• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        Among the new announcements on Monday, Target committed to increase its spending in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras by $300 million this year while Columbia said it would purchase $200 million in products in the region, creating more than 6,900 jobs over five years.

        Backstopping Coca-Cola and the United Fruit Company. Feel like I’m telling Sam Adams that we got a big new investment from East India Tea.

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.socialEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          It’s crazy to me that ‘convincing American businesses to move some production to an underdeveloped nation’ is being thrown around like it’s a good thing.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            2 months ago

            I mean, the Marshall Plan was kind of a good thing. Rebuilding Japan and the half of South Korea we hadn’t completely flattened a good thing.

            But are we talking about developing enormous new blocks of housing, schooling, transport, and hospitalization in these countries? Or is Target just expanding the sweatshops?

            Imagine the North coming in after the Civil War and building more plantations…

            • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.socialEnglish
              0·
              2 months ago

              Oh, if they proposed something like the Marshall Plan I’d be fucking pleased.

              This is just convincing US companies to take advantage of the cheap labor, as if they really needed that much convincing.

              • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
                0·
                2 months ago

                Labor is cheaper overseas. The Philippines, Indonesia, and Bangladesh have people working in what amount to little more than slave camps. Latin American governments struggle harder to keep their populations in line, as evidenced by socialist uprisings in Nicaragua, Cuba, Bolivia, and Venezuela.

    • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
      0·
      2 months ago

      It was a puff piece. Hostile would be following up “Will you appoint a republican to your cabinet” with “Will you appoint a Palestinian”. How can you ask 250,000 Muslims in Michigan to vote for you while you bomb people just like them, some of whom are their family members?

      “Do you realize every time you promote border security and migrant crime, you’re campaigning for republicans?”

      Just neutral would be following up her agenda with practical questions:

      How will you carry out your agenda? Do you plan to do it all in reconciliation? Will you tell the senate to abolish the filibuster? Executive orders? Will you increase the number of SCOTUS judges, ignore the SCOTUS’s orders, or throw your hands up if they block your agenda?

  • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.socialEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

    Anyone who comes away from this interview thinking that Harris is running a progressive campaign has their head in the sand. Just in the first 20 minutes:

    • affirms she does not support banning fracking
      • when pressed about why she previously supported a fracking ban, she deflects
      • when asked if she’s seen any scientific evidence to support a policy in favor of fracking, she deflects and says ‘we can do ‘it’ without banning fracking’
      • when asked about how supporting fracking squares with the rest of her climate policy she says “I believe we can do it without banning fracking”
    • affirms and reinforces xenophobic immigration stereotypes and reiterates her intent to enforce our border with mexico
      • says that strengthening the border would help reduce fentanyl smuggling, even though nearly all fentanyl is trafficked through legal entry
      • repeatedly alludes to illegal crossings involving drugs, guns, and human trafficking
      • does not mention asylum seekers or dreamers, or make any acknowledgement of the horrors and violence these migrants are fleeing from
      • fails to make any mention of the inhumanity of mass deportations and dragnet operations by ICE, or even any mention of the authoritarian mass deportation positions her opponent has been taking
      • fails to indicate any support for immigration reform to make it easier to immigrate or seek asylum, and actually says she supports the immigration bill that makes asylum more difficult
    • repeatedly insists on the importance of working with conservatives on conservative interests, including a willingness to place republicans on her cabinet, while simultaneously distancing herself with progressive issues, interests, or perspectives
    • When asked “would you consider withholding any arms shipments to Israel [to end the war in Gaza]?” she deflects by saying she “unequivocally supports Israel’s right to exist and defend itself”
      • in an rant on Israel, she repeats the unsubstantiated claim of mass-rape on Oct-7 and frames the event as a tragedy, but uses passive language and euphemisms while speaking of Israel’s response - “far too many palestinans have been killed”. Makes no mention of Israeli war crimes, genocide, West Bank occupation and settlement, ect
      • in discussing a ceasefire deal she only speaks to the Israeli conditions (hostages) but makes no mention or acknowledgement of the Palestinian conditions (assurances that the ceasefire will not end as soon as the hostages are released, a removal of Israeli occupation from Palestinian territory, the allowing of free movement in and out of Gaza, ect)
      • makes not even the slightest indication that Israel has done anything wrong, let alone any acknowledgement of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza still being caused by Israel

