324

Bush called out on Trump-Harris: When democracy calls, ‘you can’t just roll it over to voicemail’ (www.nj.com)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

65 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As many Republicans continue to buck their party’s nominee and nominate Vice President Harris for the White House, calls are mounting for former President George W. Bush to denounce former President Trump.

The Harris campaign has touted that more than 200 Republicans have endorsed the vice president, including former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and many former Trump insiders. It also includes former vice president to Bush, Dick Cheney.

…

He noted that Bush is “apparently above such petty concerns,” pointing to recent reports that said he is not endorsing anyone in the race for the White House. Multiple outlets reported that Bush’s office released a statement that said: “President Bush retired from presidential politics years ago.”

“But it doesn’t work that way. When your country calls, you can’t just roll it over to voicemail because you don’t want to deal with it, especially when you are an elder statesman like an ex-president. Patriotism is for life,” Truax wrote, noting that former President Jimmy Carter said he hopes he can live to cast his vote for Harris.

Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] meec3@lemmy.world 138 points 1 month ago

Man who subverted democracy with the help of his brother and the supreme court....is okay with another man subverting democracy. Startling. ¬_¬

Honestly, it's much more troubling the amount of people who seem to have come round to 'George is just a bumbling buffoon but a great guy really'.

Is it just time? Wishful thinking? Or Trump making his presidency seem less destructive - even though Bush was waaaay worse for the planet as a whole? (Obviously that latter part would no doubt be ~trumped~ if he actually gets a second term)

[-] voracitude@lemmy.world 30 points 1 month ago

People seemed to forget what a ghoul Mitt Romney is too, the instant he denounced Trump that one time. It's weird, right? And, just because it's always relevant: Dick Cheney can fuck all the way off.

Do you think it could be because there was some semblance of following the rules when those fuckers were being awful (even if those were rules they changed so recently the ink was still wet, ahem definitionoftorture ahemhem), compared to the outright lawlessness of this lot?

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 27 points 1 month ago

I think a lot of people have decided Dick Cheney was the main person responsible for the W administration's crimes.

[-] pachrist@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Yeah, there's a lot of contradiction and apologetics when it comes to Bush. He can't be an evil, cunning, crafty, bumbling ignoramus, all at once. He's definitely an idiot who knowingly employed some evil people. In my mind, that makes him pretty awful, but some people feel differently for some reason.

[-] bcgm3@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

Honestly, it's much more troubling the amount of people who seem to have come round to 'George is just a bumbling buffoon but a great guy really'.

Didn't you see when he gave Michelle Obama a candy from his pocket? He's just America's sweet ol' grandpa.

/S

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 37 points 1 month ago

I really liked how Jon Stewart addressed Cheney's endorsement.

He stared directly at the camera and said "Fuck off Cheney."

Same goes for Bush. FUCK OFF BUSH. It would be an insult to have Bush or Cheney on "our" side. Goddamn war criminal, money grubbing, pieces of shit. Rest in piss when the time comes Bush.

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Dude keeps an office staff to respond to this formally but claims to have retired from politics? Bullshit. If I have a political staff, I have not retired from politics. I want him to denounce, and I would still tell him to fuck off, so that everyone's on the same page.

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Condemning Trump doesn't make anyone on anyone's side. It means they're NOT on Trump's side.

It's a statement about how much Trump dominates political and social discourse that people think the Democratic party is the "anti-Trump" party.

Obviously people like Cheney are against Trump, but that doesn't mean that everyone that is against Trump is a Democrat. It usually just means they're relatively rational.

[-] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 31 points 1 month ago

Wonder if it would even change any remaining independents or right wing people still on trump.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

GW was a useful idiot puppet like Reagan and they tried to make trump.

Dick Cheney already endorsed Kamala, he doesn't need to stick his hand back up GWs ass and make him say something again.

Even if he did, it doesn't mean hes against what trump wants just mad his dad's buddy Dick Cheney isn't in power.

Like, the only positive of trump was getting rid of Cheney. Of course Cheney doesn't like trump

[-] barnaclebutt@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I think that dubya would make a difference with older voters. Also, Fuck off Dick Cheney.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] ObsidianZed@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

“But it doesn’t work that way. When your country calls, you can’t just roll it over to voicemail because you don’t want to deal with it, especially when you are an elder statesman like an ex-president. Patriotism is for life”

It's almost like he didn't want to be and shouldn't have been president or something.

[-] PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

George Bush Jr. has the most impressive ability to sound like the dumbest motherfucker in the room always. He should also be tried as a war criminal.

[-] cmbabul@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

He sure can dodge a shoe though

[-] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

He did look pretty cool landing a fighter jet on that carrier before those embarrassing photos where he briefly thought the Iraq war ended with Saddam being deposed, too.

[-] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

He did complete his mission though, getting Saddam for daddy. The rest of the wars were just to allow his industry friends to siphon money from the tax payers, which they intended to go on as long as possible.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

if only we all could retire from politics.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

So fucking ridiculous Dems are going after Republican endorsements like this while still ignoring the left wing of their own fucking party.

We don't need republican votes if we give Dem voters what they want to vote for.

It's just the donors want the same things as republicans, so moderates will always go right for donors

We need to start treating votes as the important part

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

We don't need republican votes if we give Dem voters what they want to vote for.

