I have yet to meet a Democrat who is disappointed that the majority of delegates to the upcoming convention have indicated their support for Harris. Perhaps they exist somewhere, but it seems that the only people I see complaining aren’t Democrats.
… they could have had Tulsi Gabbard… they could have had RFK Jr.
Both of whom are about as popular among Democrats as herpes.
What is the case for Harris other than
???
They didn't want her when she was actually on the primary ballot. Now she's just the heir apparent and they have been told she's the one to support by the same media and party people who were telling us a month ago that Biden was just fine and ready to run.
She was a successful DA (whose campaign Trump donated to). Current VP is actually a strong case. NONE of the delegates are required to vote for her. Any Democrat could have tossed their hat into the ring. Crickets from them.
Again, the only people who seem to be against this aren’t Democrats. Why should Democrats care about what they think?
And Republicans could have picked someone else. There are any number of Republican governors. Yet Republicans chose to go with a felon con artist. So they’re not exactly taking the high ground here.
Of course Trump is a con artist. He just doesn't have a career of masking it behind the veneer of legitimacy we call "modern democracy." The "felon" argument is nonsense. Sorry. As far as I can tell, an NDA is not legally within the very narrow and explicit legal definition of a campaign expense in the first place, so failing to report it as a campaign expense can't possibly be a crime. If the underlying act isn't a crime in the first place, this novel interpretation of the law to create a felony out of thin air falls apart. It's on par with the Obama Birther arguments.
What constitutes a "successful DA?" She convicted innumerable people for victimless "crimes." She embodies the root problem of criminal justice in America. Again, as for being VP, she was explicitly chosen based on her status as a minority woman, and not on her prior appeal to the party during the primaries or her legislative record. What has she done in office in the last 3-1/2 years, exactly? Make a case for her, don't just appeal to popularity or claim, "at least she isn't Cheeto Mussolini."
Oddly, 12 jurors who weighed the evidence disagree.
Innumerable? I’m guessing it’s actually some finite number. Claims about her record as DA are sometimes very inaccurate:
https://factcheck.afp.com/misleading-claim-says-harris-jailed-1500-black-men-marijuana
Here’s a useful rundown:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/26/kamala-harris-vice-president-accomplishments/74534954007/
There are going to be only two choices in November. A woman who not everyone is happy about or a man who’s a fascist. Given those two choices, I won’t be voting for the fascist.
Juries wrongly convict people all the time. Harris has (and had) critics from the "left" in 2020 and now. The American Prospect was scathing in 2020, and still today.
And that's just scratching the surface. From your own fact check link,
In addition, the New York Times is hardly a right-wing rag, and your link does not actually rebut their editorial, just how some people are spinning it. Her "record" in your USA Today link is abysmal, and does little to encourage me. The only significant policy stances I see just demonstrate she's a gun-grabbing state supremacist authoritarian. You're making my case, not yours.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Trump is a populist nationalist with no moral or philosophical foundation to his loose-cannon politics, but are you sure you know what a "fascist" is, and what do you call someone who was literally part of the police state for her entire career and intertwines herself with corporate interests? At least Trump didn't start any new wars. Biden has been an overt interventionist and courted war with Russia. If Harris is his heir, what has she said or done to suggest she won't also wage war abroad? Again, "She isn't Cheeto Mussolini" is hardly incentive to support her, especially considering the baggage she brings.
If it walks like a fascist and talks like a fascist, the betting money says it’s a fascist.
If supporting Ukraine and hoping that Putin is crushed is a bad thing, I’m okay with being bad.
At least for those who’l be voting this fall, the choice is between someone who I might disagree with on some policy issues or a sociopath. Not really a hard choice.
Again, what is a fascist? Your comment is no different from a right-winger saying Harris is a Marxist, and then when pressed, just repeating that she's a Marxist.
There is a vast gulf between wanting Russia to lose and advocating for yet another undeclared war overseas. The US isn't supposed to be the world's policeman. Foreign intervention always results in blowback, and meddling in Eastern Europe is courting nuclear blowback.
Need I remind you that while the claims of Russian collusion with Trump came to naught, but the Biden laptop story turned out to be true in spite of all the assurances two years ago it was a Russian intelligence operation?
Trump may well be a sociopath. I won't be voting for him. But Harris is, I repeat, a long-term enforcer for the police state with deep ties to corporate interests, and that takes a pretty sociopathic personality, too. Do you have any reasons to support her other than "she isn't Cheeto Mussolini?"