the only Democratic candidate in the 2020 primaries that was more conservative than Biden
Tim Ryan, Steve Bullock, and John Delaney were more conservative in every meaningful respect. You can blame that on their constituencies (although Delaney really has no excuse - the man’s just a corporate freak) but they’re all both more economically and socially to the right on the generic basket of liberal policies. And none of them are going to lose to Copmala in a cop-loving contest. It will, at best, be a photo finish.
That’s before you get to the Bloomberg or Tulsi Gabbard, and they’re not even cops. Just straight up fascists.
Oh god, I had somehow blocked Bloomberg and Tulsi Gabbard out of my brain. Yeah, that was a pretty big oversight on my part. And yeah, I wasn’t counting the other people who dropped out before the primaries got started, which is kind of unfair. Fine. She’s just a Democrat that’s slightly more conservative than Biden. Are you happy now?
She’s just a Democrat that’s slightly more conservative than Biden. Are you happy now?
No. Because her voting history and her time as AG simply don’t reflect that. Whatever you might say about Harris, Biden quite literally wrote the laws and funneled money into the agencies that let her chase around the poor and defenseless. In a different world, where a more Kennedy/LBJ-esque figure was in Biden’s seat, Harris would have been granted a completely different mandate and toolkit and would have looked comparatively progressive as a result.
That’s before you get into the real awful shit Biden passed as Senator that Harris has (without much conviction) opposed. She’s been a vote for de-militarization in Iraq/Afghanistan, for decriminalization of a host of drugs, and for expanded public spending in health care and education in a way Biden simply hasn’t.
She still sucks for a host of reasons. But to claim she’s “more conservative than Biden” ignores Biden’s entire time in the Senate under Bush and Kamala’s entire time in the Senate under Trump.
Pfft. The idea that Kamala Harris wouldn’t have voted the same way as Biden on Iraq and Afganistan if she had been in Congress back in 2001 is so naive that I can’t even take anything else you said seriously. That is hilarious.
The idea that Kamala Harris wouldn’t have voted the same way as Biden on Iraq and Afganistan
The AUMF of 2001 (Afghanistan) passed the Senate 98-0 with two abstentions from Senators Larry Craig, R-ID, and Jesse Helms, R-NC. Every Senate Dem supported it.
The 2002 extension passed 77-23 with the California Senate delegation splitting (Feinstein for, Boxer against). Harder to say what Kamala would have done here, but she had ample room to reject the legislation without fearing it would fail.
Regardless, it has been freely utilized and repeatedly defended by both parties with every new NDAA, excepting a failed repeal effort by the Senate in 2023 which Kamala endorsed to no ultimate effect.
I can’t even take anything else you said seriously
That’s going to require some actual knowledge of history and the state of the party past and present.
If you’re just running on vibes, idk what to tell you.
Tim Ryan, Steve Bullock, and John Delaney were more conservative in every meaningful respect. You can blame that on their constituencies (although Delaney really has no excuse - the man’s just a corporate freak) but they’re all both more economically and socially to the right on the generic basket of liberal policies. And none of them are going to lose to Copmala in a cop-loving contest. It will, at best, be a photo finish.
That’s before you get to the Bloomberg or Tulsi Gabbard, and they’re not even cops. Just straight up fascists.
Oh god, I had somehow blocked Bloomberg and Tulsi Gabbard out of my brain. Yeah, that was a pretty big oversight on my part. And yeah, I wasn’t counting the other people who dropped out before the primaries got started, which is kind of unfair. Fine. She’s just a Democrat that’s slightly more conservative than Biden. Are you happy now?
No. Because her voting history and her time as AG simply don’t reflect that. Whatever you might say about Harris, Biden quite literally wrote the laws and funneled money into the agencies that let her chase around the poor and defenseless. In a different world, where a more Kennedy/LBJ-esque figure was in Biden’s seat, Harris would have been granted a completely different mandate and toolkit and would have looked comparatively progressive as a result.
That’s before you get into the real awful shit Biden passed as Senator that Harris has (without much conviction) opposed. She’s been a vote for de-militarization in Iraq/Afghanistan, for decriminalization of a host of drugs, and for expanded public spending in health care and education in a way Biden simply hasn’t.
She still sucks for a host of reasons. But to claim she’s “more conservative than Biden” ignores Biden’s entire time in the Senate under Bush and Kamala’s entire time in the Senate under Trump.
Pfft. The idea that Kamala Harris wouldn’t have voted the same way as Biden on Iraq and Afganistan if she had been in Congress back in 2001 is so naive that I can’t even take anything else you said seriously. That is hilarious.
The AUMF of 2001 (Afghanistan) passed the Senate 98-0 with two abstentions from Senators Larry Craig, R-ID, and Jesse Helms, R-NC. Every Senate Dem supported it.
The 2002 extension passed 77-23 with the California Senate delegation splitting (Feinstein for, Boxer against). Harder to say what Kamala would have done here, but she had ample room to reject the legislation without fearing it would fail.
Regardless, it has been freely utilized and repeatedly defended by both parties with every new NDAA, excepting a failed repeal effort by the Senate in 2023 which Kamala endorsed to no ultimate effect.
That’s going to require some actual knowledge of history and the state of the party past and present.
If you’re just running on vibes, idk what to tell you.
Also just fucking insane