The latest news and live updates on the 2024 election. Follow the Trump-Vance and Harris-Walz campaigns ahead of the presidential election in November.
This is literally the argument for why the Cheneys endorsements raise concerns for Harris. Her history and current reticence to break from Biden (whose foreign policy is not obviously different from Cheney’s) and more directly criticize Israel indicates they might, at least to some degree, have some issues they agree on. If the Cheneys endorsed Cornel West, we’d also have collectively shrugged, but Harris has been explicitly tacking to the right and supporting a destructive war in the Middle East.
No, it isn’t. The Cheneys aren’t supporting Harris, but rejecting trump and trying to pull more moderate conservatives away from him. Not towards Harris – their platforms are not aligned at all – but to try to bring the GOP away from self-immolation.
Again,their motives are purely self-interest.
On the other hand, Duke is saying he supports Stein because her interests align with his. Huge ass difference.
Uh, they’re definitely supporting Harris. Liz Cheney is out there appearing at events trying to get her elected. That’s a hell of a lot more than Duke is doing. This claim is just expanding the mental gymnastics in a new direction.
You still haven’t addressed how Biden’s foreign policy and Harris’s presumed foreign policy (due to her unwillingness to create daylight) isn’t a part of her platform aligned with the Cheneys. Dick Cheney’s defining political interest was foreign policy, specifically one that bombs Arabs for geopolitical gain, and it just happens to be pretty compatible with what’s going on right now. If her platform was that neocons were war criminals and should be tried at the Hague they might have been a little less likely to get on board.
David Duke, who said he doesn’t agree with Stein on most issues and was actually rejected by the Stein campaign, is somehow an all-in representative supporter, but Liz Cheney, who also said she doesn’t agree with Harris on most issues but was embraced by the campaign and is literally campaigning for it, isn’t. Hell, Duke’s endorsement, if anything, is likely to work against the supposed shared goal of electing fascists. He could have just endorsed Trump, the fascist who most of his racist followers would have naturally supported.
Their endorsements are both self-interested with a limited overlap on platform, but one counts because you want it to. And by every possible measure the Cheney endorsements is getting more acknowledgement and encouragement from the campaign. Either bad people endorsing a campaign is in itself a mark against the campaign or it isn’t. You’re trying to figuyre out some complex logical structure that permits one and not the other but it’s nonsensical, especially since one set of the bad people was embraced by the campaign and it wasn’t the one your end goal demands.
I think I understand why you’re not getting this. You simply can’t understand that under FPTP, the only way to vehemently deny one candidate and to keep them out of office is to ‘support’ the other, even if you don’t agree with them. When one candidate will destroy democracy and usher in an autocracy, if you actually care about having a choice in the future, the only effective solution is to support an opposition that will not destroy everything.
You still haven’t addressed how Biden’s foreign policy and Harris’s presumed foreign policy (due to her unwillingness to create daylight) isn’t a part of her platform aligned with the Cheneys.
This is not the topic of conversation, and I’ve already given you enough of my time. Google exists., and I’m not your polisci professor. You can look the rest up for yourself.
Oh my god, what a mind numbingly stupid lesson from someone stubbornly refusing to answer the question that blows their whole argument up. I’m not even sure why you would think my question, a question to you personally, would be answerable by either a polisci professor or Google. It’s just a nonsensical response by someone who knows they don’t have an answer and simply wants to avoid acknowledging their hypocrisy.
None of this is about who I want to win or whether I think Stein is a responsible and sincere political candidate (she isn’t), it’s about your hypocritical assertion that bad endorsements only sometimes reflect on candidates.
This is literally the argument for why the Cheneys endorsements raise concerns for Harris. Her history and current reticence to break from Biden (whose foreign policy is not obviously different from Cheney’s) and more directly criticize Israel indicates they might, at least to some degree, have some issues they agree on. If the Cheneys endorsed Cornel West, we’d also have collectively shrugged, but Harris has been explicitly tacking to the right and supporting a destructive war in the Middle East.
No, it isn’t. The Cheneys aren’t supporting Harris, but rejecting trump and trying to pull more moderate conservatives away from him. Not towards Harris – their platforms are not aligned at all – but to try to bring the GOP away from self-immolation.
Again,their motives are purely self-interest.
On the other hand, Duke is saying he supports Stein because her interests align with his. Huge ass difference.
e: formatting
Uh, they’re definitely supporting Harris. Liz Cheney is out there appearing at events trying to get her elected. That’s a hell of a lot more than Duke is doing. This claim is just expanding the mental gymnastics in a new direction.
You still haven’t addressed how Biden’s foreign policy and Harris’s presumed foreign policy (due to her unwillingness to create daylight) isn’t a part of her platform aligned with the Cheneys. Dick Cheney’s defining political interest was foreign policy, specifically one that bombs Arabs for geopolitical gain, and it just happens to be pretty compatible with what’s going on right now. If her platform was that neocons were war criminals and should be tried at the Hague they might have been a little less likely to get on board.
David Duke, who said he doesn’t agree with Stein on most issues and was actually rejected by the Stein campaign, is somehow an all-in representative supporter, but Liz Cheney, who also said she doesn’t agree with Harris on most issues but was embraced by the campaign and is literally campaigning for it, isn’t. Hell, Duke’s endorsement, if anything, is likely to work against the supposed shared goal of electing fascists. He could have just endorsed Trump, the fascist who most of his racist followers would have naturally supported.
Their endorsements are both self-interested with a limited overlap on platform, but one counts because you want it to. And by every possible measure the Cheney endorsements is getting more acknowledgement and encouragement from the campaign. Either bad people endorsing a campaign is in itself a mark against the campaign or it isn’t. You’re trying to figuyre out some complex logical structure that permits one and not the other but it’s nonsensical, especially since one set of the bad people was embraced by the campaign and it wasn’t the one your end goal demands.
I think I understand why you’re not getting this. You simply can’t understand that under FPTP, the only way to vehemently deny one candidate and to keep them out of office is to ‘support’ the other, even if you don’t agree with them. When one candidate will destroy democracy and usher in an autocracy, if you actually care about having a choice in the future, the only effective solution is to support an opposition that will not destroy everything.
This is not the topic of conversation, and I’ve already given you enough of my time. Google exists., and I’m not your polisci professor. You can look the rest up for yourself.
I think they know. I just want this election to be over so this plague is gone from this site.
Oh, don’t you worry. No matter what happens, there’ll always be something for them to bitch about.
Oh my god, what a mind numbingly stupid lesson from someone stubbornly refusing to answer the question that blows their whole argument up. I’m not even sure why you would think my question, a question to you personally, would be answerable by either a polisci professor or Google. It’s just a nonsensical response by someone who knows they don’t have an answer and simply wants to avoid acknowledging their hypocrisy.
None of this is about who I want to win or whether I think Stein is a responsible and sincere political candidate (she isn’t), it’s about your hypocritical assertion that bad endorsements only sometimes reflect on candidates.