this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2024
275 points (100.0% liked)

politics

23397 readers
3475 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 24 points 8 months ago (2 children)

That's a lot of words to just say that you don't understand how politics works in the real world.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago

This eager dismissal of trans rights

I stopped reading after this because they obviously don't understand what's being said.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"Politics is when we capitulate to the most bigoted perspectives if they happen to be held by an important electoral demographic"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

When you live in a 2 party system with FPtP voting, this is the unfortunate reality. The person that has the most support has the most power to intact change. Sometimes that means you have to crawl through shit to get there.

I'll take any bigot, racist, or whatever vote if that means the better candidate wins in November, because that alternative is the bigot, racist, racist. Better to fluff the controversial voters and hopefully win than lose an election because of a speech. And if she doesn't win, then it doesn't matter what she said anyway.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

When you live in a 2 party system with FPtP voting, this is the unfortunate reality.

As though you consider any capitulation to fascism unfortunate.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Jesus christ.

If one candidate said they'd kill the jews, but the other said they'd just send them to camps (to appease that popular fascist voter), liberals would end up voting to send the jews to concentration camps.

This is how liberals end up siding with fascism

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That might be true if anything even remotely close to that happened, but that is a completely different situation that what this conversation is about.

One side says no trans rights, and one side didn't bring it up in their speech, event though a couple of others did, which is far different from being anti trans.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"Sure, participating in a genocide is bad, but the other candidate would participate more"

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

One will actively aid in the genocide, the other may not. There's two options, one is better than the other. You can piss and moan all you want about it, but that's reality. Don't vote out of protest if that gets your rocks off, but it won't do any good for Palestine.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"May not" meaning, definitely will and currently is? Lol fuck off already

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No but I can hear them say "we will"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So, you're full of shit? Got it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The adviser, Phil Gordon, said on social media on Thursday morning that Ms. Harris would “always ensure Israel is able to defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist groups.” He added: “She does not support an arms embargo on Israel. She will continue to work to protect civilians in Gaza and to uphold international humanitarian law.”

Which part of that is pro genocide? In my opinion, I would like a stronger stance against Israel, but defending allies against attack and fighting to defend Gaza are not what you're claiming. Perhaps they will end up as empty words, but your claims are baseless as of right now. If Harris was already president, maybe you have an argument, but until then it's pure speculation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Lmao. Supplying arms to israel while they are currently using them for genocide is participating in genocide.