Arnold Schwarzenegger endorses Kamala Harris: ‘I will always be an American before I am a Republican’
2 years ago by Admiral Patrick to c/politics
Cross-posted from "Arnold Schwarzenegger endorses Kamala Harris: ‘I will always be an American before I am a Republican’" by @Powderhorn@beehaw.org in !politics@beehaw.org
“I will always be an American before I am a Republican,” he wrote. “That’s why, this week, I am voting for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. I’m sharing it with all of you because I think there are a lot of you who feel like I do. You don’t recognise our country. And you are right to be furious.”
MAGA is fascism, full stop. That’s not just my opinion – if you can read this list with honesty and not conclude they’re fascists, you’re lying to yourself:
- Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
- Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
- Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
- Supremacy of the Military
- Rampant Sexism
- Controlled Mass Media
- Obsession with National Security
- Religion and Government are Intertwined
- Corporate Power is Protected
- Labor Power is Suppressed
- Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
- Obsession with Crime and Punishment
- Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
- Fraudulent Elections (or claims thereof)
It’s outright fascism. That is not hyperbole. And fascism is always a suicide cult. It destroys everything it touches, including itself.
7. Obsession with National Security
I think they've quietly dropped this one, since they don't seem to mind Trump being owned by a Russian dictator, his son-in-law getting two billion dollars from the Saudis, or Trump stealing classified documents and casually leaving them lying around for foreign agents to help themselves to.
Once he’s back in office, though, this will be one of their main foci again. They’ll go all in on Patriot Act II, barring all foreign entry on the grounds of national security. They basically say that now, just with different words. No more asylum seekers, no more immigrants (which will crash the economy, and they’ll somehow blame that on immigrants, too).
I remember Romney saying Russia is our primary adversary during his debate with Obama, and Obama laughing it off as old school.
Oh they let more than that drop. Remember just earlier where they said democrats/government engineered the hurricane, yet at the same time humans cannot affect the climate?
MAGA is just another level of republican. Like in dragonball, MAGA is nearly the final form, but the final form is fascism.
I forgot about the unironic "hide your power level" Chan shit.
Excerpts from a short piece, called "Back to the Wall," by a famous writer; abridged:
The individual soul is under attack...
Ten years ago it may have been inconceivable that the great sweet "cassaba melon" as it was called of "American Century" prosperity was really a great psychic hoax a mirage of electronic mass-hypnosis...
The choice given - or CHOSEN? by us between an oldfashioned politician..., which is to say conservative, and an outright Authoritarian rightwinger? We never had a choice between middle and left, we were always stuck between middle and right. Finally it becomes too much to fight. But the stakes are too great to lose...
To live in a country which supposedly dominates the entire planet and to be responsible for the outrages of ones Own country! Woe to the Germans silent under Hitler woe to the Americans silent now.
Not a matter of Policy, rational discourse etc.
Things no longer merely out of proportion, things are UNREAL. Manipulating the unreal from centers of power - how can the soul endure?
Movie blather, news broadcast blather ... social blather of a totally maladjusted tribe engaged in struggle to retain power-dominance and control over an entire planet (nay an entire solar system!)
He also mentions a "synchronistic putch." The writer is called Allen Ginsberg and this piece was published 1966.
Which is to say, the Overton window has been shifting for a long time and Nazism has never been truly defeated, only forced to hibernate. And certainly not just in the US. At least that's my pessimistic conclusion at this point.
Spoken like a true republican.
That aside (I'm not arguing or disagreeing on that point): he is putting country over party which is something very, very few Republicans are capable of doing and even fewer are actually doing. On that alone, I can throw him some respect.
This is the biggest thing. If he were to actually tell the full truth here, he'd be less successful in getting his message across to the people who listen to him. Full truth is the ultimate goal, but we're so far from it that for half the country it's an impossibly huge leap to go from where they are now to the truth in one bound.
I didn't see anyone claiming otherwise. Still, I would bet money that polarized/partisan voting is a much bigger issue with Republican voters.
He very specifically mentioned this to be a Republican trait. Also, this is about politicians, not voters.
Meh. I'd happily return to the ideological difference of the 90s / 2000s where maybe some facts don't support beliefs. But we're in a very different ballgame now.
And the fact that he's endorsing Harris instead of just saying don't vote for Trump is commendable. Many of my Republican friends that reject Trump can't stomach voting for Harris. It's apparently a very big bridge to cross for them.
At least he's never put on a red hat, or in any way spoken in favor of the blond antichrist. That's at least something.
Frankly it's the kind of endorsement that is more helpful. If a moderate Republican retains the rhetoric but otherwise rejects Trump, well that might sway moderate Republican voters. If he declared the entire party was mistaken, well he loses those folks and only appeals to the folks that were already in the Harris column.
A republican saying that the Democrats are still bad, but Trump is uniquely worse and has lead the Republican leadership to lose its way, that might appeal to some people that thought to vote r no matter what, even if they had doubts about Trump.
