not that crazy...it just shows how dystopic he and others of his political persuasion feel life in America would be if trump were elected. Did you see the CNN.com headline about Cheney? Even CNN is giving it full play! Also, many of these republicans endorsing Kamala Harris feel the republican party will control both houses of congress and, along with scotus, this will enable them to keep the new administration on a tight leash. If we could see the names of all of those business CEO's who have endorsed Kamala Harris I would bet many of them have never voted for a Democrat for POTUS before. They know things we don't!! Still waiting to hear from GWB and Laura.
Why Democrats would cheer for having Dick Cheney support their ticket is beyond me. It also shows just how far Democrats have moved towards Dick Cheney on foreign policy.
Disagree! There is a world of difference between endorsing a candidate and condeming the other candidate. Cheney and others have said they will vote for Kamala Harris as a way of doing what they can to condemn and defeat donald trump and in so doing have condemned what trump is and what he stands for and have not given any glowing endorsement to the goals and policies of Kamala Harris. And that is why I welcome anyone who would vote for Kamala Harris as a way of defeating donald trump.
I welcome it because it's such an existential moment, but Cheney is an evil unprosecuted war criminal, and the G.W. Bush-Cheney Administration having gotten away with open, systematic crimes had a lot to do with Trump feeling with considerable justification that he has impunity.
I wouldn't cheer and Dems won't tout this because contrarians would cling to it forever. That aside, evil people can be allowed to seek some modicum of redemption.
Trump wanted to end the war in Afghanistan, but couldn't quite bring himself to do it, because he wanted to end it in a way that made him look good, or at least made him look smarter than the foreign policy establishment. Biden actually ended it, even though it was chaotic and disorderly, in part because of steps that Trump had taken.
I would also add the Biden didn't really get any credit for ending the "forever wars" because Ukraine and Gaza make it feel like we're still at war, even though we don't have troops in those conflicts.
Nor does he deserve it. We’ve been military involved in Syria and in facedowns with Iran and Yemen. And I’m not even talking about the tons of arms we’ve supplied in the region.
There's also special forces in wide swath of Africa, though there's been some drawdown of US forces there because Russia has been pushing their own mercs on people as an alternative.
I agree with your sentiment but as it turns out, during the Bush/Cheney years there was considerably less chaos in Congress.
Debt ceiling increases both pre-2006 midterms and after were routine and not escalated fiascos that the Tea Party and Grover Norquist were pushing. Bipartisanship was more popular. And even Nancy Pelosi when she was House Speaker said the Bush Administration was cooperative compared to the Trump Administration.
It certainly is low bar. However, the GOP did it to themselves by bankrolling the Iraq War with no accountability under the leadership of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert until after the 2006 midterms.
It's during the Bush Administration that the neocons lost their credibility. Too many of their minions such as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and others were being snake oil salesmen for the justification behind the Iraq War.
Yes, but that's pretty damn ironic from people who stole the 2000 election and whose Supreme Court nominees have done a lot to further erode democracy and the power of non-super-rich people in the U.S.
I’d say at this point the Cheney family wants to think they are going to be relevant again.
The worst thing that can happen is that neocons like the Cheney’s are going to recommend foreign policy and war mongering intervention and nation building and that the Democrats are actually going to adopt this.
Remember when Bush said he wasn’t for national building before he ended up being for it with the Iraq War?
However, being that Kamala Harris grew up in Berkeley as a child, it’s interesting the Cheney’s are giving support for her in light of this fact.
Back in the day at the height of the lead up to the Iraq War, it was Darrell Issa who argued in the House that federal funding should be withheld for Berkeley for trying to boot out the Army office near the city’s Downtown area.
Most of the House loses for Democrats back in 2022 were in CA and NY. If Democrats simple reclaim those loses + keep all the rest of the seats they didn't lose back in 2022, then Hakeem Jefferies gets the gavel. I don't see how there's so much heavy lifting that has to done to reclaim back those seats.
We know NY-03 is likely going to be out of reach for the GOP considering George Santos was forced out and Tom Suozzi got his seat back in the primary with relative ease. Then LA-06 is going to be an easy pickup for Democrats thanks to the redistricting rule by the Supreme Court. That's already two wins in the House.
