• @lennybird
      link
      English
      73 months ago

      Oh sugar…

      Amidst the dichtomous choice that presents itself, I’m going to go out on a limb and say if you don’t like that, then you certainly won’t like what Trump has in store for you.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -103 months ago

        It’s not about my vote. She’s unelectable. Putting her in as the nominae would be handing it to Trump. Same way the DNC handed it to him in 2016 by putting in Hillary.

        • @Maggoty
          link
          33 months ago

          Right, the most progressive candidate we’ve ever had is unelectable. For a thing the administration she was part of decriminalized.

          That doesn’t make sense.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            03 months ago

            Right, the most progressive candidate

            Exactly. She has to win not just in the deep blue progressive states. She also has to win the competitive states. She can’t just coast to a victory; She has to actually compete against Trump. ~~~~

            If “most progressive” was something that the swing states voted for, they wouldn’t be swing states; they would be blue. “Most progressive” will win her the popular vote, and lose the election. Just like it did with Hillary.

            Contrast with Mark Kelly, a solid blue candidate with a known record of being able to win in red states. Kelly would poach votes from Trump, turning the competitive states blue, and some of the red states competitive.

            • @Maggoty
              link
              23 months ago

              You’re confusing “most progressive candidate” we’ve ever had with “democratic socialist”.

              Mark Kelly is a great politician but he would be starting from behind her on this. Newsome who was already prepping for a 2028 run would be the more logical choice if you want to replace Harris.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -13 months ago

                Harris is a lawyer turned politician. Kelly is a fighter pilot turned test pilot turned Navy Captain turned Astronaut turned Senator, with an identical twin brother with a nearly identical career, and a wife who survived an assassination attempt.

                You can’t swing a dead cat Trump’s toupee in DC without hitting a dozen lawyer-turned-politican Democrats.

                Kelly might be starting from behind but he has every advantage here.

                • @Maggoty
                  link
                  23 months ago

                  Tell me you don’t remember Swift Boating without telling me you don’t remember it. The playbook on kneecapping anyone who leans on their service is already written. Mark Kelly was successful in Arizona because he kept his composure against Martha McSally and advocated common sense policies.

                  But he doesn’t have the funding, donors, or national ground game he would need for a presidential campaign. That, along with her record, is why Harris is getting the nod.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    03 months ago

                    John Kerry was a low-level officer in a race with another low level officer.

                    Kelly was a high-ranking officer, running against a malingering draft dodger.

                    Completely different circumstances

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -23 months ago

            But they didn’t though? Gonna vote for Kamala either way but you don’t have to lie. At best the administration she was part of nicely suggested that we should reschedule it to a lower but still very criminal schedule 3. Please don’t give them credit for shit they didn’t even do, or promise to do.

            • @Maggoty
              link
              33 months ago

              I did think they got it lower than that. But schedule 3 can be prescribed and some are available behind the counter at the pharmacy. So it’s a way better position than it was.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                03 months ago

                I’m glad you’re getting upvoted for a blatant lie while my correction of that lie is getting downvoted, and now that you’re admitting it was bullshit all along you leave it there unedited to mislead more people. Great job. Look, I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but you don’t see making up reasons to lick boot.

                • @Maggoty
                  link
                  13 months ago

                  I don’t think it is a blatant lie. It’s a huge improvement. There’s obviously more work to be done to get it to recreational status. But schedule 3 reduces tax burden and opens up banking options for dispensaries. If a grower wanted to get their product nation wide they can apply to the FDA for a license now. Could you imagine buying concentrate from the counter at Walgreens 2 years ago?

                  Framing this as an all or nothing thing really misses the point in my opinion.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -23 months ago

                  It’s because people really need to believe she’ll beat Trump. It’s the same wishful unrealistic thinking that led the same folks to assume Hillary would just beat him. Dangerous, lazy, hopeful complacency.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    13 months ago

                    She’s got a better shot than Biden, but we still don’t need to be making up reasons to give Dems a sloppy toppy. Let them actually do some shit before you heap on the praise.