I'll throw in with the other replies. Everything in this comment is political discourse from 2006. Disagreeing with the opposition's policy and at most suggesting that they're dishonest about it.
Right now we're worried about the GOP and their figurehead bringing about one-party rule and loosing the military on their domestic opposition.
I'd want to wind the clock back too, even if it means having to eye roll at conservative rhetoric like this now and then.
"Your guilty conscience may force you to vote Democratic, but deep down inside you secretly long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king!"
he left office with a projected budget surplus
It wasn't a projected surplus, it was an actual surplus for his final two years. I suppose you could say it was also a projected surplus, but Bush II and Dick "Reagan Proved Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney took care of that right quick.
violent crime rates are near a 50-year low!
I wonder fear how much this could change in the near-future. :(
well if we start legalizing mushrooms and continue with lead free paint and environmentally perserving economies it might continue to drop! (mushrooms are a natural antidepressant people, get on the funky town ride)
See that’s an immigrant who actually embraced the culture he moved to glares at elon
I would pay a lot of money to see Arnold beat up Elon in a cage match. Despite the age gap, it wont even be close.
Heh, I would've paid to watch Zuck beat his ass, but he chickened out of that one.
If there was some way to have gotten Elon to show up in Zulu gear trying to intimidate...
I truly wish we had more politicians that behave in this manner. It should never boil down to my political party versus yours. There shouldn't be any sides to governing this country.
Don't you miss the days where presidentak candidates stood up for each other .... When GOP McCain defended Obama against outlandish rumors he was a secret Muslim. Seems like those days are long gone.
That's because none of the candidates were Russian assets.
In this election it's almost as if all of them are Russian assets except one.
Except RFK, right? Right? Or maybe except Bernie?
I mean, OK, Kamala is not an asset, she's an equal partner. Trump is an asset.
And "Russian" should be replaced with some international network of thieves and murderers.
You guys keep popping up.
Keep the shit talk coming, it just makes it easier to block you.
Imagine if we banned parties. Made lobbying illegal and funded all of the campaigns for qualified members paid for by the government. Encouraging government figures to campaign less as it saves taxes for their constituates.
No way that government will have a majority to make this happen anytime soon. Interesting idea though.
If you want to hear a really dumb but interesting one. A while back I joked about a reality TV show where government figures participated and we got retired presidents/governors/advisors to go on and give situations/lectures where they collected how the participants would react in the situations, then reviewed what real life events it actually correlated to and what response(s) were actually taken, and discuss why they were good/bad ideas. Thus actually educating the up and coming members with real life scenarios and letting the public slowly learn more about the cause/effects of each members actions while also showing what decisions the members would want to take if ever elected.
Many would lie obviously as they would lean pro populous on the show, and end up still being pro corporations when elected though, so it wouldn't end up being so good in practice.
...but it would be the first ever reality TV show I would want to watch. Also gives an opportunity for retired officials to make income post office so they don't have to assume once out of office they have no hire-ability, making a bribe in office less life changing.
Imagine hiring a president or governor at your local anything... It can't really happen.
If the country has to lose for your party to win, does it really count?
Noice. Call Arnold whatever you want, he's no MAGA ass-kisser.
He's an interesting character. I don't agree with a lot of his ideas but they feel like they come from a genuinely altruistic place. The antithesis of maga.
Seriously, he’s another Republican I’d trust to actually want to do the right thing even if I disagree on how.
Interesting parallel to us in Massachusetts with Romney. A blue state electing a Republican governor and generally being happy with it. Also you wouldn’t expect much from an actor or vulture capitalist, but they deliver
When he says something its honest as opposed to the majority of republicans just project their intentions on their enemies. The important thing here is their idea anyone who doesn't agree with them is a enemy.
With a one-liner for each.
And ask for seconds...
He did some dumb god damn shit in California back in the day, and he's doing the obviously right thing now that things are so different. We gather every partial win and stand together against the limpdicks.
Vote.
This is the type of republican endorsement Harris should be touting. His politics may be shit but at least he's got broad popularity across the aisle , unlike Cheney and the five delusional people who still think his opinion is worth considering.
I actually think the opposite shows more.
"The orange idiot calls me a communist, but even these pieces of shit are voting for me over him."
I think too many people are confusing am endorsement by a piece of shit and supporting that piece of shit, like Cheney's endorsement somehow will mean Harris agrees with him.
All it means is a massive turd is saying "Don't vote for the diaper full of massive fascsist turds".
Let it sink in:
Angela Davis - an avowed Marxist-Leninist- and Dick-fucking-Cheney both agree Kamala is the way to go.
How the hell is this election even close?
(And we can add Liz Cheney to that. She and her dad are both neo-con warmongers.)
Edit: any one have a good punchline to “Dick Cheney and Angela Davis walk into a bar….”?
It boggles the mind. I can't understand ~30% of the population apparently.
How the hell is this election even close?
