401
Khan is currently the single most functional appointment in out government. I hope to fuck that Harris pledges to retain her - dropping her would throw doubt over her platform statements so far.
The fact that billionaires want her out is a sign she's doing great work.
Yep. If corporations are universally attacking a thing, you can be certain that thing would make lives better for the 99%.
Think about it. Corporations still fund fascism. They still fund war machines and genocide. They still fund GHG pollution and ecocide. They fight to keep millions of people dying painfully every year, so they can extract as much value from the suffering as possible (big pharma, private "healthcare", and insurance). The ONLY thing they universally disapprove of are things which would damage their profits, which is almost everything that would benefit average joe, and society as a whole.
It's like one of the few things you can point to in the administration that's actually been great.
I hope to fuck that Harris pledges to retain her
People need to put pressure on her to do the right thing.
There's a story that FDR met with some union reps and told them: “You’ve convinced me. I agree with what you’ve said. Now go out and make me do it.”
For a politician to take a bold action, it has to be clear that people want them to take that action. If people want Harris to keep Khan, they need to speak up.
I saw her interview on the Daily Show. She makes me want to work at the FTC and do some real good in this country.
This is something you wouldn't find out about until after her election.
I need to see some kind of statement from Harris on this pretty soon, she doesn't need the billionaire money but she does need voter enthusiasm. Don't fuck this up goddamn.
Khan is the best thing Biden has done, and the second reason, beyond not being trump, I was going to vote for him.
I know it would never happen, as Bernie is great in the Senate, but Harris Sanders as a ticket would be so freaking dope.
I will always love Bernie, but the role of VP really should go to someone younger…it’s basically an understudy position
I'm really pulling for Buttigieg or Kelly. I think I like Buttigieg just slightly better, but Kelly - Gabi, rather - pulls the rug out from under most who would try to make political hay out of the assassination attempt. A cynical take, I know, but keeping the white house matters. Kelly is also a fucking astronaut who looks like Mr Clean. It really makes an immediate mockery of any 'strongman' rhetoric coming from a geriatric sleaze ball and a paunchy tech douche who, admittedly has eyes that are limpid glistening pools framed in dusk.
Buttigieg being gay is unfortunately a huge strike against him because in the international community, the acceptance of gay folk is still not there. Many countries still have some very strict laws against being gay and that complicates things.
But man, that guy is a wolf. Watching him deal with hecklers or just debating someone, he’s just a straight up shark. He can smell the blood and wreck someone in one bite.
I get this concern, but only to a point. How does this risk manifest itself in reality?
Consider:
-
What kind of foreign policy role is a Harris VP likely to play? Maybe a lot, though not sure what Mayor Pete brings to the table here, much as I love him
-
Who are the countries that are going to risk offending the United States of America by snubbing (at best) their deputy head of state? Are they going to stop trading with us? Who are these economic powerhouses?
-
If the USA, the largest economy on the planet, containing within us states that would themselves be among the largest economies on the planet, with military spending that literally dwarfs the next ten countries combined, if that country -modern economic empire, really- can't risk having an openly gay deputy head of state, how is it that San Marino (91% Christian), Latvia (64% Christian), Serbia (87% Christian), Iceland, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Ireland^1^ are all able to weather the international uproar? Is it because they have less to lose?
I actually think the US is lagging much of the rest of the developed world, but even if that weren't the case, no one is better positioned to set an example than we are, and, y'know, shining city on a hill, and all that.
^1^https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_openly_LGBT_heads_of_state_and_government
Hopefully you’re right and she picks him?
I don’t know. Even the homophobia within the USA is problematic to her.
Well, yeah. As much as I push back on the idea that homophobia makes him a liability internationally, I fully agree that it is problematic for him domestically. At least in comparison to Kelly.
I really, really like Buttigieg. He is a Sorkinian democrat. That is, closest to the type of politician romanticized in The West Wing. That kind of portrayal is often derided as naive these days, but I think it is closest to the ideal of what this country needs at the moment. So he is, if not a true Sorkinian democrat, than at least the first of a generation of politicians who was clearly raised on the West Wing. And he's got the goods, rhetorically speaking, to let that influence make an impact. He's a better leader and closer to what I'd like in a future president, but Kelly is going to do better in this election.
The international community doesn't get to vote.
The bigger issue is that even Buttigieg doesn't think that the American electorate is ready for a gay VP. It would be an especially big risk when the presidential candidate is not white and not male. The all-out racists and sexists are already going for Trump, but the swing voters demographic is going to contain a lot of people who are uneasy about a candidate who isn't a straight, white, protestant man.
It seems to me like she's going to have to "balance the ticket" with a conventional straight, white, protestant man with a conventional nuclear family.
Besides, as great at debates Buttigieg may be, he's been pretty disappointing as secretary of transportation. On his watch there were plenty of airlines doing bad things, and trans getting derailed. There were opportunites for him to step in and do something, but largely he didn't do much of anything.
The international community may not get a vote, but you also have to keep “how will he be perceived with other world leaders” in mind.
But I think you’re right, she kinda needs a straight white man to appeal to the broader audience
If we're worried about the international community, simply having a woman in charge will offend a large part of the world.
But, IMO, as long as the secretary of state is a straight white man, you don't have to worry too much unless you have to work with those leaders one-on-one.
Ehhhhh Queen Elizabeth II was plenty leader enough for them, but you might not be wrong.
She was the titular head of state, but she wasn't actually the leader. Thatcher was another matter, and I'm sure that caused all kinds of problems with a lot of male-dominated cultures.
a paunchy tech douche who, admittedly has eyes that are limpid glistening pools framed in dusk.
His makeup game is on point. I assume the couch helped him out.
I know, it was more a passing thought as I was reading the title.
I've said it before. Lina Khan is the best person I've ever seen work for our government, Sanders notwithstanding. She's a bastion of hope.
She's my politicrush for doing what's right for us all.
Interesting to see whether or not Kamala bows to donor pressure.
So I wonder if this is the leverage...
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
401 points (98.5% liked)
politics
18790 readers
2743 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS