this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
223 points (88.1% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2259 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gravitas_deficiency 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Uh, it’s a ticket. You can’t vote for one and not the other. Walz is implicitly endorsed. I don’t understand what the point of the headline’s distinction is.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago

She's voting for Kamala but not endorsing her.

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

Yeah, dumb title confused me too. I didn’t care enough to read the article but comments helped me realize “no VP endorsement” means she’s not endorsing Harris, who is the current VP.

[–] gravitas_deficiency 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ah. Yeah, I suppose that makes more sense. But also, I feel like the distinction is somewhat pedantic. You’re openly saying you’re voting for them, which is essentially an implied endorsement. That’s not a tortured chain of logic. That’s a pretty direct inference.

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

Yeah, it’s pedantic but I can respect the nuance. Endorsement may feel like condoning things you don’t approve of, while saying you’re voting for them acknowledges it’s the best of bad options. It’ll most likely have the same effect, but it makes sense to me why someone wouldn’t want to put their name behind someone they don’t feel totally aligned with.

Silly comparison that comes to mind, but in my family we have the concept of a “tout” vs a “recommendation.” If I recommend something, it’s because I like it and you might too. A tout is a serious thing though; that is putting our reputation on the line to say, “I believe you will love this thing,” and if someone touts something, you’re pretty much obligated to check it out. If a tout was wrong, you don’t have to take their word for things again. We recommend plenty, but the use of a tout comes with weight.

So in this case, this person recommends Harris, but doesn’t tout her. Harris is good enough to deserve her vote, but she doesn’t want her reputation aligned with anything Harris may eventually do.