politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Yes. It's a bit like interviewing for your boss's job while your boss still signs your checks. Your boss can still fire you or make your life miserable if you openly trash the job (s)he's doing.
People don't seem to understand that when you sign on to be someone's VP you sign on to support everything they do in public, even if you offer different advice in private. She's simply not in a position to call the shots, even if she thinks her boss is stupid. I have total confidence that in-office Harris would have made different decisions than on-campaign Harris.
Alaska.
Edit: Not to mention the fact that public statements by the VP that directly contradict the President could present very real national security risks and seriously undermine foreign policy and diplomacy.
Once she was selected as the nominee she could have said anything she wanted. She’s only VP for a few more months.
Not as a representative of the US government receiving classified information, no. That's absolutely not how this works.
Are you suggesting that its illegal for the VP to publicly disagree with the President?
It's total bullshit
When Obama drew a line in the sand on Israel/Palestine, Biden publicly and repeatedly told any journalist who would listen that the only way to deal with Israel is give them everything they want.
If Kamala can't do it now, Biden couldn't have done it then.
Instead he got rewarded with the party backing another presidential run despite him always performing terribly.
It sure as shit looks like it helped his career when he disagreed with the president as a VP
But "moderates" will always bend over backwards to defend pulling the party right when anyone left of Richard Nixon tries to move the Overton window suddenly it's the end of the world.
There's no logical consistency to it, just saying what makes them sound right in the moment.
In a way that could jeopardize ongoing negotiations? Very well might be. Or at a minimum could actively undermine arguments being made by the State Department so that they lose their leverage.
By that logic any presidential candidate would be banned from disagreeing with the president on active foreign policy issues which is absolutely not true. There's no legal reason why the VP can't disagree with the president.
Any Presidential candidate in the current administration. Why do y'all keep skipping over that part?
Because your explanation didn't demonstrate why that matters. Any candidate's position can jeopardize ongoing negotiations if its contrary to the current admin.
The VP is very much at liberty to sabotage the current admin. There's illegal ways to do it sure. Like if Harris said "Bibi openly admitted on a confidential line that he's doing genocide." That might be illegal because it was confidential. But she could say "I think Bibi is doing genocide. Biden doesn't, but I think he's wrong". That wouldn't violate any laws, even if it did effect negotiations. Remember the VP is an elected position, not a cabinet member. The president can't fire them.
If you're just speculating then its baseless speculation. You might be right, but you'll have to point to an actual law to prove your point.
No, the position of a sitting Congressperson is irrelevant to negotiations that are ongoing between the President and another country. The VP is literally the President's surrogate, acting on his behalf and as a member of the National Security Council. That cannot be said about literally anyone else, at least as it pertains to foreign diplomacy. I'd even go so far as to state that the Secretary of State would have the same troubles articulating a vision distinct from the President under which (s)he's actively serving.
Which is what I said.
Which is also what I said.
So....I guess....glad we agree?
Edit: In foreign relations, at the will and as the representative of the President, the Vice President may engage in activities ranging into the highest levels of diplomacy and negotiation and may do so anywhere in the world.
You continue to not cite anything but your own baseless speculation and now you're blatantly misquoting me in bad faith.
Fuck off.
Negotiations. Ha.
Biden wasn't negotiating shit.