1167
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
1167 points (97.6% liked)
politics
19136 readers
3694 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, that's cool, so am I - that's not the only thing that's on the ballot, though, and you can try to justify it as "Well, I'm not voting for anyone", but this is very much a "If you aren't voting against Trump, you're voting for him, directly or indirectly" situation.
It's cool, though - I'm sure everyone will understand. You couldn't do the bare minimum to prevent an authoritarian takeover because you felt very strongly about one issue. Nevermind that your actions actually made that issue's outcome worse for the people you purport to care about. We'll all overlook that.
AKA:
“Why are you hitting that screw with a hammer?”
“I refuse to use a screwdriver; it takes too long and I’m morally opposed to patents that you get with screwdriver heads.”
“You do know that your hammering is going to make a total mess of things, rIght?”
“I don’t care; it’s the principled stance I’m willing to take to build this house.”
AKA: whatever this tedious bullshit is.
Claims to have a principled opposition to screwdriver head patents: buys screws anyway.
Sounds like the Democrats to me. All "I'm the anti-genocide candidate!" while shipping cluster bombs to the middle east.
It’s possible for both to be correct. You can’t fix the US government by voting third party for President, because the system isn’t set up to support that. First you have to deal with the electoral college and FTTP voting, then the laws on the books, which means electing third party representatives who are willing to support changing the laws.
And on the other hand, the President can at least call out what Congress is doing that’s enabling genocide in the middle east instead of politely asking for both sides to stop killing each other so everyone can talk, while representing the people sending weapons to one side of the conflict, who are taking advantage of their position in government to methodically wipe out an entire people.
Apologies for paraphrasing you, but the system isn't set up to support that either.
That said, It's going to be happening a lot anyway in 2026 now that the Republican party is coming apart at the seams and the remaining "moderates" are jumping ship. I'm looking forward to the new left wing coalition, it's going to be such a wonderful mess.
I was told that no one can because AIPAC.
Thank you for saying this.
Yes, I feel very strongly about innocent lives.
Given that, I expect you'll be voting for the 'less bad' candidate, rather than wasting your vote on a protest candidate which only assists the 'more bad' candidate in winning, then?
No, I will not be voting. If I were to be able to vote, I would prefer a candidate who works to stop innocent people from being killed, rather than condone it happening. I find that quite an important moral issue.
If you'd be just as happy with Donald "Do what you have to do" Trump as with Harris, you can't feel too strongly about innocent lives.
You can't go from an "if" to a "you" accusatory statement so well when that "if" isn't true.
If the 'If' isn't true, then the 'you' doesn't apply to you, that's how conditionals work.