this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2024
342 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19118 readers
2870 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Kamala Harris has the support of enough Democratic delegates to win the party’s nomination for president, according to CNN’s delegate estimate.

While endorsements from delegates continue to come in, the vice president has now been backed by well more than the 1,976 pledged delegates she’ll need to win the nomination on the first ballot.

Harris crossed the threshold amid a wave of endorsements from state delegations Monday evening.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Didn't they already tell you? The primary election is done.

It's hard to keep the talking points in order, I guess.

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

This particular thread is about whether we had adequate primaries or not. Not when they were.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Sure, but "The primaries are over." Whether that primary was "adequate" when Biden was a candidate is kind of orthoganal to Harris securing enough delegate endorsements.

Seemed like the other commenter was dismissing the primary as "over" with one side of their mouth while complaining about its "inadequacy" with the other.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Sure. I was mainly concerned with the inadequacy side of it this time. My problem is tangential to the OP post but not directly related. I firmly believe the primary was actually adequate, and am interested in discussing it, at great length if necessary.

The primaries are over thing is a legitimate argument imo, I have no issues with it. I fully understand how people could be upset with the current situation, I think that is a healthy, democratic opinion a person can have, even if I don't personally share it.

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

I didn't bring up the primary. Someone else brought it into the conversation (you in fact) and I responded to that point. That's why threads fork.

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

Sorry, all the propagandists look the same to me.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

What makes me a propagandist?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago

It's not complicated. There is no time for a primary at this point. We had an official primary, but it was a farse. This is where the incestuous relationship between the political establishment and the media establishment comes in. They can do their primary without it ever being an actual contest. When mainstream media backs a single candidate and shuts out all others from public view, a primary becomes a joke.

This is where the blue MAGA accusation becomes valid. You would never in a million years be OK with this state of affairs if it didn't benefit your chosen candidate. You don't want democracy, you want to be in charge.