Let's not forget that the Green Party has presence in the UK, where in parliament there's more than just the Conservative and Labour Parties represented.
Unlike in Congress, the Green Party has representation in the UK parliament.
Yes but for the non-Democrat and Republican votes, I'm not concerned about them at this time.
The real concern should be on overturning the Citizens United decision and going to a primarily public-financing and funding system for all political races. Once this is done, it will be much easier to have a conversation on what we want our democracy to look like.
The Cheney endorsement would have been unthinkably mind-blowing 20 years ago or even 10 years ago, but given that a muscular foreign policy was always Cheney's biggest issue, it makes sense that Trump's isolationism scares him to death....enough to endorse a Democrat "until the Republican Party returns to its Cheney-endorsed senses" (spoiler alert: it won't).
Generally agreed, but there's no way to reliably predict the long-term future of the post-Trump Republican Party. If you were talking to someone 100 years ago, could you have predicted that the Democrats would be the party of civil rights and the Republicans would be the party of neo-Confederacy?
Thom Hartmann was interviewed a long time ago and said that Trump Republicans wanted to go back to the days of the Eisenhower times. He might be thinking of the era, not so much the specific policies and agenda Eisenhower as POTUS had.
The fact that the Green Party needs a naive supporter of the Kremlin's propaganda arm as its presidential nominee shows how dire the party is in these days.
Green Party struck from NV ballot: https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/green-party-will-not-appear-on-nevada-presidential-ballot-state-supreme-court-rules
Also, how crazy is this that Dick Cheney has had an end of life slight face-turn.
not that crazy...it just shows how dystopic he and others of his political persuasion feel life in America would be if trump were elected. Did you see the CNN.com headline about Cheney? Even CNN is giving it full play! Also, many of these republicans endorsing Kamala Harris feel the republican party will control both houses of congress and, along with scotus, this will enable them to keep the new administration on a tight leash. If we could see the names of all of those business CEO's who have endorsed Kamala Harris I would bet many of them have never voted for a Democrat for POTUS before. They know things we don't!! Still waiting to hear from GWB and Laura.
Why Democrats would cheer for having Dick Cheney support their ticket is beyond me. It also shows just how far Democrats have moved towards Dick Cheney on foreign policy.
OTOH, this is encouraging, and certainly not surprising. And might make for a fair trade.
https://x.com/JewsAreTheGOAT/status/1832129365037273154
dershowitz became trash years ago!
He probably is mad from grief from losing Jeff Epstein.
Plus the likes of Tulsi Gabbard, etc.
Disagree! There is a world of difference between endorsing a candidate and condeming the other candidate. Cheney and others have said they will vote for Kamala Harris as a way of doing what they can to condemn and defeat donald trump and in so doing have condemned what trump is and what he stands for and have not given any glowing endorsement to the goals and policies of Kamala Harris. And that is why I welcome anyone who would vote for Kamala Harris as a way of defeating donald trump.
I welcome it because it's such an existential moment, but Cheney is an evil unprosecuted war criminal, and the G.W. Bush-Cheney Administration having gotten away with open, systematic crimes had a lot to do with Trump feeling with considerable justification that he has impunity.
I don’t agree with his policies, but Cheney endorsing Harris may get some soft Republicans to vote for her.
Policies. You mean crimes?
I wouldn't cheer and Dems won't tout this because contrarians would cling to it forever. That aside, evil people can be allowed to seek some modicum of redemption.
Nah, just shows that the Cheneys hate Trump.
The last two Dem Presidents ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, hard to get much further from Cheney’s foreign policy.
Trump wanted to end the war in Afghanistan, but couldn't quite bring himself to do it, because he wanted to end it in a way that made him look good, or at least made him look smarter than the foreign policy establishment. Biden actually ended it, even though it was chaotic and disorderly, in part because of steps that Trump had taken.
I would also add the Biden didn't really get any credit for ending the "forever wars" because Ukraine and Gaza make it feel like we're still at war, even though we don't have troops in those conflicts.
Nor does he deserve it. We’ve been military involved in Syria and in facedowns with Iran and Yemen. And I’m not even talking about the tons of arms we’ve supplied in the region.
There's also special forces in wide swath of Africa, though there's been some drawdown of US forces there because Russia has been pushing their own mercs on people as an alternative.
