politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
If you are an American voter and you sit this one out or vote 3rd party and Trump gets in you are directly supporting escalation and taking whatever little restraint away that Netanyahu is feeling from the USA.
Instead of calls for restraint you will have cheerleading from the sidelines.
So I see you’re concerned about the mathematical flaws of First past the post voting and the spoiler effect that comes along with it.
Did you know that alternative electoral systems exist? Ones where there isn’t a spoiler effect even. I feel like most democrats, like yourself, understand these faults quite well.
So why are you mad about people who want to vote outside the two party system? Shouldn’t your anger be better directed at the two legacy poltical parties that protect this flawed voting system?
We all understand that republicans like First Past The Post voting. They are moving to protect FPTP voting in states they control. However, democrats say they support democracy. So can you tell me why they continue to use FPTP voting in the majority of states they control?
It’s not like this is a new issue. Its not like the democratic party just found out about the spoiler effect that comes with First Past The Post voting. Democrats have been quick to point out the flaws of our voting system longer then I’ve been alive.
Again, if the democrats are so informed of the flaws of the voting system, why does it persist in the vast majority of blue states? Who is preventing this reform? It’s not the republicans… they aren’t in power in these states. In a two party system, that would leave only one political party responsible for this spoiler effect.
The democrats.
They have sat on their hands for countless decades, understanding the problem yet doing nothing to resolve the issue.
So you see, you should be mad at the democratic party for putting their party over the needs of the people. Not the people who want to vote a certain way.
It’s unreasonable to blame those unrepresented in government for what is. This is what we voted for… again… and again… and again. Over and over. This is the result.
I honestly think if you can't be bothered to vote you need to shut the fuck up, not complain and keep your political opinions to yourself. If you're not even gonna vote, shut the fuck up. I don't wanna hear it.
Pretty unfortunate for you that there's free speech then huh? Not letting you spew your dnc propaganda undisturbed
The comment you replied to is also an example of free speech. I see it made you a little butt-hurt that this guy isn't interested in what you have to say. But that's the nature of free speech, you can say what you want, but others a free to think you're a waste of time.
Perhaps if someone isn't interested in what you have to say, you shouldn't bother replying to them.
Lol Republicans don't like free speech. So don't pretend like you do.
I wouldn't know since I am not a republican. I'm just absolutely not ok with the Palestinian genocide, but you care so little that you only seen republicans, regardless if the critique comes from the right or from the left. You'd wish you could make me look like a republican.
If you're gonna help Republicans by staying home or voting third party or some shit you may as well slap on the red hat
I know you'd wish that, but unfortunately genocide is too much for me and the least evil argument doesn't hold up anymore. There are red lines and dnc has absolutely crossed them. I'm not expecting you to understand, you clearly don't care enough about the genocide.
Cool, vote for Stein then. That way you can get three genocides (Gaza, Ukraine, and LGBTQ at home) instead of just one.
But for people that actually oppose genocide, Harris is the only vote that will actually accomplish anything.
Ukrainian genocide? Where is this even coming from?
Regardless, your comment reveals the answer to your dilemma. If the question is how many genocides/oppressions you are willing to put up with, then it's a system worth abolishing. If one party commits 4 genocides and the other 5, then would you choose the one committing 4? There is necessarily a point where both parties are doing so badly, they're indistinguishable and they are both crossing the red lines, that applies for everyone of us, no exceptions. So the question then remains, where do you draw the line for this?
Another example I usually give for this is: one party being Hitler and the other being Hitler but he is giving a little bit more money to the healthcare system. Would you vote for Hitler? No, so you have to draw the line somewhere. We draw it at a genocide(and at numerous more issues which are for another discussion)