this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
1224 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22829 readers
5756 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] 37 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

Yes, Trump is even worse. But killing innocent people is still so bad that I am harmed by it being politically acceptable.

If politics is killing innocent people more nicely ('yeah, that's bad, but it just happens') or more nastily ('haw haw stupid children'), I no longer care about politics.

[–] [email protected] 86 points 5 months ago (7 children)

Let's say Trump gets elected, and ten years from now, some kid asks you, "What did you do to prevent this?"

Are you going to tell them you just didn't care enough to bother?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago

In that same 10 year, some kid asks, what did liberals do to prevent this during Biden's term.

You can respond we were at brunch we didn't notice what was going on.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

I'm against innocent people being killed. I'm sorry that upsets you. It may well be that, under Trump, more innocent people will be killed. Still, I have the preference of voting for people who reduce the number of innocent people being killed, rather than voting for people who condone it.

Yes, Trump is even worse. But killing innocent people is still so bad that I am harmed by it being politically acceptable. Humans will destroy themselves because they lack compassion for other living beings, and that's just what it is. You can get angry at me because I don't like that, but that's just another lack of compassion, and I won't be surprised.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 5 months ago (7 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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.”

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Thank you for saying this.

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

AKA: whatever this tedious bullshit is.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You’re a single issue voter. Think about that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Yes, the most important single issue to me is not killing innocent people. If that's not an important single issue to you, I disagree with your morality.

If the Overton Windows shifts further right, will be we arguing that we must vote Dem because they'll criminalise fewer women who have miscarried? Because they'll fight for the 'least flamboyant queers' to keep their jobs?

My stand is that killing innocent people is wrong. You can disagree, we seem to live in a world where killing innocent people on purpose is something that we have to put up with for the sake of democracy functioning.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In politics you choose a direction. Do you want more death, less death, or don't care about the deaths.

Trump is more deaths, Harris is less deaths, not voting is that you don't care about the deaths (or a different differentiating issue matters more)

Those are your choices when it comes to voting and encouraging others to vote.

That is your impact, pick one

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

not voting is that you don’t care about the deaths

Voting for someone who condones killing innocents is not acceptable.

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

You are inventing that anyone is condoning killing innocent's BUT that's not even important.

You get to pick, you want more deaths, less deaths, or don't care.

There are no other impacts you can have with your vote.

If you care deeply you can join marches and protest. The many people who are doing so will gladly tell you Harris is not doing enough, but that it would be idiotic to not vote for her.

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

I want to support a candidate who is against killing innocents.

You are inventing that anyone is condoning killing innocent's

I have personally talked to people who condone Israel killing innocent people. They rationalise it in all kinds of ways. That's what people tend to do, which is why I am not fond of people.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Harris is calling for an investigation into Israel that would reduce the amount of innocent deaths, and they've been trying to negotiate a cease fire for a while now.

The executive branch has very little power to stop congress from approving funding for anything.

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

Executive branch has 100% control over actual spending. Congress could approve $10T for Israel, and executive can spend it as fast or slow or none as it feels like. Congresses only power is setting a ceiling on spending.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (2 children)

This sounds great but isn't really true at all. Please don't spread misinformation.

money Congress appropriates? Yes, federal agencies must prudently plan to spend money during its period of availability, but the President can request that Congress cancel or rescind some of this funding. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (Impoundment Control Act) of 1974 outlines a fast-track procedure for legislation responding to a President's rescission request. Upon submitting a proposal to Congress, the President can withhold the funds targeted for rescission for up to 45 days or until a withholding would prevent the funding from being prudently obligated. If Congress has not enacted legislation by the end of that period, the funds must be released, and they cannot be proposed for rescission again under the Impoundment Control Act. Until 2018, a president had not proposed a rescission under this process since 2000. In May 2018, President Trump sent a package of proposed rescissions to Congress for consideration. Congress did not act on that request to approve any of the proposed reductions under the fast-track procedure, and the funding was released.

From here: http://democrats-budget.house.gov/publications/fact-sheets/frequently-asked-questions-about-federal-budget#Congress%20appropriates

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children)

I’m against innocent people being killed. I’m sorry that upsets you.
[…]
You can get angry at me because I don’t like that, but that’s just another lack of compassion, and I won’t be surprised.

If you think your stance is more moral than others' and would like for people to agree with you, have you tried not being a complete cunt about it?

I have no dog in this race since I live in a country with a sane voting system, so you can spare me your performative moral outrage.

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

I live in a country with a sane voting system

You don't have a spare room by any chance, do you?

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

Unfortunately the voting system is the only sane part about Finland. Our current government is so far right that it includes multiple literal neo-Nazis and a pedophile neo-Nazi (who stepped in to replace a neo-Nazi), and multiple ministers (well ok, a minister and the Speaker of the Parliament) have fantasized in public about murdering eg. gay people or foreigners. The Speaker of the Parliament is also one of the right wing mass murderer Breivik's idols, and has obliquely spoken in support of Breivik's act of terror.

