Dick Cheney will vote for Kamala Harris!

[metis]

But this thread is really about the effect of the Cheney endorsement of Kamala, and, in terms of that narrow question, I don't think it helped her. It may have hurt her. Cheney was a big part of the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, et al.

If that was a one and out, I might tend to agree with you, but the reality is we're seeing so many Pubs who have said they cannot and will not vote for Trump. Why should anyone vote for a man who is as morally bankrupt as he is. [note that's not a question]

 

[Copernicus]

Speaking at Trump’s Convention: Former Democrats, a Rancher and Trump Employees The RNC also had several former democrats speak at their convention.

This is "Joe the Plumber" stuff, and both parties can find what the article calls "everyday Americans" who claim to have switched parties. What you ignore is the fact that these are not Democrats who have worked with past Democratic presidents or in their administrations or Democratic officeholders. That was the point that I made in the post you responded to, and you did not address it. No past president has ever had a tsunami of former people from his administration and prominent members of his party cross over to endorse and even vote for the opposition to that former president in his reelection campaign. Here is one of the more comprehensive lists of them, hundreds compiled and documented for a Wikipedia page:

List of Republicans who oppose the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign​

 

[Kathryn]

This is "Joe the Plumber" stuff, and both parties can find what the article calls "everyday Americans" who claim to have switched parties. What you ignore is the fact that these are not Democrats who have worked with past Democratic presidents or in their administrations or Democratic officeholders. That was the point that I made in the post you responded to, and you did not address it. No past president has ever had a tsunami of former people from his administration cross over to endorse and even vote for the opposition to that former president in his reelection campaign. Here is one of the more comprehensive lists of them, compiled and documented for a Wikipedia page:

List of Republicans who oppose the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign​

I didn't address a lot of your post but I did address that Trump has democrats who also are jumping across the line. Doesn't matter to me, I'm not voting for Trump or Harris.

 

[Kathryn]

If that was a one and out, I might tend to agree with you, but the reality is we're seeing so many Pubs who have said they cannot and will not vote for Trump. Why should anyone vote for a man who is as morally bankrupt as he is. [note that's not a question]

I'm not voting for Trump or Harris. Since I don't live in a swing state, it doesn't matter anyway.

 

[Copernicus]

I didn't address a lot of your post but I did address that Trump has democrats who also are jumping across the line. Doesn't matter to me, I'm not voting for Trump or Harris.

Then why post something that did not respond to anything I said? My post did not deny that such people could be found among Democrats, only that there was any comparable list of prominent Republicans and Democrats.

 

[Copernicus]

I didn't address a lot of your post but I did address that Trump has democrats who also are jumping across the line. Doesn't matter to me, I'm not voting for Trump or Harris.

You say this over and over--that you don't live in a swing state. To my knowledge, you have never explained why living in a swing state would matter. What kind of a state would you have to live in to vote either for Harris or for Trump? Can you answer that?

 

[Kathryn]

Then why post something that did not respond to anything I said? My post did not deny that such people could be found among Democrats, only that there was any similarity in numbers.

My post responded to the interesting part of yours (to me).

 

[Kathryn]

You say this over and over--that you don't live in a swing state. To my knowledge, you have never explained why living in a swing state would matter. What kind of a state would you have to live in to vote either for Harris or for Trump? Can you answer that?

Yes, I'd need to live in a swing state.

United States Electoral College - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I've explained my position before but maybe you've missed it. You know that we don't live in a democracy, right?

 

[Copernicus]

My post responded to the interesting part of yours (to me).

It absolutely did not respond to any part of my post. If you think it did, then you misread it. All you did was miss the point.

Yes, I'd need to live in a swing state.

United States Electoral College - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

OK. Let's suppose you lived in Pennsylvania. That's a pretty important swing state. Who would you vote for?

 

[Kathryn]

It absolutely did not respond to any part of my post. If you think it did, then you misread it. All you did was miss the point.



OK. Let's suppose you lived in Pennsylvania. That's a pretty important swing state. Who would you vote for?

I'd hold my nose and probably vote for the Republican candidate. But I don't live in Pennsylvania so I don't feel the need to vote for a Republican.

 

[metis]

I'd hold my nose and probably vote...

I was once interviewed on the t.v. news and used the same line.

 

[Copernicus]

I'd hold my nose and probably vote for the Republican candidate. But I don't live in Pennsylvania so I don't feel the need to vote for a Republican.

Come on. Say the Republican candidate's name. Say it. I know you can do it.

 

[Kathryn]

Come on. Say the Republican candidate's name. Say it. I know you can do it.

I don't want to and I don't have to, thankfully.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't want to and I don't have to, thankfully.

