, the one that helped give us Clarence Thomas by smearing Anita Hill and smeared Bernie in 2016.

AmidFuror@fedia.io · -4 pts · 209d (8 replies)

It's either that or the way people perceive female politicians is slanted.

NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io · 4 pts · 209d (6 replies)

Or, you know, neoliberal ghouls are unpopular no matter their gender. Have you considered that possibility?

AmidFuror@fedia.io · -1 pts · 209d (5 replies)

Sure, it's possible you didn't like either woman who gained the Democratic nomination for President both times it happened, but you'll give the third a fair shake. Anything is possible.

RaskolnikovsAxe@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 209d (2 replies)

As an outsider with high vested interest in American politics, without a doubt both Kamala and Hillary were better than the Republican alternative in 2016 and 2020, but I would hope they were not the best the Democrats have to offer (which could very well be a woman), and they were rather forced onto the electorate which has the air of unearned inevitability, to say the least.

The country still should have voted for them.

Obama was a better choice than Hillary for the Dem nomination though.

AmidFuror@fedia.io · 0 pts · 209d (1 reply)

Would you say they were ghouls?

RaskolnikovsAxe@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 209d

Uhhh no.

Again outsider perspective: I think Hillary is perhaps the most representative of American pragmatism, and probably a ball buster in her interactions. Kamala seems a bit gentle, I guess, for lack of a better word.

As is typical of American politics and in particular Democrats, it's difficult to pin down beliefs or predict what they will actually do in office, and it always looked like status quo based on corporate donors. But status quo is still better than fascism.

In the end I don't think Obama performed much better than Hillary would have. He had a lot of promise but for whatever reason - constraints, his real personality, whatever - he let a lot of people down as well.

NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io · 1 pts · 209d (1 reply)

Why do you think I liked the men that got the Democratic nomination for president?

AmidFuror@fedia.io · 0 pts · 209d

Probably because of their balls.*

*You set yourself up for that one.

hector@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 209d

Would that be an excuse if it was true? You knew everyone hated a candidate, but nominated them anyway?

The logic involved is beyond stupid, and flat out wrong, and everyone knows it. Justifying nominated someone that can't win is not excused by their minority status, no matter why people rejected them. And given that Hillary was rejected by white woman, and kamala by blacks, and woman, it makes the argument even dumber.

4am@lemmy.zip · 19 pts · 209d (1 reply)

Oh my god the username literally has “67” in it to try and be hip

Fuck alllllll the way off you unserious ghoul

kurmudgeon@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 209d

69 > 67

CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 209d

/facepalm

I don't know if she's gonna run, but unless someone like a Mamdani shows up at the national level, it's likely we will be stuck with the usual suspects, her included.

Sigh.

PerryM@newsie.social · 3 pts · 209d (4 replies)

@return2ozma Not EVER Kamala!

claralistensprechen3rd@friendica.myportal.social · -1 pts · 209d (3 replies)

@PerryM @return2ozma I take exception to that sentiment.

PerryM@newsie.social · 2 pts · 209d (2 replies)

@claralistensprechen3rd @return2ozma Tell you what, you tell me one reason that she should ever be considered for public office and I will tell you one reason that she shouldn't ... DEAL?

claralistensprechen3rd@friendica.myportal.social · 0 pts · 209d

@PerryM @return2ozma No because at this point I've already heard 'em all. Pass.

sepi@piefed.social · -3 pts · 209d

People like you got us the fascist. You should enjoy it.

kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 209d (1 reply)

[ removed ]

bhamlin@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 209d

Deleted