Liz Cheney Endorses Kamala Harris, Citing Threat of Trump

[Social Media]

 

Former Representative Liz Cheney, once a powerful figure in the Republican Party, announced that she will be voting for Vice President Kamala Harris in the upcoming election. Cheney, who served as a high-ranking Republican from Wyoming, saw her political career take a sharp turn after she voted to impeach then-President Donald J. Trump following the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. This decision ultimately led to her losing her seat in the House of Representatives.

 

Speaking to students at a Duke University event on Wednesday, Cheney explained her decision, highlighting the risks she believes Donald Trump poses to the country. "I don’t believe we have the luxury of writing in candidates’ names, particularly in swing states," Cheney stated. "As a conservative and someone who believes in and cares about the Constitution, I have thought deeply about this, and because of the danger that Donald Trump poses, not only am I not voting for Donald Trump but I will be voting for Kamala Harris."

 

Cheney's endorsement marks a significant moment in the ongoing political discourse, especially given her history as a staunch conservative and a member of the Republican leadership. Her decision to back Harris is rooted in her deep concerns about Trump’s influence and what she perceives as the potential threat he poses to the Constitution and the country’s democratic institutions.

 

Despite receiving multiple requests from the Harris campaign, which has been actively seeking endorsements from Republicans, Cheney had remained silent until this point. She chose not to speak at the Democratic National Convention, preferring to wait for a moment closer to the election. Her decision to make this announcement in September, just as early voting is about to begin, was a strategic one. According to three people familiar with her thinking, Cheney wanted to ensure that her voice would be heard distinctly, rather than getting lost amid the flurry of convention speeches.

 

Cheney's endorsement of a Democratic candidate, particularly one as prominent as Kamala Harris, underscores the deep divisions within the Republican Party and the broader political landscape in the United States. Her move is likely to resonate with other conservatives who share her concerns about Trump, potentially influencing their voting decisions as well.

 

Credit: NYT 2024-09-05

 

 

 

Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

[Tug]

Good for you!I strongly disagree with her views but I profoundly respect her integrity and courage.kudos madam.

[luckymitchell]

Another warmonger endorses Harris, quite the list she has now.

RFK & Tulsi, both anti war, endorsed Trump, yet they get critisised in the MSM, you can see the endless wars are back if Harris wins. But but Trump!

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, luckymitchell said:

Another warmonger endorses Harris, quite the list she has now.

RFK & Tulsi, both anti war, endorsed Trump, yet they get critisised in the MSM, you can see the endless wars are back if Harris wins. But but Trump!

In my view being idiotically isolationist in the current situation in the world may be seen as short term anti-war, but in the long term means many more, even more severe, and much longer wars. Or even more risk of nuclear end games. Meaning Russia cannot be allowed to erase Ukraine. 

So let's say the maga morons push Ukraine to surrender. Do you seriously think that means that Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea will be finished with their aggressions?

Edited September 5 by Jingthing

[Chomper Higgot]

This won’t go down well with Trump supporters, both foreign and domestic, but it will be heard by moderate Conservatives who value democracy, law & order and the Constitution.

Trump failed to get the support of significant numbers of registered Republicans during the primaries, Cheney is speaking directly to those people.

 

 

 

 

[luckymitchell]

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

In my view being idiotically isolationist in the current situation in the world may be seen as short term anti-war, but in the long term mean many more and much longer wars. Meaning Russia cannot be allowed to erase Ukraine. 

Russia doesn't want to erase Ukraine. Never did. 

People really should listen to what Putin has to say, rather than reading western MIC propaganda.

 'surrender'? Your pov is so old fashioned, how about  'negotiations' and a peace deal? 

Edited September 5 by luckymitchell

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, luckymitchell said:

Russia doesn't want to erase Ukraine. Never did. 

People really should listen to what Putin has to say, rather than reading western MIC propaganda.

 'surrender'? Your pov is so old fashioned, how about  'negotiations' and a peace deal? 

Observing Putin’s actions is a better guide to what he’s up to.

[impulse]

I wonder how many votes Harris lost with that warmonger's endorsement?

 

[luckymitchell]

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Observing Putin’s actions is a better guide to what he’s up to.