The elector college is based on States, not population.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Right...

And if you want to see someone flip red states more than Obama, you have to go back to FDR...

Progressive campaigns flip red states

We have literally over a century of election data. We know what works.

It's just not what the wealthy do saying to both parties want.

Are you still confused about anything

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago

People actually on the left only have one choice, people in-between have two, no matter how progressive you go young people (who tend to be on the left) don't vote (we also have data from other countries to prove that they don't vote even when there's parties that actually want to work for them).

So, where do you think there's more votes to be gained?

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

People actually on the left only have one choice,

If they vote....

You know the most common reason?

Both parties are too similar.

If the party moves left, that disappears and Dems donate, up and down the ballots.

But we don't do that, when it happens the party fights it as much as possible

So, where do you think there’s more votes to be gained?

The incredibly large segment of possible voters who think both parties are shit and don't fight thru red state voter suppression regularly...

But will turn out for a charismatic dem who runs a progressive campaign...

Neoliberal moderates tho. Can barely beat trump...

You legitimately don't understand the difference between a campaign like Obama's to Biden and Hillary's?

[-] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 2 points 1 month ago

If they vote…

This is a good lesson. My understanding is that the fewest people ever voted in 2016, when the GOP won, and the most in 2020, when the GOP lost.

So definitely need to encourage eligible folks to get out and vote, and it goes without saying that a platform that attracts voters is a must.

You legitimately don’t understand the difference between a campaign like Obama’s to Biden and Hillary’s?

One key difference is that Obama was first elected in 2008, before the GOP's plan in 2010 with redistricting was able to take effect - https://billmoyers.com/story/in-2010-republicans-weaponized-gerrymandering-heres-how-they-did-it/

(I know he did win re-election 2012, but he had the incumbent advantage back then and the GOP had only had two years to take advantage at that point, instead of the six years of experience they had later in 2016.)

Neoliberal moderates tho. Can barely beat trump…

Obama was one of these. Remember how in 2008 he wasn't for gay marriage, but he eventually supported it after his views "evolved" while he was in office?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/evolution-obamas-stance-gay-marriage-flna763350

Obama’s Wednesday announcement was a reversal of his 2004 view that “marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

The other thing worth pointing out, is that while record numbers voted in 2020, there were some who voted an otherwise straight GOP ticket but for Biden-Harris, as per https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/16/split-ticket-voting-texas-republicans/

Also check out these charts https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2020/10/PP_2020.10.21_split-icket-voting_0-01.png from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/10/21/large-shares-of-voters-plan-to-vote-a-straight-party-ticket-for-president-senate-and-house/

4% of voters split R/D. I can't imagine anything more than a negligible amount were from Dems who voted for orange voldermort. Therefore, that 4% can be attributed to Republicans who voted for Biden.

So even with record turnout, the difference was small. 42 vs 38? Give that 4% back to the GOP and, with their Electoral College advantage, they'd have won in 2020.

All this goes to show that while you are correct about needing to encourage turnout, and keep ahold of the Dem voters, you're wrong about not needing Republican votes.

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] pumpkinseedoil@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

What are they expecting out of not voting? Do they not care if Trump or Harris win? I just really don't get why you wouldn't vote here.

There also were enough people who didn't vote for or against the NSDAP because they also disagreed with the other parties... It's not about voting for a party you agree with, it's about voting for the party with which you agree more / disagree less than with the other parties.

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 1 points 1 month ago

Well, it's roughly based on population, but the inclusion of two electoral votes for each state "just for being a state" tips the scale in favor of voters in less urban, more rural states.

[-] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 1 points 1 month ago

We don’t need republican votes if we give Dem voters what they want to vote for.

So this is a bit insightful,

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/biden-voting-counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-nations-political-economic-divide/

We need to start treating votes as the important part

Of course that's important, but keep in mind how the Electoral College disadvantages States with large populations and gives greater weight (on a per-vote level) to those voting in smaller states. https://www.vox.com/2021/1/11/22224700/electoral-college-joe-biden-donald-trump-bias-four-points-one-chart

So there's a need to win over voters in particular states, hence the parties shifts to the "center".

load more comments (13 replies)

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

I'm sure there's some principles we can jettison or some vulnerable minority we can throw under the bus that can get him to come around.

[-] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

Make a decision deciderman.

[-] demizerone@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Bush is doing exactly what he should be doing, hiding like the war criminal he is. The only thing is he has a ranch in Texas instead of a hole in the ground like Saddam.

[-] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 10 points 1 month ago

But he can. He has enough privilege that it doesn’t matter to him who gets elected. He's not a good person.

[-] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

The Cheney controlling him already put in his bid, so he just has to power on his brain long enough to do the same. Only a matter of time. Just give it a minute.

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

IMO he's going to do it, just a matter of when.

[-] son_named_bort@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

I did, but that's because it came from an unknown number and I thought it was about my car's extended warranty.

[-] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I think being openly endorsed by the collective that laid the groundwork for Project 2025 undermines how serious you are about it. But that is just me. Harris is fine with Dick Cheney and the GOP. The shift right continues. Bush is a piece of trash.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024

324 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19089 readers

3826 users here now

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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News