299

Where Kamala Harris Stands on the Issues: Abortion, Immigration and More (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 3 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 27 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 123 points 3 months ago

It’s so funny how people cannot stop blowing up Biden resignation posts with comments about Harris, and here we have an informative article on her positions with nothing but crickets and tumbleweeds.

This is a good article, and exactly the type of campaign platform information that needs to be in the news.

[-] Zachariah@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I’d much rather see articles about getting the other old fart out of the race. He has even less business running. And at this point now he’s the only one who’s too old to run.

[-] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago

Honestly, when I saw it was from the Times, I just closed it. I'm done with their bullshit. I'll wait to get a detailed list from Reuters or AP.

[-] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The guardian's summary was pretty thorough in my opinion

The pros and cons of Kamala Harris: a progressive reformer forced to run on Biden’s record

[-] ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

There wasn't anything particularly noteworthy in the article anyway. It's puff issues that anyone who has been halfway paying attention could accurately assume her position toward.

[-] HWK_290@lemmy.world 88 points 3 months ago

More progressive than Biden and working behind the scenes on his more popular policy outcomes. Ok, I'm getting more excited

And the fucking genocide posters can STFU after reading this

[-] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 35 points 3 months ago

Narrator: They didn't.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 57 points 3 months ago

Abortion: Isn’t Hitler
Immigration: Isn’t Hitler
More: Isn’t Hitler

I mean… sure, please, continue. I’m not tryin to be snarky while you’re in the middle of informing the electorate. But also, one could very sincerely argue that saying literally anything without also offering the context that she isn’t Hitler and that’s all that really matters… is failing to inform the electorate, to at least a certain significant extent.

[-] MimicJar@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago

You're not going to win any additional voters with the "Isn't Hitler" defense. Don't get me wrong I think the comparison is an apt one, but all a Trump or undecided voters sees is "not Trump" which gives Trump the ability to hold any position or value, even when that position or value is a completely fabricated lie.

Be clear, Kamala is pro-choice, a value which most Americans agree with. Be clear she holds the belief that most Americans already hold. Codified Roe v Wade.

This extends to any current/future candidate.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I am saying that the New York Times is doing a disservice to its readers by giving this kabuki theater presentation of this as a normal election between candidates that need to be evaluated on their merits and policies and etc.

I’m not saying anything from a standpoint of strategizing winning the election, although yes I would hope that a clearer understanding of what’s at stake would lead people to support Harris more than they otherwise would. I’m just talking about journalistic standards; some of the things NYT reporters have said and written show an absolutely unhinged level of normalization of Trump and a pretense that his second presidency would be a normal American presidency, and we need to be treating this election in that light.

That’s more what I’m complaining about. It’s like judging the wolf invading your house on its merits against the show dog that is your current pet, and potentially we may want to adopt this thing instead, depending on how fit the show dog is in terms of the coat and the bearing and etc, and comparing the two.

[-] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago

They do mention January 6th in the article

[-] AdamBomb@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 months ago

Article was more informative than “isn’t Hitler.” I don’t understand this comment.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 6 points 3 months ago

I explained it a little more here

[-] AdamBomb@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 months ago

I understand now having read your linked comment

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 3 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Ms. Harris has supported the Biden administration’s climate efforts, including legislation that provided hundreds of billions of dollars in tax credits and rebates for renewable energy and electric vehicles.

During her 2020 presidential campaign, she emphasized the need for environmental justice, a framework that calls for policies to address the adverse effects that climate change has on poor communities and people of color.

In 2019, Ms. Harris, then a senator, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, introduced legislation that would have evaluated environmental rules and laws by how they affected low-income communities.

The legislation — which went through several iterations but was ultimately blocked in the Senate — would have countered voting restrictions in Republican-led states, limited gerrymandering and regulated campaign finance more strictly.

As a senator, she introduced legislation that would have provided a tax credit of up to $6,000 for middle- and low-income families, a proposal she emphasized during her presidential campaign as a way to address income inequality.

Ms. Harris called in March for an “immediate cease-fire” in Gaza and described the situation there as a “humanitarian catastrophe.” She said that “the threat Hamas poses to the people of Israel must be eliminated” but also that “too many innocent Palestinians have been killed.”

The original article contains 1,203 words, the summary contains 208 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[+] Crismus@lemmy.world -62 points 3 months ago

I don't think we need more prosecuters and law and order folks leading the US. For people who need access to their medications to live, we don't need another person not understanding opiates to make life harder and threatening to put the doctors supporting Chronic Pain patients in jail.

We don't need another leader against the poor advocating for more prisons to keep slavery a viable business.

We especially don't need an insider who will follow all the rules of the neocon playback to be pushed on the party like a other Hillary. There are other women available to become president besides the first laser of the 2020 primary. She was the token black woman of Biden's administration, to show minorities that he actually cares about them, instead of them remembering his crime bill and anti-integration stances.

Just like Biden was used to show white people that Obama wasn't a bad type of African American president.

The only thing this may do is maybe lower the Israel issue and weapon sales. The DNC are fine with her because she supports the constant failure of Gun Control, Drug Controls, and keeping the poor poor. She won't push a radical change against business leaders, push for inequality changes for workers, or stop legalized slavery.

I really can't support her. I would have voted for Biden, but now I can't find any reason to vote for any presidential candidate.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 30 points 3 months ago

It feels like you're lying when you claim you would've voted for Biden. Why would anyone believe you?

[+] Crismus@lemmy.world -8 points 3 months ago

I knew what to expect from Biden. Granted I wanted him to hold to his one term promise, which is why I didn't vote for him during the Primary.

VP's don't do much beyond supporting their president, so Kamala as VP wasn't a big deal. Hey taking over, with her previous baggage of pro prison slavery and ignoring police brutality, is less of a slow Biden administration. So far there are rumors that she spends less time in Washington than GWB did as President, and will take plenty of breaks to recharge in LA. A President can't be a part-time job, it ages a person.

Also, why are you saying I'm lying when I was willing to follow the party for Biden? Wasn't that what had been constantly preached to do for months to stop Trump?

Just because I understand the difference between two radically different candidates doesn't mean I'm now some unfaithful actor. Granted everyone is just lines on a screen. This isn't a football game or boxing match, this is choosing someone who will decide the fate of all Americans for four years. Just because the Republicans chose a horrible evil candidate doesn't mean the Democrats can keep stringing along the left with the same carrot hoping we all keep falling for their lies.

Moving toward the right doesn't work when the other side is a cult. So, why should the left side of the party keep following the DNC when they keep moving right? This is the third election where they want everyone to just fall in line, but the DNC isn't a cult, so people should be free to voice opinions on the problems with a Candidate.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

You claiming you won't vote kinda destroys any of the good faith you seem to intend to portray. It definitely makes you a bad faith actor.

[-] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago

I honestly think you’re a troll but I’m a sucker so I’ll bite.

Kamala is far more left leaning than Biden I have no idea what you are talking about. She’s not perfect but she’s definitely better than Biden.

And that’s not even bringing up the fact that the choice is her or someone who openly wants to be a dictator and already attempted a coup.

[-] PythagreousTitties@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago

You've spent at least the last month saying you won't vote for Biden. Your little

Also, why are you saying I’m lying when I was willing to follow the party for Biden?

line is bullshit.

[-] PythagreousTitties@lemm.ee 23 points 3 months ago

Cool story

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 21 points 3 months ago

I would have voted for Biden, but now

[-] HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

The only thing this may do is maybe lower the Israel issue and weapon sales.

Good enough for me. I'm not expecting her to bring in America's golden age or anything.

Free Palestine.

this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2024

299 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19097 readers

4618 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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