From western media

[300sd]

19 minutes ago, impulse said:

I wonder how many votes Harris lost with that warmonger's endorsement?

 

She lost 8 votes from the Walz family. Perhaps for a different reason. Are they selling those t's.

[bendejo]

Don't be too impressed with the t-shirts, there are 1-day turnaround merch makers, they even advertise on US teevee.

 

[HappyExpat57]

12 minutes ago, 300sd said:

She lost 8 votes from the Walz family. Perhaps for a different reason. Are they selling those t's.

"The photo was first posted on X by Charles Herbster."

 

555 - THAT'S a reliable source! They're distant cousins who couldn't care less about politics and just want to cash in on the dying carcass of a flailing/failing campagn. Grifters doing what grifters do.

[luckymitchell]

8 minutes ago, bendejo said:

Don't be too impressed with the t-shirts, there are 1-day turnaround merch makers, they even advertise on US teevee.

 

So you focused on the Merch rather than they are 8 member of his family that are not backing him.

[Patong2021]

1 hour ago, 300sd said:

She lost 8 votes from the Walz family. Perhaps for a different reason. Are they selling those t's.

 

Putting aside the unreliability of the photo, i.e. it is staged to sell T Shirts, Take a good look at that photo. If accurate, these are older, and white people. More male than female.  All voting in a Republican district in a Republican state. Their votes won't make a difference.

 

The Demographics  that are needed are young people, black and female and at this time, they are  leaning to the Democrats in the swing states.

Edited September 5 by Patong2021

[Berkshire]

Liz Cheney is speaking for a large number of true conservatives who want Trump gone.  This article suggests that in order for the Republicans to become a real conservative party again, they need Trump to lose and lose big....

[If Republicans Want to Win, They Need Trump to Lose — Big]

[To dominate the country once more, Republicans need to hasten the move to a post-Trump party.]

[The best possible outcome in November for the future of the Republican Party is for former President Donald Trump to lose and lose soundly.]

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/09/04/kamala-harris-republicans-after-trump-00177194

Edited September 5 by Berkshire

[300sd]

29 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Putting aside the unreliability of the photo, i.e. it is staged to sell T Shirts, Take a good look at that photo. If accurate, these are older, and white people. More male than female.  All voting in a Republican district in a Republican state. Their votes won't make a difference.

 

The Demographics  that are needed are young people, black and female and at this time, they are  leaning to the Democrats in the swing states.

You missed the whole point!

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, luckymitchell said:

Russia doesn't want to erase Ukraine. Never did. 

People really should listen to what Putin has to say, rather than reading western MIC propaganda.

 'surrender'? Your pov is so old fashioned, how about  'negotiations' and a peace deal? 

You're wrong on all points.  Peddle that Kremlin Krap somewhere else.

[Cameroni]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You're wrong on all points.  Peddle that Kremlin Krap somewhere else.

 

He was absolutely right, you posted completely nonsense. Russia has no intention of "erasing" all of ukraine and never did.

 

Plus you display zero understanding of real world geopolitics. If Russia can hardly occupy a small sliver of Ukraine, how would Russia possibly invade Poland, Sweden, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Britain, Germany, etc,? Russia has an economy smaller than Texas. The whole notion is so wrong it's ludicrous.

 

Edited September 5 by Cameroni

[luckymitchell]

17 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You're wrong on all points.  Peddle that Kremlin Krap somewhere else.

 

18 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You're wrong on all points.  Peddle that Kremlin Krap somewhere else.

No, you are from the cold war era, that's long gone, update yourself a bit.

You refuse to accept there was US interference in this and the whole situation was escalated by the threat of Ukraine joining NATO.

You also seem to rufuse the idea of peace talks 

 

[luckymitchell]

 

 

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Putting aside the unreliability of the photo, i.e. it is staged to sell T Shirts, Take a good look at that photo. If accurate, these are older, and white people. More male than female.  All voting in a Republican district in a Republican state. Their votes won't make a difference.

 

The Demographics  that are needed are young people, black and female and at this time, they are  leaning to the Democrats in the swing states.

I doubt Walz has many young black people in his family, but it not about the demographics, its that 8 member of his family don't support his views and are voting Trump.

When a relation recently spoke against Trump you all tried to portray it as some sort of  'gotcha' that even his family have turned their backs on him.

