A day after Biden said Harris would “cut her own path,” she declared that her presidency would not be a “continuation” of his during an interview with Fox News
Not really. As vice president her role is to follow the administration and donbidens plans, but not unquestioningly. As a candidate, she should have her own vision.
Shes more responsible than someone outside the administration but shes not the administration on her own. So even if there were minor tweaks that were inconsequential to you or any major issues, it wouldn’t be performative but perfectly normal.
I would expect her platform to also not undermine her current role, or shed have to leave. If she plans major changes, she should announce them before election but that doesn’t mean she needs to announce things that aren’t election issues, unless she chooses to
This is perfectly normal whether you agree with her or Biden or neither or both. To paint it as unusual is performative on your part, not hers.
Not really. As vice president her role is to follow the administration and donbidens plans
As Vice President she can do basically whatever she wants re: taking political positions, breaking ties in the Senate, going on diplomatic missions. The VP slot used to go to the runner-up of the election, they weren’t even of the same party.
She actively chose to be a “team” player for xenophobia and genocide. And that, of course, is part of why she was selected as VP in the first place.
but not unquestioningly.
Okay well she did it without public questioning and did actual bad things.
As a candidate, she should have her own vision.
As a candidate she should be a lot of things, beginning with not forwarding genocide and being elected. Harris has received no personal electoral wins since 2016. She could not even win her home state during the 2020 primaries. Her campaign is virtually devoid of major policies.
So far, her campaign, in effect, is about how openly liberals will embrace genocide. The answer is: quite a lot, but perhaps not enough for her to win the election.
Shes more responsible than someone outside the administration but shes not the administration on her own. […]
Anyone supporting genocide or xenophobic policies is complicit in them. As a person in office, she has the capacity to work against those things. But she is in her position because she would never do so, she is an empty suit.
I would expect her platform to also not undermine her current role, or shed have to leave.
Why? She can’t be fired. She could be impeached but that is rare.
If she plans major changes, she should announce them before election but that doesn’t mean she needs to announce things that aren’t election issues, unless she chooses to
Harris has the entire DNC behind her, was previously a Senator and is now VP. If she prioritized independent policy in any way, even just as a cynical piece of election propaganda, she would have had an agenda ready to go on day 1 of being coronated by the party leadership.
This is perfectly normal whether you agree with her or Biden or neither or both.
Please refrain from normalizing genocide.
To paint it as unusual is performative on your part, not hers.
Liberals are usually not so openly genocidal and previously claimed to be against Trump’s harsh immigration policies. These are both salient positions contradicted by the Biden-Harris afmin and Harris is complicit in them. I have made zero claims about whether a VP being a good lapdog is abnormal, but these are serious violences that she has had a material impact on and for which she bears responsibility.
One of the things I said she did was lockstep promote genocide as part of the Biden-Harris regime. You seemed to be saying that it this is normal because VPs should be lockstep. But… it’s genocide. Genocide is not something to normalize by saying things like, “well she has to because she is veep [no further explanation given].” Maybe you don’t think of yourself as normalizing genocide, but in reality that is the meaning if what you are saying. To downolay the social violence she supported as part of this administration, to say it is her role, it is normal. I listed genocide and anti-immigrant policy.
I also recognize that there are two bad options and she is the least bad option.
Appealing the lesser evil canard when the topic is genocide is also an attempt to normalize genocide. You should fight and oppose genocide not try to justify why you support 99% Hitler over 100% Hitler (in your mind).
Actively seeking to undermine her without an alternative is advocating for more genocide, not less.
No, exactly the opposite. I work to make empathetic people realize that they do not, in fact, have to support genocide, and can build political power against this evil.
We could talk about how your lesser evilism is poor political calculus, but frankly it should be enough for you to simply say, “I will never vote for a genocide candidate”. You should be able to say that. Let me know if you do.
Not really. As vice president her role is to follow the administration and donbidens plans, but not unquestioningly. As a candidate, she should have her own vision.
Shes more responsible than someone outside the administration but shes not the administration on her own. So even if there were minor tweaks that were inconsequential to you or any major issues, it wouldn’t be performative but perfectly normal.
I would expect her platform to also not undermine her current role, or shed have to leave. If she plans major changes, she should announce them before election but that doesn’t mean she needs to announce things that aren’t election issues, unless she chooses to This is perfectly normal whether you agree with her or Biden or neither or both. To paint it as unusual is performative on your part, not hers.
As Vice President she can do basically whatever she wants re: taking political positions, breaking ties in the Senate, going on diplomatic missions. The VP slot used to go to the runner-up of the election, they weren’t even of the same party.
She actively chose to be a “team” player for xenophobia and genocide. And that, of course, is part of why she was selected as VP in the first place.
Okay well she did it without public questioning and did actual bad things.
As a candidate she should be a lot of things, beginning with not forwarding genocide and being elected. Harris has received no personal electoral wins since 2016. She could not even win her home state during the 2020 primaries. Her campaign is virtually devoid of major policies.
So far, her campaign, in effect, is about how openly liberals will embrace genocide. The answer is: quite a lot, but perhaps not enough for her to win the election.
Anyone supporting genocide or xenophobic policies is complicit in them. As a person in office, she has the capacity to work against those things. But she is in her position because she would never do so, she is an empty suit.
Why? She can’t be fired. She could be impeached but that is rare.
Harris has the entire DNC behind her, was previously a Senator and is now VP. If she prioritized independent policy in any way, even just as a cynical piece of election propaganda, she would have had an agenda ready to go on day 1 of being coronated by the party leadership.
Please refrain from normalizing genocide.
Liberals are usually not so openly genocidal and previously claimed to be against Trump’s harsh immigration policies. These are both salient positions contradicted by the Biden-Harris afmin and Harris is complicit in them. I have made zero claims about whether a VP being a good lapdog is abnormal, but these are serious violences that she has had a material impact on and for which she bears responsibility.
I’m not nornalisong genocide. I also recognize that there are two bad options and she is the least bad option.
Actively seeking to undermine her without an alternative is advocating for more genocide, not less.
One of the things I said she did was lockstep promote genocide as part of the Biden-Harris regime. You seemed to be saying that it this is normal because VPs should be lockstep. But… it’s genocide. Genocide is not something to normalize by saying things like, “well she has to because she is veep [no further explanation given].” Maybe you don’t think of yourself as normalizing genocide, but in reality that is the meaning if what you are saying. To downolay the social violence she supported as part of this administration, to say it is her role, it is normal. I listed genocide and anti-immigrant policy.
Appealing the lesser evil canard when the topic is genocide is also an attempt to normalize genocide. You should fight and oppose genocide not try to justify why you support 99% Hitler over 100% Hitler (in your mind).
No, exactly the opposite. I work to make empathetic people realize that they do not, in fact, have to support genocide, and can build political power against this evil.
We could talk about how your lesser evilism is poor political calculus, but frankly it should be enough for you to simply say, “I will never vote for a genocide candidate”. You should be able to say that. Let me know if you do.