Kamala Harris, who launched her campaign for president, has long been a favorite of Hollywood donors.

Kamala Harris has launched her campaign for the White House, after President Joe Biden stepped aside Sunday under pressure from party leaders.

The vice president has Biden’s endorsement, and is unchallenged as yet for the Democratic nomination, which will be formally decided at the Aug. 19 convention in Chicago.

“I am honored to have the President’s endorsement and my intention is to earn and win this nomination,” Harris said in a statement. “I will do everything in my power to unite the Democratic Party—and unite our nation—to defeat Donald Trump and his extreme Project 2025 agenda. We have 107 days until Election Day. Together, we will fight. And together, we will win.”

In her statement, the vice president paid tribute to Biden’s “extraordinary leadership,” saying he had achieved more in one term than many presidents do in two.

  • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
    2·
    4 months ago

    The three basic requirements are clearly laid out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Neither the 14th or 22nd Amendments apply.

    It’s cut and dried, with precedent. There is nothing remotely questionable about her eligibility. If the concern is that the opposition party doesn’t care about precedent, then the rulebook is completely tossed out anyway and we’re dealing with a different conversation altogether.

    Anyone pushing the narrative that she does not meet the basic requirements is either engaging in pointless hand wringing, expressing ignorance about the requirements, or actively spreading a falsehood.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      34·
      4 months ago

      Until this year, there was nothing remotely questionable about whether or not it was legal for a president to commit crimes. And people like you told me similar things about how the court would rule there too.

      • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
        2·
        4 months ago

        I addressed what you’re alluding to. Second paragraph, third sentence. If we reach a point where precedent doesn’t matter regarding eligibility, all bets are off anyway.

        I said nothing at all about how the courts would rule, only that we have prior examples of how eligibility has been determined.

        If we want to talk about a sane world where rules matter, the question is settled. If you instead prefer to lament the possibility that those rules will be ignored, twisted, or rewritten, then it logically follows that any candidate will be subject to bad faith jurisprudence. At that point, all bets are off anyway, and the “question” of AOC’s eligibility as a candidate has no bearing.

        Fret and panic if you feel that it’s your best course of action, but poisoning the discourse with that sort of nonsense is counterproductive.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          11·
          4 months ago

          If we want to talk about a sane world where rules matter, the question is settled.

          What world is this? Because it’s not Earth in the year 2024.

          Or is this one of those situations where you think the world runs on “should” and not “is?”

          • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
            3·
            4 months ago

            Then it’s option two for you, is it? The one where we allow bad actors to dictate because we believe they won’t play fair?

            If that’s the case, you don’t have anything to worry about because all is already lost. “Despair is a narcotic. It lulls the mind into indifference.”

            Or is this one of those situations where you’ve already seen that you’re wrong, but you’re too stubborn to admit it and compulsively need to have the last word?

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              12·
              4 months ago

              Bad actors already dictate and already don’t play fair. That’s why SCOTUS said that presidents can commit crimes if they are official acts. That is insane.

              The U.S. is the only developed country without universal healthcare and neither Republicans nor Democrats are interested in it. That is insane.

              There’s a law in Louisiana that says a specific Protestant version of the Ten Commandments has to be displayed in all classrooms in the state from kindergarten to college. That is insane.

              The Florida educational system mandates teaching kids that slavery taught black people useful skills. That is insane.

              The U.S. has the largest prison population in the world, because slavery is legal in the U.S. when you’re a criminal and it’s possible to make a profit running a prison, so putting people in prison is encouraged. That is insane.

              There is another article in this community right now that says that Maryland has a 50-year backlog of rape kits and that they just caught a serial rapists who started in the 1970s because before now, they didn’t hire a cold case detective. That is insane.

              We know the Earth is heating up due to fossil fuel use, yet the U.S. government, no matter which party is in charge, promotes drilling for more oil. That is insane.

              Shall I go on?

              Why do you think we live in a sane world?

              Also, why are you insulting me when I’ve never insulted you?

              • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
                3·
                4 months ago

                I responded to you in kind. If you consider that insulting, then examine your own contribution.

                You’ve graciously answered my question by way of your response. Thank you for that. I wish you the best in your march into defeatism, and sincerely hope you’ll refrain from dragging others along for the ride.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  13·
                  4 months ago

                  This is your so-called “in kind” response:

                  Or is this one of those situations where you’ve already seen that you’re wrong, but you’re too stubborn to admit it and compulsively need to have the last word?

                  How is that in any way “in kind?” I never suggested you were some sort of arrogant person who can’t admit they’re wrong. I never even implied such a thing, nor would I.

                  Was this “not an insult” also in kind?

                  I wish you the best in your march into defeatism

                  Because if I saw this level of incivility in the communities I moderated, your posts would be deleted.

                  • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
                    2·
                    4 months ago

                    I’ll indulge you one more time in this comment chain.

                    Or is this one of those situations where you think the world runs on “should” and not “is?”

                    If I were as inclined to feign offense, I’d cite this as an implication that I’m someone who cannot differentiate reality from fantasy. Some might even call such an implication a thinly veiled insult, but only if they didn’t intend to throw rocks before hiding their hands.

                    Instead of interpreting it in such a way and clutching my pearls about it, I chose to meet you with the same energy.

                    Your point regarding the communities you moderate is 1) irrelevant and 2) not a road worth going down, regardless. It’s at best an attempt at a flex, and does not belong in this conversation.

                    Back to the actual matter, every statement you’ve made in these comments, barring your most recent response, absolutely exhibits a dictionary definition defeatist viewpoint. Why take umbrage to having it pointed out as such?

                    This marks the end of my engagement with you in this chain of comments. Any further responses you make are for your own gratification.