More than a dozen former Ronald Reagan staff members have joined dozens of other Republican figures endorsing the Democratic nominee and vice-president, Kamala Harris, saying their support was “less about supporting the Democratic party and more about our resounding support for democracy”.

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Right, his endorsement doesn’t help. That’s my point? Liberals shouldn’t be cheering because Reaganites endorsed Harris.

      • Red Army Dog Cooper@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The liberals cheering is what told me the liberals where cheering. I mean … Haris even gloated that Ronald Reagon himself would vote for her.

        as for disenfranchised conservitives, this is a group that does not exist, like both halvs of the uniparty pander to the conservitive.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Do you think conservatives read The Guardian? This is for internal consumption, to make liberals think “wow even Reaganites are on our side, we must be doing something right!”

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          So you’re critical of The Guardian then? Do you believe they should have left that story out based on their reader demographic?

            • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              As far as I can tell, The Harris/Walz campaign hasn’t officially responded to this endorsement. Are you getting mad about stuff that hasn’t even happened?

              Believe it or not, the Harris/Walz campaign doesn’t orchestrate endorsements. Anyone can endorse a candidate with or without that candidate’s knowledge, permission, or acknowledgement.

              Harris may be getting the endorsement of old-school/moderate Republicans, but Trump has the endorsement of extremist/far-right Republicans and Neo-Nazis.

              If you can pick a side here, that’s entirely your own moral failure.

              • Red Army Dog Cooper@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                both sides are Fasistic, and engage in class colaberation. If I look at the endorsements for haris coming from the right, there are people I would not want to even agree on what pizza topping is best with, let alone who should run a country.

                Second your right, anyone can, however the canidates can also reject their endorsement, and tell them to shove it where the sun don’t shine, they have not done that, and that is damning.

                3rd … REAGON AND CHENEY ARE MODERATE NOW… do you not see how abserd you are talking? they are not moderates

        • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          The Guardian is a newspaper. They are just covering the news.

          Other outlets are covering this also, including conservative ones.

          You are way too eager to find a conspiracy here… I promise you, this British newspaper isn’t run by and for American Democrats.

          • Red Army Dog Cooper@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            no one is saying that is, but what queermunist is doing that you are failing to do is annilise the bias of the source, and consider the reasons for why they wrote something and the way they wrote it … this is basic media literacy

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I live in NY. It’s a blue state with ~3M Republicans. Most of the ones I know are only in it for financial reasons (large portfolios, business owners, etc.). They voted for Trump in his first term, and are very reluctant to vote for him again. There are more of them than you think.

          • anarcho_blinkenist@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            that is not what “disenfranchised” means at all. These people are business owners with large portfolios?? They are objectively some of the most enfranchised people in the country. They’re literally sitting on their thumbs in their bathtubs of money deciding which genocidaire would be better for their wallets? How is this a disenfranchised population? This is objectively the opposite. Fuck them.

            Anyone catering to these very enfranchised sociopaths for votes, rather than to (and while actively repressing and brow-beating) those who are demanding an end to the bipartisan US-financed and US-armed genocide in Palestine, and rather than to the huge portion of actual left-wing voters and poor working class voters who are moving to 3rd parties or among the 35-50% who have stopped voting because of how actually disenfranchised and abandoned by this imperialist-corporate-conglomerate pretending to be two different parties they are — anyone catering to the former group instead of the latter two groups is my enemy