Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Narrator: They didn't.
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.
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.
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.
They do mention January 6th in the article
Article was more informative than “isn’t Hitler.” I don’t understand this comment.
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!
