- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion@lemmy.world
“I have spent my career inviting diversity of opinion. I think it’s important to have people at the table when some of the most important decisions are being made that have different views, different experiences,” Harris said. “And I think it would be to the benefit of the American public to have a member of my Cabinet who was a Republican.”
You must log in or register to comment.
Removed, post continues to use the strong verb “pledges” which does not appear anywhere in the article.
Poster was requested to change the language multiple times.
Editorialized headline, correct it or we’ll have to remove it.
Headline reads: “Harris says she would appoint a Republican to her Cabinet if elected”
Look at the link (the actual URL) - you will see it still shows most of the language of the original headline - which is as I posted it.
No where does it use the word “pledges”, which is a stronger promise than what any of the copy reads and what she actually said. I am once again asking you to correct the headline.
Your current headline is misleading.
They changed the headline, not me
Which is why I’m giving you a chance to correct it rather than removing it outright.
This is the 3rd ask. There won’t be a 4th.
It be someone like Adam Kinzinger. Someone that is basically a 70’s republican.
Someone that is basically a 70’s republican.
70’s republicans were known for having views that align with Democrats and Progressives I guess?
Poor choice of words on my part. I’m basically just saying that he’s for representative democracy and not for autocracy, Christian nationalism, etc. He’s also for things like background checks on guns, abortion access, DACA, Ukraine, etc.
He’s been pretty conservative on health care and and some other stuff, but compared to the rest of the Republican Party, dude is a flower child.
Let me guess, it will be some republican that endorsed her for president.
I would hope so. I’d like someone willing to work together rather than just sabotaging anything that would be helpful to the people.
I’ll take that over a republican endorsing the felon.
Though to be fair, she said it could be good but she certainly hasn’t promised to bring a republican in the cabinet.
“And I think it would be to the benefit of the American public to have a member of my Cabinet who was a Republican.”
How the actual fuck do you make that statement while having been alive during the past 8 years?
More proof that Harris that progressives and leftists are going to be out in the cold again once she’s in office.
If she appoints Susan Collins to Transportation, then the governor of Maine would appoint a Democrat to the Senate.
Which would benefit the American public.
If she appoints Susan Collins to Transportation…
And all cars would then need to be retrofitted with a handcrank starter and a horn that goes kachoooooga like they were in the good ol’ days.
a horn that goes kachoooooga
id be okay with that. My current car’s horn just doesn’t convey the irritation the way I feel it should. I’m not using it to say ‘hello’, I’m using it to say ‘mind your fucking lane you inbred redneck’
what? they’re driving a ginormous ford truck most the time. the new f150’s or whatever they are, I’m pretty sure if they get up on my bumper like they do because I’m not going 30 over the limit, they can’t actually see my car. At all.
That would be a good compromise, and then remove Collins if she’s a problem to replace with someone else.
Or just not wait for her to avoid or drag her feet in pursuing any sort of Democratic policy priorities and remove her immediately. Call it the “McConnel Rule”, where whatever you can technically do is good because there’s no takes-backsies.
Obama did that. Ray Lahood, Chuck Hagel
- Obama also appointed Gates ® to Defense and McDonald ® to Veterans Affairs
- GWB appointed Mineta (D) to Transportation
- Clinton appointed Cohen ® to Defense
- GHWB appointed Cavazos (D) to Education
- Reagan appointed Bennett (D) to Education
- Carter appointed Schlesinger ® to Energy
Not cabinet level, but:
- Biden appointed Powell ® to Fed Chair and Wray ® to FBI Director
- Trump appointed Flynn (DINO) to National Security Advisor
You know what, that provides context I appreciate.
Hasn’t every modern Attorney General been a Republican anyway?
No, it’s every FBI Director. Because Democrats like to agree that Republicans are just better on law and order.
AGs are usually of the same party as the president, though you could be excused if you thought Merrick Garland was a moderate Republican.
Continuing the Border Wall and putting a Republican on the cabinet. GOP voters get offerings from both parties. Must be nice for them.
Secretary of the Stool.
You really, really don’t have to do that.
Really shouldn’t. Dems keep playing nice and extending olive branches while Republicans spit on them.
Franklin Roosevelt appointed a Republican as secretary of navy. Granted, back then the Democrat/Republican divide wasn’t as polarised as today. But if Harris could appoint a moderate Republican and willing to work with Democrats, then that just might work and soothe the current political polarisation.
Why not Liz Cheney, a Republican who can definitely be more moderate than her fellow peers.
Is this sarcasm?
Dems extend olive branches.
Repubs take them, seep poison into the process, then use the sharpened point to stab democracy in the heart.
