I’ve often assumed Harris didn’t want to insult her boss by going against him, because I got the impression she was planning to give Netanyahu what for once she took over - especially with him escalating things further and further. Did anyone else get that vibe, or was it just wishful thinking on my part?

  • tyler@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 days ago

    Once she was selected as the nominee she could have said anything she wanted. She’s only VP for a few more months.

      • kreskin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        she receives classified info because she’s the backup in case the president dies, not because Biden allows it or controls it. You are simply making stuff up and dont understand the role of VP at all.

      • sudo@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        Are you suggesting that its illegal for the VP to publicly disagree with the President?

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 days ago

          It’s total bullshit

          When Obama drew a line in the sand on Israel/Palestine, Biden publicly and repeatedly told any journalist who would listen that the only way to deal with Israel is give them everything they want.

          If Kamala can’t do it now, Biden couldn’t have done it then.

          Instead he got rewarded with the party backing another presidential run despite him always performing terribly.

          It sure as shit looks like it helped his career when he disagreed with the president as a VP

          But “moderates” will always bend over backwards to defend pulling the party right when anyone left of Richard Nixon tries to move the Overton window suddenly it’s the end of the world.

          There’s no logical consistency to it, just saying what makes them sound right in the moment.

          • sudo@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 days ago

            By that logic any presidential candidate would be banned from disagreeing with the president on active foreign policy issues which is absolutely not true. There’s no legal reason why the VP can’t disagree with the president.

              • sudo@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 days ago

                Because your explanation didn’t demonstrate why that matters. Any candidate’s position can jeopardize ongoing negotiations if its contrary to the current admin.

                The VP is very much at liberty to sabotage the current admin. There’s illegal ways to do it sure. Like if Harris said “Bibi openly admitted on a confidential line that he’s doing genocide.” That might be illegal because it was confidential. But she could say “I think Bibi is doing genocide. Biden doesn’t, but I think he’s wrong”. That wouldn’t violate any laws, even if it did effect negotiations. Remember the VP is an elected position, not a cabinet member. The president can’t fire them.

                If you’re just speculating then its baseless speculation. You might be right, but you’ll have to point to an actual law to prove your point.

                  • sudo@programming.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    9 days ago

                    You continue to not cite anything but your own baseless speculation and now you’re blatantly misquoting me in bad faith.

                    • That might be illegal because it was confidential.
                    • That wouldn’t violate any laws, even if it did effect negotiations

                    Fuck off.

      • tyler@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 days ago

        She literally can. There’s absolutely nothing preventing any member of the government from lying for any reason, no matter what, unless they’re on the stand. Campaigning is not a court room.