This place is a conservative shithole and I suggest anyone considering a vacation here to go somewhere else, especially if you're not white or cishet

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I'm going to point at the Green Party, one of the 3 major parties in the current election, and at the 3 or 4 smaller parties that are gaining traction, then I am going to explain to them that 10 years ago, the country was deeply gripped by a plutocratic fascist duopoly and I did what was necessary to combat that fascism while others accepted it and pledged to it because it was in their best interest to just fall in line.

Then I will encourage them never to kiss the ring of fascism and genocide in order to preserve their own personal feelings of security.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 5 months ago (2 children)

one of the 3 major parties in the current election

Call it what you want, but the green party has no chance of making an impact on the outcome of this election except as a spoiler candidate.

I did what was necessary to combat that fascism

And by that you mean voting for the only non-fascist candidate with a chance of winning the election, right?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (19 children)

These liberals voting for the green party think that letting a genocide happen now is an acceptable cost of doing business if it maybe leads to a Green presidency in 30 years. They're willing to be complicit in Trump's genocide.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I was referencing the election cycle in 10 years.

And I don't vote like a 13 year old trying to get my buddy the little fake crown for homecoming. Green party hits 5%, they get federal election funding, we are no longer a 2 party nation.

All this time the shills have been saying "vote for the genocide today, and then start the work the day after election day to make the Green party viable" has been a shameless diversion tactic the entire time.

I can throw away my vote on a genocidal cop who is pro-border wall, pro-incarceration of refugees, pro-genocide, pro-cop city, pro-lethal response to protesters, etc, or I can vote for the Green party to get actual funding and actual participation in the election process in 4 years.

It would have been so much faster for the supposedly left leaning party to actually lean left and get my vote, but since they decided to disenfranchise me and do everything they can to silence me, my went Green.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 months ago (4 children)

we are no longer a 2 party nation

We're a two-party nation as long as first past the post voting is the standard. If you want the green party to be taken seriously, that should me what you're campaigning for, not a third candidate in an inherently two-party system.

I can throw away my vote on a genocidal cop who is pro-border wall, pro-incarceration of refugees, pro-genocide, pro-cop city, pro-lethal response to protesters, etc, or I can vote for the Green party to get actual funding and actual participation in the election process in 4 years.

You can vote for a candidate who's got a chance of beating the authoritarian dictator wannabe, or you can throw away your vote on a spoiler candidate with no chance of winning the election on the hopes that other people don't do the same and let Trump win.

I do hope that if Trump wins, all of you people who're trying to take the moral high ground will reflect on the situation and realize that you not only didn't do the bare minimum you could have to stop it, your actions actually indirectly assisted him gaining power again. I don't have much hope that that will happen, but I hope it does.

It's really a shame, because normally, I'd be very in support of the green party. I like their platform. But they need to get political seats elsewhere before going for the fucking presidency. Even if, by some weird happenstance, they got elected, they would be completely blocked by the other branches of government at every turn. Get some seats in local government, get some seats in state governments, get some house and senate seats, then try to join the big leagues.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Exactly, Jill Stein is a stooge with no government experience whatsoever who thinks she can jump right in and be president of the most powerful country on earth. Not to mention taking money from republicans and accepting legal aid from Trump's personal attorneys. It's a joke.

If you want to be a real candidate, start with city council. Mayor. Governor. state senate. ANYTHING and work up from there. But she isn't interested in making any actual progress.

Look at AOC for example, a progressive politician who is starting where she can actually make a difference and learn how to be a legislator and leader. Who knows, maybe one day we can vote for her for president.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Green party hits 5%, they get federal election funding, we are no longer a 2 party nation

Bullshit. They have been receiving public funds you numb nuts. You can verify that from the Federal Election Commission. Here is their spreadsheet they provide as summary.

Please go fuck off with this argument as it is 100% verifiably false. This is literally lies that the Green party has told you. They routinely squander the money they receive because they hire zero talent to actually use funds in a meaningful manner. They have zero ground game, they only focus on top ticket rarely if ever down ticket, and office and PR positions are absolute shit.

Holy fucking shit have you eaten their lies, whole cake worth of them. I am so sorry you think the current leadership of the Green party is actually honest. Maybe if we were talking the 1980s leadership, but holy fuck, the Green party today has been overtaken by folks who are in it for them and them alone. And they go out and play victim, "Oh this system is not fair!!!" When their own willful incompetence ruined any chance.

I won't have this bullshit of victim they play. The Green party can suck a dick, the people running it have successfully ran that fucking boat into the goddamn iceberg at full throttle. Anyone supporting Stein is so fucking clueless at this point, there's zero redemption. Jill ain't in this for any kind of morality, she's in it for money, lights, and attention. The number of people who haven't caught on to this is absolutely astounding.

But we are NOT going to pretend that the Green party hasn't been receiving federal election funds, when that is so effortlessly proven FALSE. If you've been giving her money, she using that money to eat well, cause she ain't spending it on getting elected. And I assure you, she'll be out and about playing victim when she loses this time too.

Green party hits 5%, they get federal election funding, we are no longer a 2 party nation

But BULLSHIT, BULL FUCKING SHIT. BULL ---- SHIT!! That bitch has had millions handed to her and we still a two party system. Do NOT be spouting this bullshit. Don't be a pawn in her little victim game. She's a bad person, you do NOT need to be played by her game. You want to fix the two party system? Go to your State assembly, because THAT IS WHERE IT IS FIXED.

This little path that you explained, you're being played by dumb motherfuckers who are halfwits at politics.

but since they decided to disenfranchise me and do everything they can to silence me, my went Green

No what happened was you lost your backbone and in your moment of weakness you got played by dumber idiots than Trump. The fact you think this two party system is fixed by the President election proves you have zero fucking clues. You know what, you should likely throw your vote away. I don't think you have anything to contribute to the left or the right. If you just stay 3rd party for the rest of your life, both parties can just write you off. If you vote 3rd party the rest of your life and not fix this at the State level, then you're no different than a dead voter. That's what Republicans and Democrats know about third parties, that's why they don't sweat them.

Because this whole "if we only get 5%" argument is a lie they tell you to keep sending them checks. They've been getting money, they've been getting election dollars, they aren't hurting for cash. Jill just doesn't want the job, because if she did, she would be running the party a whole lot like the 1980s and not this current "let's waste money as fast as we possibly can" mentality she currently has.

It's right there in black and white. They're being handed the tools to succeed down ticket. They just don't want it and that's why they don't go down ballot, that's why they have zero ground game, that's why they disappear for four years right after the election. They don't want to win, they just want your fucking money.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Green Party ... major parties

That's a great joke... oh, you're serious.

Their membership is < 1/3 that of the libertarian party.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago (6 children)

You heartless liberals think that sacrificing thousands of Palestinian lives in the here and now is worth it in order to have a chance at a Green Party presidency maybe in 30 years. No! Genocide is never an acceptable cost of doing business. Stop being complicit in genocide! Vote for Harris.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

The non voters will tell the children that letting Palestine be destroyed was worth it. That participating in genocide wasn't that bad.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Kamala has a chance in slowing down the israel-hamas war and hopefully stopping it. While Trump wants to accelerate it. Choosing one candidate gives us a chance to turn things around, or at least slow down in order to turn around. The other candidate will immediate exterminate everybody in Palestine

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And it's not just about Palestine either. A Trump presidency also means genocide for queer people in America, and a fascist role model for the rest of the world. Plus, Trump's climate plan amounts to omnicide. We need to get Harris in the white house. This election could be the final chance for us to avert the end of life as we know it on earth.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago

ten years from now, some kid asks you

Ten years from now, a Palestinian child asks you, but they never existed, because their parents were killed.

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

Let's say in 10 years, the choice is between a dem who wants 20 genocides and a republican who wants 21: will you still be a militant democrat?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago (2 children)

If politics is killing innocent people

It's not just politics, it's a rule of law. We have passed in the past under different administrations laws requiring funding to the Israeli state. Only via our legal process can we undo that. Now there are some laws that allow the President to suspend funding that has been legally appropriated, but those only go so far.

It's a will of Congress and the understanding that we are a nation of laws, that money keeps funneling towards Israel. But at the same time there are some bending of the laws via creative justification that allows us to setup a floating pier and deliver supplies to the Palestinians.

And Israel doesn't want aid being delivered by the United States because at the same time it allows them to begin collecting evidence against Israel's current abuse of human rights.

There has to be an understanding that there is a process by which an administration has to follow. It's dumb we have that process, I won't deny that, but until Congress gets off it's collective ass and change that, we have to follow that process. Otherwise, just doing whatever opens the door for folks to do whatever in the opposite direction as well and have zero recourse.

But killing innocent people is still so bad that I am harmed by it being politically acceptable

It's not acceptable but at the same time we can have two takes to it. We either follow our laws or we don't. Everything that has created this situation, that didn't happen overnight. The laws that provide unquestionable aid to Israel, those weren't passed in the last four years. It takes time to undo those things. Now that does provide a means for innocent people to die and you have every right to be disgusted by it. I will absolutely not tell you, that your opinion is incorrect. It's dumb that we've put ourselves into this position.

But that said, absent any system, this "I no longer care about politics", the ONLY thing that will do is ensure the complete and effective eradication of these people. The "I no longer care about politics" stance is synonymous with the "I don't care if these innocent people are wiped from this Earth."

This is a difficult conflict and it's wild that so many people toss their hands into the air and shout "I don't care anymore!!" the second the conflict actually gets into one of it's really difficult phases. If this phase of the conflict troubles you, you are not an ally for any means of protecting innocents that you think you are. Protection of people's lives is dirty ass work, if the messiness of the politics of this troubles you, you wouldn't be able to save anyone anyway. It may come as a surprise to many here, but humanitarian crisis like this are messy affairs, shit is complex, and nobody ever walks away hands clean. Who knew the world was like this?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago

People seem to forget that our government was intentionally created to be hard to change.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Ho Chi Minh knew all about America's long history of slavery and genocide. He knew that and he welcomed the Americans who came to fight the Japanese.

Any questions?

load more comments (1 replies)