I mean, I won’t hold her to this promise if you guys don’t.
suspicious whistling
yeah i’m telling you guys…
Oh dear gods… Please do not pull this “I’m going to work with the other side” nonsense. The republican party is morally bankrupt and it is no longer possible to reach across the aisle without pulling back a hand that’s missing a ring, watch, or maybe some fingers. Just stop with this centrist bullshit!
Give them the House of Reps, Senate, and presidency (all 3) for all 8 years. If they don’t have all 3 then they are literally forced to reach across the aisle.
deleted by creator
What the GOP wants to do is stop progress. They to got the big giant pause button on society. And they can do that with, drumroll please, any 1 of the 3.
They’re not writing new, complex legislation that then has to pass all 3 of house, Senate and presidency. Most of what they want to is stop new legislation.
deleted by creator
I said “Most of what they want to is stop new legislation.” Most.
What else? They want to pass tax breaks. That’s pretty easy. They get one house and they can demand tax breaks or they shut down the government. That’s what they did to Obama.
Or they try to repeal the ACA. They didn’t take months to think through and write out a well thought out replacement lol, all they want to do is repeal. They do need all 3 to do that, that’s why they thought they could, until McCain switched.
You missed one: The border wall. That’s when the GOP needed all 3 to pass it, so the Dems could block it.
Roe V wade? Yeah there’s a reason why they want to rule from the bench. So they can effectively repeal things without even having a single 1 of the 3. And so they can repeal without having to get all 3. Right? They want to rig it so they don’t need all 3 to effectively pass new anti-abortion laws.
Remember that’s what this was about: why the Dems need all 3 to do pretty much anything and why the GOP doesn’t. I think you lost sight of that. The whole court stacking shows exactly that. (PLUS, you don’t even need all 3 to stack the court. You can block new appointments with just the senate (that’s what they did to Obama), and you get new appointments with just the senate and presidency. Again, they can do more of what they want without all 3.)
deleted by creator
No, it points out that things can get done if the politicians want to force them to be done.
And what I’m saying is that it’s different for the GOP and the Dems. That’s the whole point:
For the Dems to do pretty much anything (not all, most), they need all 3. They need all 3 to actually pass anything.
For the GOP to do most (not all, most) of what they want to do, they only need 1. Most (not all, most) of what they want to do is block things.
This difference in what they need is the whole point.
If it’s pretty easy to pass tax breaks why isn’t it pretty easy for Dems to do anything at all?
Dude, I just explained this. If you’re going to ignore this conversation is not going to continue. So here it is: They (GOP) get one house and they can demand tax breaks or they shut down the government.
Ok? Need more? Dems by and large are not so eager to shut down the government. Nor to default, which is also what the GOP threatens to do. The GOP is wiling to burn down the country, they don’t care. The Dems obviously aren’t because they have a brain. Do you have any idea of what will happen if the government shuts down for long periods? Or if the govt defaults? It would be fucking bad. The GOP is willing and may even be happy to do that because they imo want to burn everything down anyway.
ACA
This supports my point.
Yeah I’m covering the very few points where they need all 3. Most (not all) of what they want to do is block which only takes 1. In addition, I’m explaining that when the GOP has all 3 they can act quickly because they are not actually writing or constructing anything new. All they want to do is repeal. Ok?
So having all 3 doesn’t guarantee anything if you haven’t been doing the setup well. Dems refuse to ever do the setup for left policies,
… Ok you know this works both ways, right? Even when the Dems have all 3, people like Manchin or Sinema hold out and play games. Again, that’s why it’s harder for the Dems. And why we often get watered down stuff.
And you do realize that this “setup” means it’s harder for Dems right? Whenever they want to pass something new, they need to figure out EXACTLY how progressive each Congressman is willing to be, down to the VERY specific detail. And if Manchin plays games, they get to start again. Again, constructing policy is wayyyy harder than braindead repeal.
And now the same Dems are trying to pass a border wall
Not the same border deal afaik. Is it a sweetheart deal? Yes. Still not the same. AND this is politics and 4 more years of Fox screaming about immigrants, Dems know it’s an issue they can’t ignore. So why are they running on it? Because they need to appeal to as many voters as they can. Why do they need to appeal to as many voters as they can? Because. They. Need. All. 3. Houses. And. They. Know. It.
Were you shocked with this?
What? I’m not shocked about this. Like nice attempt to turn this around. Again, this is about WHY the Dems need all 3 and the GOP doesn’t. It’s because the GOP is trying (and succeeding) at ruling from the bench.
Why didn’t the Democratic party ever codify roe v Wade when they had the opportunity?
Is this the “why didn’t they do everything, everywhere, all at once?” So they could have done this in the 4 MONTHS that Obama had a filibuster proof majority (MAYBE, if a dem senator like Manchin didn’t play games). Obama decided to get ACA through. You know that thing that people didn’t have at the time and desperately needed? I don’t blame him for going for the new desperately needed item.