At this point, none of those are as bad for the U.S. Military as remaining sitting ducks in Afghanistan.
I agree with your sentiment but as it turns out, during the Bush/Cheney years there was considerably less chaos in Congress.
Debt ceiling increases both pre-2006 midterms and after were routine and not escalated fiascos that the Tea Party and Grover Norquist were pushing. Bipartisanship was more popular. And even Nancy Pelosi when she was House Speaker said the Bush Administration was cooperative compared to the Trump Administration.
What a terribly low bar!
It certainly is low bar. However, the GOP did it to themselves by bankrolling the Iraq War with no accountability under the leadership of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert until after the 2006 midterms.
It's during the Bush Administration that the neocons lost their credibility. Too many of their minions such as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and others were being snake oil salesmen for the justification behind the Iraq War.
Dick Cheney is not a person I'd affiliate with. But if his ilk promote our ticket because we are the party of democracy, I agree!
Yes, but that's pretty damn ironic from people who stole the 2000 election and whose Supreme Court nominees have done a lot to further erode democracy and the power of non-super-rich people in the U.S.
I’d say at this point the Cheney family wants to think they are going to be relevant again.
The worst thing that can happen is that neocons like the Cheney’s are going to recommend foreign policy and war mongering intervention and nation building and that the Democrats are actually going to adopt this.
Remember when Bush said he wasn’t for national building before he ended up being for it with the Iraq War?
They are not relevant in today's Republican Party and will no votes for Harris with them
Right.
However, being that Kamala Harris grew up in Berkeley as a child, it’s interesting the Cheney’s are giving support for her in light of this fact.
Back in the day at the height of the lead up to the Iraq War, it was Darrell Issa who argued in the House that federal funding should be withheld for Berkeley for trying to boot out the Army office near the city’s Downtown area.
They're misguided if they think it's likely for the Republicans to retain the House while Harris wins the Presidency.
Most of the House loses for Democrats back in 2022 were in CA and NY. If Democrats simple reclaim those loses + keep all the rest of the seats they didn't lose back in 2022, then Hakeem Jefferies gets the gavel. I don't see how there's so much heavy lifting that has to done to reclaim back those seats.
We know NY-03 is likely going to be out of reach for the GOP considering George Santos was forced out and Tom Suozzi got his seat back in the primary with relative ease. Then LA-06 is going to be an easy pickup for Democrats thanks to the redistricting rule by the Supreme Court. That's already two wins in the House.
If I had my way, I’d tighten up ballot access laws to make it impossible for the Green Party to qualify.
How could that be possible in a democracy?
Let's not forget that the Green Party has presence in the UK, where in parliament there's more than just the Conservative and Labour Parties represented.
Unlike in Congress, the Green Party has representation in the UK parliament.
But we don’t have a parliamentary system, so every vote for a non-Democrat & Republican is thrown away.
Yes but for the non-Democrat and Republican votes, I'm not concerned about them at this time.
The real concern should be on overturning the Citizens United decision and going to a primarily public-financing and funding system for all political races. Once this is done, it will be much easier to have a conversation on what we want our democracy to look like.
The Cheney endorsement would have been unthinkably mind-blowing 20 years ago or even 10 years ago, but given that a muscular foreign policy was always Cheney's biggest issue, it makes sense that Trump's isolationism scares him to death....enough to endorse a Democrat "until the Republican Party returns to its Cheney-endorsed senses" (spoiler alert: it won't).
Generally agreed, but there's no way to reliably predict the long-term future of the post-Trump Republican Party. If you were talking to someone 100 years ago, could you have predicted that the Democrats would be the party of civil rights and the Republicans would be the party of neo-Confederacy?
Thom Hartmann was interviewed a long time ago and said that Trump Republicans wanted to go back to the days of the Eisenhower times. He might be thinking of the era, not so much the specific policies and agenda Eisenhower as POTUS had.
The reason that the Green Party was kicked off is hilarious - they filed the petition to include the words "Jill Stein" as a referendum question instead of as a candidate for president. https://www.8newsnow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/59/2024/09/green-party-ruling.pdf
Lmao; absolute clowns
The fact that the Green Party needs a naive supporter of the Kremlin's propaganda arm as its presidential nominee shows how dire the party is in these days.