politics
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
view the rest of the comments
I feel like "vote for the prevention of the accession of fascists" should resonate with more people than "let the fascists win to teach the DNC a lesson" did.
But what you feel doesn't matter, because we took the data on this, and the exact approach you outline led directly to fascists getting elected.
Sure, man. Voting for Kamala somehow equaled a vote for Trump. Not sure how that tracks but if you say so. 👍
Keep missing the point and keep throwing elections for us then.
Which point?
Honestly, if you really need it explained to you at this point, I have to assume you are asking this in bad faith.
Go ask @SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world to explain to you how you've become the villains of your own narrative.
And in the most superficial terms, the exact kind of framing you are using right now is what was used to hand Trump the election. If not for people doing exactly what you are doing now, we probably could have gotten Harris over the finish line to a W, but for the reasoning you are using right now. And since its been so well studied and is incredible obvious now, we must simply assume that those asking/ following that line were never interested in a Harris W, and that it was always in bad faith.
Not bad faith, I just want to make sure we're saying what we each think we're saying. Because I don't think you're quite responding to what I'm actually saying, at face value.
I'm not saying she ran a good enough campaign and everyone should have been enthusiastic about her. She absolutely made bad choices by letting the DNC machine make bad choices for her, and I absolutely recognize that those cost her votes and that. I'm not saying the primary process was totally the awesomerest best one we could have possibly hoped for, because it wasn't. But I think the media coverage of the 4% primary voter turnout for Uncommitted, which surely had an impact on Democratic donors putting pressure on Biden and the party to change course, just serves to validate my belief that if we actually all came out and voted, we'd have a more representative government. Enthusiasm for the Harris/Waltz ticket was sky-fucking high at first and then it was squandered with milquetoast status quo. No argument from me about that.
What I am saying, is that in isolation, come the general election in 2024, voting for Harris was the only action that would have prevented Trump from winning the 2024 general election. I feel like that's just incontrovertible math. If you're saying to me, in response, that looking solely at the singular event of the general election in 2024 (not the primary season, or anything that happened on the campaign trail, just the general election itself), that my vote for Harris in the 2024 election helped Trump win the 2024 election, then I think you need to show your math because it sounds truly insane.
But I don't think that's what you're saying. So I'd like a little more clarity on what you're saying rather than making assumptions and inferences.