And this goes back to the difference between the nature of what Dems and GOP want to do:
Dems need to carefully research, craft, and write new legislation. VERY detailed policy. This takes a ton of time, effort, and political capital.
Compare that to GOP: All they want to do is repeal, like repeal the ACA. They don’t need to do careful research, or write detailed policy. They didn’t have a replacement ready. All they need to do is say “ACA is repealed”.
But rather than try to pull it left with equal force,
Dude. This whole conversation is how it doesn’t work as equally as you want to think. The whole point is that there is a MASSIVE difference between what it takes for what the Dems want to do, and what the GOP wants to do. Again, the Dems need all 3 to do much of anything. The GOP only needs 1 of the 3 to block pretty much everything, or as we’ve seen they can do it from the bench too.
The left: To actually write and pass progressive legislation takes a ton of actual work, effort, and time. And all 3 houses to pass it.
The right: Most (not all, most) of what they want is to sit on their ass and block things. And let Fox News whip people into Hysteria. It takes fuck all to do that.
Slow down, read carefully, and consider what I’ve written. Don’t jump to just wanting to be upset. Slow down and understand how and why it works differently.
the Democratic party runs rightward
Guess how often the Dems have had all 3. Drumroll please, it’s 4 of the last 24 years. Want to go back even further? Then it’s 6 of the last 44 years. Read that again, Dems have had all 3 for 6 years out of the last 44 fucking years.
That means for 20 of the last 24 years, they have been forced to reach across the aisle. Or if you want to go back further, that means for 38 fucking years of the last 44 year they have been forced to reach across the aisle.
And you’re amazed that they reach across the aisle? And you’re amazed that they go to the center to find voters?
You can never win like this if your goal is actual leftist policy.
Take another look at those years. If you want things to move left, you have to do a lot fucking better than giving them control for only 4 years every 24 years. A lot better than 6 years every 44 fucking years.
How do you move things left? By giving Dems consistent and overwhelming victories. That means all 3 houses, consistently and overwhelmingly.
There’s that equivocation again… Turns out one party is willing to vote for good policy regardless of the party of people who came up with it.
Biden’s track record backs this up. He got some limited achievements through legislation and hard fought negotiations with legislators in both parties. But when he tried to bypass congressional gridlock and use executive authority, the courts intervened again and again.
Majorities in the the House and Senate would allow legislation which would be far more likely to survive legal battles than executive orders. And it would also potentially allow for action to be taken to deal with the courts themselves to reign in the more obvious abuses of power, corruption, and general shenanigans.
Appointing a Republican does not mean appointing a Republican politician.
Every president in your lifetime has appointed people who happened to be registered with the opposite party.
Including Donald Trump. One of his senior advisors was Ivanka Trump, and his own daughter was a registered Democrat at the time. Didn’t mean a thing.
Same bullshit Obama pulled when the Democrats had control of both houses. God that was frustrating, like watching kittens playing soccer while the clock ran out.
Hey, who could question the appointment of James Comey to lead the FBI? What a brilliant demonstration of reaching across the aisle. Plus it recognized (like ALL Democratic presidents before and after) that Republicans were the party of law and order and the Director of the FBI was just too important a job to give to a Democrat. And in exchange for demonstrating his bipartisanship, Republicans dialed down the attacks and were responsible governing partners.
It’s a tactic that worked so well we should just keep doing it forever without ever learning our lesson.
Yes I was a big fan of Obama the orator, but Obama the politician was completely incompetent. The other side mopped the floor with his whole 8 years. I really Hope™️ we’re not going to do that again.
I am willing to bet it will happen again because the US is a plutocracy masquerading as a democracy.
That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t vote against the most fascist and criminally corrupt — it means you need to universally fight the fascist-sympathizers and criminally corrupt!
I also wonder: how often are the cons asked if they will be putting Democrats into their cabinet? Why is it normalized that the cons are expected to not reach out to anyone, but that the Democratic Party is supposed to bend over backwards to reach out to the most extremist and crazy elements of our country.
I’ll bet money it’s someone like Kinzinger.
Yep. He’s like the only good one lol
He’s still not “good”, he just cares that the actual country doesn’t go completely off the rails. Goodness is only relative to how bad the rest are, and apart from having the courage to leave the Republican party behind over Trump, he was still on board with a lot of their other bullshit and wasn’t pushed too far by any of their prior hate or shenanigans.
Doesn’t that make the republican a DEI hire? LMAO
hahaha spot-on
Defense? Would be in line with her hawkish military statements.
Liz Cheney?