[mogandave]

No conservative cares about Liz Cheney. She’s probably the “Republican” Harris said she’ll have in her staff. 

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, Berkshire said:

Liz Cheney is speaking for a large number of true conservatives who want Trump gone.  This article suggests that in order for the Republicans to become a real conservative party again, they need Trump to lose and lose big....

[If Republicans Want to Win, They Need Trump to Lose — Big]

[To dominate the country once more, Republicans need to hasten the move to a post-Trump party.]

[The best possible outcome in November for the future of the Republican Party is for former President Donald Trump to lose and lose soundly.]

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/09/04/kamala-harris-republicans-after-trump-00177194

By conservatives you mean leftists, yes?

[mogandave]

Remember Romney’s answer answer in 2012. when asked what the greatest geopolitical threat to the US was back in 2012?

 

Remember Obama’s response when Romney answered “Russia”?

 

“Senator, the 1980s called, and they want their foreign policy back” 

 

Remember the “Russian Reset” 

 

 

 

 

[mogandave]

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

He was absolutely right, you posted completely nonsense. Russia has no intention of "erasing" all of ukraine and never did.

 

Plus you display zero understanding of real world geopolitics. If Russia can hardly occupy a small sliver of Ukraine, how would Russia possibly invade Poland, Sweden, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Britain, Germany, etc,? Russia has an economy smaller than Texas. The whole notion is so wrong it's ludicrous.

 

So that's why Putin launched the war with a big push against the Western part of Ukraine? Because he never intended to conquer all of it? Which is why he demands that the "Nazi government" in Ukraine be replaced by a friendlier one? That's why he insists that the Ukrainians are not a people ethnically distinct from the Russians?  

[mogandave]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

So that's why Putin launched the war with a big push against the Western part of Ukraine? Because he never intended to conquer all of it? Which is why he demands that the "Nazi government" in Ukraine be replaced by a friendlier one? That's why he insists that the Ukrainians are not a people ethnically distinct from the Russians?  

So why did Putin wait for Biden to get into office? 

 

Why not when his puppet was in office?

[billd766]

5 hours ago, luckymitchell said:

Another warmonger endorses Harris, quite the list she has now.

RFK & Tulsi, both anti war, endorsed Trump, yet they get critisised in the MSM, you can see the endless wars are back if Harris wins. But but Trump!

This, from a Trump supporter.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

So why did Putin wait for Biden to get into office? 

 

Why not when his puppet was in office?

Because Putin was building up Russia's cash reserves to weather any problems he might have with the west. Also, as you may recall, it was pretty much the universal expectation at the time that Russia would overwhelm Ukraine in short order. So America's stance was considered to be irrelevant.  In addition, as you may recall, before the Republicans capitulated and became at best ambivalent about Putin, they had strongly opposed Trump when he illegally delayed arms shipments to Ukraine. So it was not at all clear to Russia that Trump's bromance with Putin would be sufficient to stop aid. And just because Putin launched the invasion after Biden became President doesn't mean he waited for Biden to become President. Are you familiar with the logicians formulation "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" Which means: After this therefore because of this.

[billd766]

4 hours ago, luckymitchell said:

Russia doesn't want to erase Ukraine. Never did. 

People really should listen to what Putin has to say, rather than reading western MIC propaganda.

 'surrender'? Your pov is so old fashioned, how about  'negotiations' and a peace deal? 

More BS from you.

[mogandave]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Because Putin was building up Russia's cash reserves to weather any problems he might have with the west. Also, as you may recall, it was pretty much the universal expectation at the time that Russia would overwhelm Ukraine in short order. So America's stance was considered to be irrelevant.  In addition, as you may recall, before the Republicans capitulated and became at best ambivalent about Putin, they had strongly opposed Trump when he illegally delayed arms shipments to Ukraine. So it was not at all clear to Russia that Trump's bromance with Putin would be sufficient to stop aid. And just because Putin launched the invasion after Biden became President doesn't mean he waited for Biden to become President. Are you familiar with the logicians formulation "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" Which means: After this therefore because of this.

You mean Trump delayed the arm that Obama refused to send altogether, those arms?

 

The same arms that Biden stoped the moment he go into office? 

 

That’s what I thought.