No, you don't, but it makes one wonder why you keep insisting that you won't vote for either Harris or Trump. You are a Trump supporter. It comes off as disingenuous when you split hairs over your vote not counting in Ohio, because Trump will win there without your vote. You know damn well that Trump would win in Pennsylvania with or without your vote, because elections that turn on a single vote are so rare as to be practically non-existent. And, although there is a remote chance that Trump will lose in Ohio, it is not inconceivable. I understand that you detest Trump, but the fact is that you detest Democrats more. Nevertheless, there are a lot of very prominent Republicans who will vote for Harris, because they do not detest Democrats more than they detest Trump. You are not among them. They are still Republicans (for the most part) and still conservative. They have just as much integrity and sincerity as you do. I admire them for their selflessness and their courage. And I expect them to go back to voting Republican when Trump is not the candidate.

 

[Ponder This]

If that was a one and out, I might tend to agree with you, but the reality is we're seeing so many Pubs who have said they cannot and will not vote for Trump. Why should anyone vote for a man who is as morally bankrupt as he is. [note that's not a question]

I don't think Republican endorsements of Kamala are generally harmful to her. When you hear that more than 200 Republicans endorsed her, it's helpful to her campaign. But the Dick Cheney endorsement specifically - that's problematic. She was a too enthusiatic about receiving that endorsement. And the feeling I have is relief. It's good to not have Dick Cheney endorsing Trump. The feeling is like... a piece of swamp got cleared away, as if we can only do better things.

 

[Ponder This]

The VP of a President recognizes that that
President is so dangerous that he'll vote
for the opposition. Tell me when that last
occurred, eh.

Pretty much disagree with most of that.

Ah, okay, yeah, I'm not sure a VP has done that before.
You may not agree that the Bush-Cheney administration was dark times.
But I do think that his endorsement of Kamala will hurt more than it helps.

 

[Ponder This]

This is false. Biden did not make her (as Republicans routinely like to spout) "Border Czar." He gave her the responsibility to go the nations from which asylum seekers are coming, find out what are the conditions that are driving them out, and try to find ways to stem that flow.

If there is a "border czar," it’s the Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas. He reports to Biden, not to Harris.

I'm always amazed how little some Americans know about what's going on in their own country, make dumb assumptions -- and then trumpet those all over everywhere and vote based on them. Wouldn't it make more sense to actually understand the truth?


Does Putin jump when Harris commands? Do you know whether or not she asked for a meeting, and he didn't grant it?

But if you are trying to blame Harris for a war that happened "3 days later," let me point out that war generally requires a little bit more preparation than 3 days. Do you think it remotely possible that Putin had been working on it for just a wee bit longer? Or does your bias convince you that Harris, and Harris alone, pulled the trigger?


I have pointed out previously that Cheney was a VP. He couldn't sign the Patriot Act. It was passed by a huge majority in the House, and 98-1 in the Senate -- and so his vote wasn't even needed (and therefore he did not vote). Oh, and he didn't write the Bill, either and it was introduced into the House by Jim Sensenbrenner. Yes, I can see how it's almost all CHeney's fault.

"Border Czar" comes from the media, not Biden. I'm talking about power that Biden gave to Kamala and not names bestowed upon her by the media or by you. But regardless of your chicanery, you do admit that Biden gave her responsibilites with regard to the border. And it is evident that she failed to have an impact. The rest is history.

Kamala made a big deal about pointing out that she didn't talk with Putin and the moderators really jumped on that fact to emphasize it as if it were a good thing! While blame goes to Putin for invading, it's also evident that Kamala was acting on the world stage at that time and failed to stop it. Failed even in the minimal step of talking with Putin. Why would we ever want a leader who is unable to talk at the times when it is most needed?

Cheney's role in the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, spying on Americans, torture of prisoners, et al. is not a simply a matter of voting for or against legislation. Nor is it all Cheney's fault. But that does not absolve him of the role he played in it.

You seem to think that VPs don't do anything meaningful while in office, but the reality is that they are handed important issues by the President to deal with. And if Kamala wasn't comfortable with her role addressing the border, then she ought to have addressed that with Biden. If Cheney wasn't comfortable with the torture prisoners on his watch, then he ought to have had a talk with Bush about it.

But regardless of the strawmen you want to trot out or gaslighting you want to conduct on the behalf of supporting Dick Cheney, there are plenty of people who aren't going to forget the role he played as Vice President. I think his endorsement hurts Kamala more than it helps her.

