this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
160 points (96.0% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3157 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

The first bit is misleading, as Harris supports doubling the minimum wage to $15 for now https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/company-news/2024/10/23/harris-backs-15-minimum-wage-in-fight-with-trump-over-pay/ while the other guy wants to leave it at $7.25. And I suspect $17 is reachable in the future too, https://www.commondreams.org/news/kamala-harris-minimum-wage - going from $15 to $17 is a much smaller jump than going from $7.25 to $17 after all

Also, Harris did in the past have plans for universal healthcare - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-policy-positions-president-2024/ (without eliminating private healthcare, but this is doable, a good example being the Netherlands - https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/17/21046874/netherlands-universal-health-insurance-private ) while the other guy tried to repeal the ACA (getting rid of what little we had).

Harris wanted to ban fracking in the past, https://apnews.com/article/fracking-pennsylvania-president-campaign-donald-trump-kamala-harris-104f3f051df4d28e4645f05051eb6cff , so convincing to go to lower fracking in the future seems like an easier deal.

On police reform, Harris seemed to support this back in 2020, https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/politics/kfile-kamala-harris-praised-defund-the-police-movement-in-june-2020/index.html so might be easier to convince to readopt this position in the future.

It's technically true that neither candidate supports the positions you are pushing for, but it's clear that one of them is much closer to you than the other in terms of distance. The better candidate from this point of view is obvious.