    This interview could have just as easily been one for a republican candidate. The good news is that if your only concern is beating trump then this interview was fine, bordering on good. The bad news is if you care at all about the overton window shifting even further right, this looks like a leap to the right, not just a step. Harris is running on strengthening our border/military and prosecuting undocumented immigration criminally, soft-touch climate legislation, palestinian genocide denial (expected) and unconditional lethal aid to Israel. The only positive positions she’s come out with thus far are are child tax credits and reproductive rights, and maybe an under-formed plan to produce more houses (but no mention of action to prevent those homes being commercially owned as investments)

    She’s affirmed a number of fascist concerns and positions while distancing or outright rejecting progressive/leftist interests. She’s given credence to the xenophobic notion that immigrants are a national security risk, that we need to increase military spending and presence abroad, and indicated that private industry is a priority over existential concerns over climate change/pollution (being unwilling to acknowledge the problems caused by fracking because it might damage PA industry indicates (to me) that she’s unwilling to take action that may threaten private interests). This is a return to Clinton-era “tough on crime” neo-liberalism. Not only do these positions actively make things worse, they also make it extremely difficult for anyone next cycle to run on reduced military spending, more aggressive climate action, international cooperation on human rights and climate, or a reduction of hostilities in foreign affairs. If you’re of the opinion that climate change is accelerating toward the worst-case scenario for the planet, then any indication that there are other interests (especially interests in protecting a specific industry) that are more important than averting climate catastrophe is beyond stupid. It is the same political calculation as deregulation and presents the same obstacle to meaningful climate policy.

    Doubling-down on the most aggressive and xenophobic fears while the working class continues to decline is historically what tends to precede a slide into fascism. Even if she beats trump in November, all signs point to an even more active fascist movement for the next four years.

    Now is absolutely not the time to be calm or complacent.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      0·
      2 months ago

      Oh, there’s no question she’s not a progressive… but when the alternative is Trump, Reagan and Nixon look progressive.

        • kescusay@lemmy.worldEnglish
          01·
          2 months ago

          Hard, hard disagree on Reagan. That fuckwit screwed up damn near everything, and was responsible for the single largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in history. He gutted the EPA, he engaged in illegal arms-for-hostages trades, and generally fucked up everything he touched.

          Make no mistake, we’re still suffering with the effects of his presidency to this day. Not going to say he was worse than Trump, because it’s hard to imagine anyone being worse than Trump, but lordy, he still wasn’t good.

    • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      Save your ire for a few months. No sane politician is going to spout exacting policy this close to an election. Why give your enemy so much as a single bullet?

      We get her in, then we go into analyses like yours, feet to the fire. ATM, I’m going to STFU, not say a word against her until she’s soundly whipped Trump, idealism comes later.

      • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
        01·
        2 months ago

        Politicians exist to get elected. How do you expect to hold their feet to the fire after you elect them? Give them four years to do a bunch of nothing then switch back to saying “now isn’t the time to ask for change, we have to defeat the Toupee 2.0!”?

        I’ll save you some time and respond for you: “yOu MuSt WaNt ToUpEe To WiN!!1!”

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      01·
      2 months ago

      On immigration if you look at the polling, we just straight lost. The only part that Americans still have sympathy for is DACA. Other than that, support for walls, deportation, and not accepting asylum are all up.

      Because of FPTP we don’t get to have presidential candidates lead the way. They follow the votes.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              01·
              2 months ago

              It’s the driving force. If we get ranked choice in most states then we can start seeing some leadership on issues during campaign season instead of trying to get badly measured independent votes.

              • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.socialEnglish
                0·
                2 months ago

                I don’t want to alarm you, but ‘getting ranked choice’ will also face resistance from the parties, and will also involve damaging the democrat’s electoral chances.

                I’d argue the real problem is a lack of class consciousness and complacency from liberals, but I have a feeling you probably disagree.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  01·
                  2 months ago

                  No I agree that those are contributing problems. The question is how do we educate people on them. Which is why ranked choice is such a big deal. Most people pay the most attention during the campaign season. So we need to open it up. As far as difficulty, yeah it’s not great but some states are already instituting RCV.