A Very Good Sign: Kamala Harris Is Going Right at Corporate Greed - eviltoast
  • RangerJosie@sffa.community
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    If she’s serious she’ll be a historically great president. But if it’s PR. Not so much.

    We’ll see when the DNC starts. They can script all they want. But that will tell us the story. Who they invite. What they talk about. It’s all theater of course. But it’ll act as a barometer of where the politics are.

    The DNC is first and foremost a corp. And I don’t trust corps. Don’t trust them any further than I trust Blackrock or Vanguard.

    They can’t collect donations if everyone is broke. They need people to have disposable income. And shit has got so bad now. They have to be feeling it.

    • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      3 months ago

      They can collect donations just fine. It was big, huge donors saying “I won’t give the democrats one red nickel if Biden doesn’t step down” that helped get Biden to concede his candidacy.

      • Scallionsandeggs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Kinzinger, too. Plus with Bernie, Jayapal, and others attending a progressive side show I’m getting the sense progressives (or anyone staunchly anti-corporate) aren’t going to get much time on the podium.

        If they don’t have significant local progressives like Chuy Garcia or Delia Ramirez up there, and their “local” speaker is Pritzker, I’m going to have a real hard time buying this campaign promise.

    • experbia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I gotta say, if it’s all a PR act, it’s dumb as fuck. it might work for this election but it will then disillusion millions of young voters permanently if she can’t follow though on these promises, leading to a huge loss (or worse, migration) of young Democrat voters.

      • LordKitsuna@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        She literally can’t, even if she was actually 105% committed to it people seem to forget that overall the president actually has very little power. Without the cooperation of the house and Congress nothing in that vein will ever get done and no matter who gets elected our house in Congress have been split divided and useless for quite a while now

        • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Why would someone downvote you. This is 100% true. Congress makes the laws. The president can set the agenda but things can only happen if there are enough people in Congress who will actually vote for it. Since we know 0 Republicans will ever help with anything, that means the Democrats need enough of a majority to overcome the GOP, and enough of a majority that one or two rogue Democrats looking to advance their own profile can’t hold it hostage. We had that for a brief time in the Obama admin and they passed the ACA. During the Biden admin Manchin alone could make a name for himself by blocking anything and everything.

          It’s a crappy system where you have to control both houses with some breathing room, and the presidency, to get something done if one party decides to stonewall everything. But that’s the reality. Our system of government has serious problems.

          However, assuming that the Democratic presidents are privately glad they can’t do most things they say they want to do, when they are never given the opportunity, and then using that assumption as the basis for cynicism, seems unreasonable. What do you gain by assuming this? Why not work as hard as we can to give them a real actual opportunity, and then see what happens.

        • experbia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I think it’s more about the attempt than the result. historically, we get a lot of promises of strong leadership and then no attempts to even start following through. in my opinion, this is a massive source of voter apathy both in general but especially among young people. “why bother? they’re all liars anyway, nobody will really try to help us once they’re in” - the kids energized into politics with Kamala’s campaign will wither or defect permanently if she makes these promises and they vote for her because of it and she does the usual routine of ignoring them until reelection season swings around again. if they want any hope of banking on the new energized kids in future elections, she has to at least try and she has to be loud about doing it. if she doesn’t, this will win us only 4 years.

          when companies pay lobbyists to change laws and it doesn’t work, they retry and retry and retry until they do it. same with unpopular surveillance and “security” bills. but when talk of important social reform come up, dems go “ehhh, it’s unlikely to pass… don’t even try, it’s not worth it. it will just be a hassle…”

          like yes, the prez cannot just make dictates to change laws like people wish. other parts of government have to be engaged to do these things. so… ENGAGE THEM

      • RangerJosie@sffa.community
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        Wouldn’t be the first time.

        I firmly believe the DNC would rather lose and fundraise off the fear of what the Repubs do.