And to the extent that it does help Kamala, I'm also happy to not have the kind of people who support Dick Cheney's Vice Presidency be a part of a Trump administration.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

"Border Czar" comes from the media, not Biden. I'm talking about power that Biden gave to Kamala and not names bestowed upon her by the media or by you. But regardless of your chicanery, you do admit that Biden gave her responsibilites with regard to the border. And it is evident that she failed to have an impact. The rest is history.

Kamala made a big deal about pointing out that she didn't talk with Putin and the moderators really jumped on that fact to emphasize it as if it were a good thing! While blame goes to Putin for invading, it's also evident that Kamala was acting on the world stage at that time and failed to stop it. Failed even in the minimal step of talking with Putin. Why would we ever want a leader who is unable to talk at the times when it is most needed?

Cheney's role in the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, spying on Americans, torture of prisoners, et al. is not a simply a matter of voting for or against legislation. Nor is it all Cheney's fault. But that does not absolve him of the role he played in it.

You seem to think that VPs don't do anything meaningful while in office, but the reality is that they are handed important issues by the President to deal with. And if Kamala wasn't comfortable with her role addressing the border, then she ought to have addressed that with Biden. If Cheney wasn't comfortable with the torture prisoners on his watch, then he ought to have had a talk with Bush about it.

But regardless of the strawmen you want to trot out or gaslighting you want to conduct on the behalf of supporting Dick Cheney, there are plenty of people who aren't going to forget the role he played as Vice President. I think his endorsement hurts Kamala more than it helps her.

And to the extent that it does help Kamala, I'm also happy to not have the kind of people who support Dick Cheney's Vice Presidency be a part of a Trump administration.

Please don't be so rude as to accuse me of "chicanery." Try the facts -- they can, sometimes, make you wiser:

Claims that President Joe Biden named Harris the “border czar” and that she is responsible for overseeing U.S. border enforcement gained prominence at the Republican National Convention as the party sought to link her to his immigration policy. ​

​

The refrain intensified once Biden dropped out of the race and endorsed Harris. It was echoed in ads and by Trump campaign surrogates, including Ohio Sen. JD Vance, the Republican vice presidential nominee.​

​

“Here’s Biden appointing Kamala Harris to be his border czar to deal with illegal immigration,” a narrator says in a video the Republican National Committee posted on its X account, @GOP. “And here are a record number of illegal immigrants — 10 million and counting — flooding over the border after Harris was put in charge of stopping illegal immigration.”​

​

We’ve repeatedly fact-checked claims about the number of people entering the U.S. illegally under Biden. The federal data tracks how many times officials encountered a person trying to cross the southern border, but it doesn’t reflect the number of people let in. And if one person tries to cross the border multiple times, that counts as multiple encounters, even if it’s the same person. ​

​

For this fact-check, we’re focused on the scope of Harris’ border responsibilities. ​

​

“Border Czar Kamala Harris’ reversal of President Trump’s immigration policies has created an unprecedented and illegal immigration, humanitarian and national security crisis on our southern border,” Trump campaign National Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told PolitiFact in a statement. ​

​

But Biden didn’t put Harris in charge of overseeing border security.​

​

In a meeting with Harris in March 2021, Biden said Harris would lead U.S. diplomatic efforts and work with officials in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras to stem migration to the United States. Biden said that when he was vice president, he “got a similar assignment” and that the Obama administration secured $700 million to help countries in Central America.​

​

“One of the ways we learned is that if you deal with the problems in country, it benefits everyone. It benefits us, it benefits the people, and it grows the economies there,” Biden said then.​

​

Biden asked Harris “to be the chief diplomatic officer with Central American countries” and address the root causes that make people leave their home countries, said Michelle Mittelstadt, communications director for the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. ​

​

Managing the border “has always been” the Homeland Security secretary’s role, Mittelstadt said.​

'Border czar'? Kamala Harris assigned to tackle immigration's causes, not border security

Claims that Harris was named the "border czar," responsible for overseeing U.S. border enforcement, have become a talking point for Republicans. But Biden didn’t put Harris in charge of overseeing border security.

19thnews.org

​

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah, okay, yeah, I'm not sure a VP has done that before.
You may not agree that the Bush-Cheney administration was dark times.
But I do think that his endorsement of Kamala will hurt more than it helps.

We disagree.
But I expect minimal effect.

 

[metis]

I don't think Republican endorsements of Kamala are generally harmful to her. When you hear that more than 200 Republicans endorsed her, it's helpful to her campaign. But the Dick Cheney endorsement specifically - that's problematic. She was a too enthusiatic about receiving that endorsement. And the feeling I have is relief. It's good to not have Dick Cheney endorsing Trump. The feeling is like... a piece of swamp got cleared away, as if we can only do better things.

If it was just him, I'd agree, but the reality is so many Pubs are refusing to vote for Trump mainly on moral grounds.