this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
1147 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22749 readers
2779 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
 

Something is wrong with this split-screen picture. On one side, former president Donald Trump rants about mass deportations and claims to have stopped "wars with France," after being described by his longest-serving White House chief of staff as a literal fascist. On the other side, commentators debate whether Vice President Kamala Harris performed well enough at a CNN town hall to "close the deal."

...

Let’s review: First, Harris was criticized for not doing enough interviews — so she did multiple interviews, including with nontraditional media. She was criticized for not doing hostile interviews — so she went toe to toe with Bret Baier of Fox News. She was criticized as being comfortable only at scripted rallies — so she did unscripted events, such as the town hall on Wednesday. Along the way, she wiped the floor with Trump during their one televised debate.

Trump, meanwhile, stands before his MAGA crowds and spews nonstop lies, ominous threats, impossible promises and utter gibberish. His rhetoric is dismissed, or looked past, without first being interrogated.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 70 points 5 months ago (3 children)

One side must bring peace to the middle east, the other side is allowed to tell Israel to kill Palestinians faster.

And before someone comes defending their stance not to vote for either genocidal enabler, why aren't you trying to save as many people as possible? Are you ok with more people dying because of your ideals? Enjoy living with that choice if he wins.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I'm not even American but this voter-shaming is both frustrating to read and fucking stupid. Nobody—and I repeat, nobody—is going to vote because they were blamed by a random guy on the internet who refuses to acknowledge their very real concern that voting for Harris would be voting for genocide.

[–] [email protected] 59 points 5 months ago (2 children)

And not voting for Harris gets you three genocides. Gaza, Ukraine, and the LGBTQ community at home. So, yeah, anyone that "can't vote for genocide" is a moron or a shill.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Again, if this shit worked Trump wouldn't have won in 2016.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Cool. If people weren't acting like morons I wouldn't be calling them morons and if I was part of the Harris campaign instead of some asshole on the Internet I might try to be more diplomatic about it. But I'm not going to coddle a bunch of people who are too stupid to understand the implications of a two party system.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

snicker someone doesn't know how voting works clearly when living in a blue/red state.

also can someone find me a rabies shot? this one is foaming at the mouth.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

just leave it alone and stay away from it. It will die soon enough on its own.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

OK thought exercise for you: If the LGBTQ folks cant be bothered to care about the murder of gazans, why should I be bothered to care about LGBTQ folks? I'm not LGBTQ myself. How about Ukrainians, or disabled people? I'm not one of those either.

If you are OK turning your back on them, then your turn, as LGBTQ, or black, or muslim or disabled, or mormon or vegan or...whatever is just a matter of time. So you can stand up for basic human rights or you can stand alone when it comes to your rights. Take your pick.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And given that American voters exist in a 2 party system, nobody should be under the illusion that they have any other choice. Don't encourage people to delude themselves into thinking there is a better alternative. They're right, you're right, what's the best option?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago (3 children)

That's y'all's problem to figure out, but bullying people into voting simply doesn't work. Don't respond to a statement of facts with "should".

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago

I'm not trying to bully people into voting, just making sure that this dangerously short sighted bullshit doesn't go unchallenged. Thank you for proving my point.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

You talk a lot for someone with nothing at all to say.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Opposition to genocide isn't an option on the ballot, you can't vote for it, especially not for president. And not voting sends a very clear message whether you intend it or not: "I don't care".

Do you value minimizing harm? If you care most about genocide, Harris seems to be the least-worst option. But if you care more about ideological purity than harm reduction, you can vote for a non-serious candidate like Stein, or none at all. Nobody will ever solve this kind of problem at the ballot box, that isn't how democracies work, but if letting things happen instead of exerting what little power you have eases your conscience, that's your right. Doing so does mean a greater risk of a Trump presidency, especially if you live in a swing state.

I would rather minimize harm, so I'm voting for Harris, and encourage others to do the same.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Harris should have ran for the side telling Israel to kill Palestinians faster then. She is wording her support for it more eloquently than Trump.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Cool so you're okay with more genociding.

Just making sure 🤷

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

It's not only about Palestine. Americans should now focus on the things they can actually change. Harris is the best candidate overall, because, well, her adversary is Donald F. Trump, but when it comes to Israel and Palestine both candidates are abysmal.