I understand the sentiment, but I think it's obvious why this election is close. Harris fucking sucks as a candidate. Apart of whether or not people should vote for her, she's a coward that refuses to take a stand (or even make promises) on literally anything while actively alienating two significant demographics in the swing states she needs to win and opting instead to get the five or so swing voters that exist in America to vote for her. If Trump was slightly more competent she'd have had no chance.
“Increased crime”? C’mon, isn’t crime down? Don’t fall for that old white man bogeyman, Arnold.
He still is republican.
It is his authentic belief which will help to persuade others to join him.
I knew what he’d say though. He’s made it clear through his actions what he wants.
Yeah but it’s one thing to be a fiscally conservative Republican who believes with all of his heart that his hard work got him everything he has because he worked hard and just fails to see his luck. It’s another to be a cult of personality republican, Donald Trump worshipping fascist.
I guess it’s easier for me to relate to those folks because I came from their world. I (a dirt poor nobody exploited by my wealthy family since I was old enough to talk) have seen what these people believe. They aren’t bad people, they’ve just been very lucky and they don’t get it.
My millionaire uncle for example; If I were to call him right now and tell him I was desperate, he’d do whatever I asked. He’d want me to do some kind of work for it because that is virtue to him. He isn’t a bad guy, he just has a system of values that don’t align with mine. That’s fine. It’s all well and good.
There is a difference between lucky rich kid republicans and Christo-fascist Donald Trump worshipping republicans.
I forget who said it, but there was once a Republican who was concerned with preachers taking over the party. Well. That happened. The god they worship and preach on behalf of is Trump. Allah bless the ones who aren’t like that and are willing to go against beliefs they hold close to their hearts in opposition to fascism. Seriously.
But that's also not Arnold - he's publicly said that he arrived with like $20 in his pocket but he is not a self made man, he's a community made man. He's not a "bootstrap" believer, he's very vocally against that mentality too.
He's true old school Republican, where they have some misguided beliefs about national debt but aren't absolute loons.
E: quick Google gives this https://youtu.be/DOldEbWxgdQ?si=uJ8_CsHzoUBHTbH4
Theres better vids of it, but still - Arnold has been pretty consistently a level headed guy politically, even if he's not right all the time.
https://www.marketplace.org/...
Arnold isn't completely delusional on a social level, but he does believe in austerity politics. Pretty standard law and order neoliberal/con tbh.
A difference in what, how they were created? Who manipulated them and told them the lies that they believe?
There isn't a single part of fiscal conservatism that is not based on a total lie. What they all share in common is that their unlimited gullibility is a threat to national security.
Sorry, I'll see myself out.
Just don’t type the before to that after
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Guardian:
> Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs.
> Wiki: mixed - Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a "blogposts" tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian.
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Search topics on Ground.News
Fuck you, Arnold. He's correct here, but he's also as crooked as they come.
I'm not gonna pretend the clemency was an ethical move - though there is a lot to question about that plea agreement - I will say that if you think this is "as crooked as they come" you are woefully sheltered.
Cutting the sentence in half of a political-rival-turned-ally's son is messed up but the hyperbole of calling it "the most crooked you can be" is absurd
I think you meant to say "cutting the sentence in half of a crony's son who brutally and unambiguously stabbed an innocent man to death at the literal last minute of your time in office so there are effectively no consequences"?
Can you read? Did you read the article? Unambiguous my ass. There is literally witness testimony that says it was the other assailant that stabbed the victim. Seriously, read the article that was linked so you don't sound quite so willfully ignorant
Also calling Nunez a crony of Schwarzenegger is hilarious given their history.
Okay, I want to clarify two things:
Only one of the witnesses said Jeff was the one who landed the blow on Luis in the left ventricle, so what you have then is instead the sum of the witness evidence. However, if you and your friend come up and try to start stabbing me and the person next to you just happens to be the one whose knife gets to me first, you've effectively stabbed me to death. Just like if you and your friend start opening fire intentionally trying to hit me but your friend's bullet just happens to hit me first, you've still shot me to death; that's again even assuming that one witness out of several was the correct one. This never went to trial to figure out whose knife actually pierced Luis' heart thanks to the plea bargain, but with the 7/11 evidence of them getting gasoline to burn their clothes and weapons, it's unambiguous they were both responsible.
Nunez was Schwarzenegger's crony; did you not read the entire-ass section of the article called "Foes to friends" that goes over exactly how this happened? Nunez started by derailing Schwarzenegger's agenda, but after this, they began working closely together to make sure legislation made its way through – basic politicking: I scratch your back, you scratch mine. If Nunez wasn't a crony, why did Schwarzenegger do this for Nunez specifically, one is led to wonder? And why did he do it at the absolute last minute of his term? If they were bitter political rivals, it could be seen as an act of good faith among the public rather than the shallow, naked cronyism that it was.
I'm genuinely confused by your comment. Would you be able to explain or clarify?
i mean, yes, we know the republicans are anti-freedom.
@lemmy.world
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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
save