• HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    That’s such a fucking stupid take from someone that doesn’t even have a grade-school understanding of politics.

    The Republicans endorsing Harris don’t like her, and they don’t agree with any of her policies. They probably do agree with much of the bullshit that comes out of Trump. On the other hand, the Republicans endorsing Harris genuinely believe in America, and in the idea of democracy. They clearly see that Trump is an enormous threat to democracy in the US, and that he’s doing everything in his power to break the system that they believe in, even if his specific policies are things they agree with.

    Whether I like Bush Jr., or Cheney (either one, really), or George Will, or any other Republican endorsing her, or not, they are still people that believe in the rule of law. Trump does not believe in the rule of law. These Republicans largely believe in letting voters decide, even if they’ll jerrymander the shit out of districts. Trump does not. These Republicans don’t believe that this country can survive a second Trump presidency, and they would rather lose the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and possibly a few seats on SCOTUS, than watch our democracy die.

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

      Whether I like Bush Jr., or Cheney (either one, really), or George Will, or any other Republican endorsing her, or not, they are still people that believe in the rule of law.

      A distinction - Bush and Cheney believed in having the rule of law. They regularly and flagrantly broke it, but preserved the process of legality because they didn’t want to destroy the law as a concept, they just wanted to get around it to do whatever heinous fucking thing they had in mind at the moment.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        TBH, Dems have absolutely done the same thing before. A super-easy example is Biden’s policies to forgive student loans (which, BTW, I’m fully in favor of; it was just done in such a way that it wasn’t legal). There’s currently a case underway right now regarding the Lloyd Austin throwing out plea agreements with Guantanamo Bay detainees; there’s a pretty solid argument that he doesn’t have that legal right.

        My point is that Bush et al. pushed the limits of what was legal, and in general stopped doing those things when courts told them that they weren’t allowed to. OTOH, Trump has absolutely, 100%, flagrantly violated the law and court orders many, many times.

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

          I would say there’s a significant difference in the approach. The Biden administration throwing things at the wall in the hopes that something will stick is a bit different in intent to the Bush administration lying, obfuscating, denying, downplaying, and only then resorting to semantics to cover their illegal activity. Not that Dems have never done that, but the two examples you cited are far from the egregious disrespect for the law displayed by the Bush administration.

          In any case, we’re in agreement that Trump is beyond even that. What a shitshow. It can always get worse, it seems.

    • whocares314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      In another thread earlier this week about republican endorsements, someone suggested an alternative possibility that I thought was insightful: they are endorsing her to try to get people to the polls by any means possible. They fear Trump has become so disenfranchising to everyone other than his most fervent base that republican turnout will be horrible. My own opinion: this helps in three possible ways.

      1. By telling people it’s ok to vote for Kamala you get them in the building and expect that they will vote heavily R down the ballot.
      2. You get people in the building thinking they are going to do 1) but end up voting for Trump anyway in the end because in that final moment they just can’t bring themselves to vote (D)
      3. You weaken the confidence of the general ® voters by making it seem like Kamala has a very strong chance of winning and whip them out of complacency to get them into the building.

      I’d really like to think that it’s actually because of patriotism and genuine care for the wellbeing of the country, but I wouldn’t put any of the above past them. It could also be a little bit of both.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Most people don’t split their ticket when they vote; if someone votes Democratic for president, it’s likely that they end up voting Democratic in most other races on the ballot as well. That’s especially true if they’re actively voting against Trump, and the other candidates are endorsed by Trump. So, if I was a Republican trying to take control of the Senate and retain control of the House, that would be a risky strategy.

        As far as the other possibilities go, IDK. It doesn’t seem likely because…

        …Many of the Republicans currently endorsing Harris are been vocally anti-Trump for a long time now. It’s not new that they’re anti-Trump, but it is new that they’re actively endorsing a Democrat. I don’t think that they’re trying to actively work to get Trump elected by some subversive means, and it seems like the numbers of people that would work on–versus the number of Reagan-era Republicans that would take it at face value–seems very marginal.