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. 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.
- 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
Just to be super clear, yes we were watching different candidates then. The country needs to walk a very nuanced path if we want to continue the recovery started by the Fed (interest rates) and Biden (IRA and CHIPS). Don’t get me wrong: Biden deciding to run for reelection was the worst possible decision he could have made. The second worst: dropping out 107 days from the election. I’m sure the private discussions about his decision were passionate, but of course she’s not going to publicly lay her boss out like that. That’s not realistic to expect her to undermine any progress Biden. You privately disagree and publicly commit. You do that until the circumstances change. The DNC is absolutely to blame. Not Harris though. It was as good as it could have been given the duration.
And then there’s the elephant in the room: she does not exist in a vacuum. We had a front row view to a horribly misogynist, criminal, fascist wannabe since (checks notes) 2015. People comparing these 2 and selecting to risk the world order just to save their regressive social views are also to blame. Because remember: all economists agree how dangerous his plan is.
No we're watching the same candidate. You're just willing to paper over a genocide for the other bits. And thats a you decision.
I, and many others were not okay with it. And that was our decision. Its not our responsibility to support a candidate just because the other candidate is a shit stain.
your candidate was the ones taking the risk. You dont get to demand peoples votes for a candidate or lay blame on others because of anothers candidates behavior.
You need votes to win which means convincing people to vote for your candidate. Harris definitely knew what the deal was and she made the decision to risk it. Trump also understood this, clearly better than Harris his campaign started courting that group immediately after she left them.
This conversation is done. you're not bringing anything new to the discussion. Accept the loss that harris received because she was unwilling to move on a genocide.
Learn from this from the next election: a candidate does not get to demand votes from people because the other candidate is trash, demand your candidate move to accept positions that dont conflict w/ yours. As an example i was more than willing to accept the border policy and firearms policy shifts. I was not okay with cheney, but i would have ignored it for a win. I was not okay with arming israel while a genocide was occurring, i was not okay with how she treated the arab Americans begging for help by her campaign.
Prepare for Gaza to be handed to Israel under Trump. Same with Ukraine to Russia. And we’re only talking about the tangible situations without even considering the soft power impacts of putting him back in power. That’s the world order risk, and you can choose to “win” the battle (spoiler: you won’t) but it will forfeit all future ones (e.g. Korea, Taiwan, who knows what else domestically). You can’t choose to criticize one platform by one measure yet use a different measure for the other. Trump is objectively worse if you care at all about genocide, and therefore yes you as a candidate do demand the vote of others who think the other is worse. FPTP demands strategic voting. You vote for the person that aligns closest with you. You do your neighbors poorly when you decide to vote based on a single issue, so I think your observations about her campaign say more about you than it does about her.
like i said you're not bringing anything new to this conversion. I'm well aware about whats currently and going to continue happening in the middle east, and elsewhere. stop assuming people don't know whats to come just makes you look foolish. we did this entirely eyes open. not our fault harris and people like yourself thought it was a bluff. it mostly just demonstrates the supreme lack of empathy harris (and those like her) have.
The gall telling people to begging for their friends and family to not be murdered to 'stfu, and vote for the lesser evil' when the lesser evil is literally the one murdering them.
If you want to know a secret, I would have voted for harris if she was at risk in my state, but 1) she wasnt, 2) the arabs community wouldn't, 3) they needed all the support they could get.
I was happy to help them attempt to push harris and the DNC, as you should have been. if more people took my stance and tanked harris' campaign even harder earlier maybe we wouldn't be in this mess. sometimes a little empathy is all you need.
You're assertion about FPTP, again you're assuming I don't already understand FPTP. I apparently understand it better than you do. Since I know when I can break with the theory based on contextual conditions in my state. I also know I can lie to my candidates/pollsters/you about my positions leading up to the election in order to get more than I really need to commit my vote.
I also understand FPTP theory doesn't account for human behavior and that murdering peoples friends and family will naturally be such a stressor they won't give a shit about its theory. I know I fucking wouldnt. so next time be more empathetic towards people being murdered and maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.
We as a nation lessen our ability to make those type of influential impacts on foreign affairs when we elect unpredictable and egotistical leaders. Put your own mask on before you help others. As long as we keep infighting like this, the Christian nationalists will continue to win. FPTP is strategic voting and strategic voting only. This type of division foments and spreads and it is so crucial that we instead focus on supporting empathic leaders who can evolve and iterate their platform for the greater good. You stopped paying attention to her campaign if you didn’t see that. But it goes back to the nuance of the situation in a post-inflationary economy, and unfortunately the incumbent historically has always lost. The first chance at harm reduction was for the GOP to not choose Trump. The second chance was to buck with history and reelect the incumbent party.
And no I didn't stop paying attention to the campaign, she just never committed to stopping the arm shipments. full stop. I literally checked her campaign every fucking day for two months waiting for her to shift. the closest she got was on the final day and even that was far too little to convince anyone she was willing to do what needed to be done for the arabs to vote for her. and by then many people had already cast their votes.
sigh okay I'm done. please continue re-reading the last post until you understand what I'm telling you, i edited in a few extra details. You keep thinking I dont understand the implications. but its clear you don't understand human behavior enough and think you can keep nattering at people with your theory they'll eventually be swayed.
I in no way was fighting you or harris. I was helping arabs. you have yet to give a single fucking reason harris couldn't have shifted positions that a community of people would fucking accept their family members being murdered and that cost harris 25 points in the electoral college at a fucking minimum.
Instead you've been nattering on about all the other problems that will crop up because trump won. well guess what, their family and friends matter more to them than ukrainians, lgbt, etc. You need a reason that can convince people to accept the murder of their family and friends. and good fucking luck.
So kindly take your own advice and stop cutting off your nose to spite your face over support for a fucking genocide. Because there is no argument you can make, that I havent already heard, or thought of in the last year that will counter what I've been telling you and you're just going to have to accept that.
I believe you when you say you’re trying to help your Arab community. That’s the right thing to do. What you should spend some time considering is the opportunity for progress you take away by declaring the Harris platform not good enough. The opportunity for a less-than-worst outcome for Palestine has now exited the room. Have you considered what Trump will do? Have you considered how the world react when that happens? If feels like you haven’t given consideration for the now what.
Again, an old tired argument. Now take everything you said and apply it to harris as it applies to you and her just as equally as it applies to me. I told you to re-read my posts until you understood what I was telling you., you've clearly failed. as you continue to think your position is the default one. its not.
What do you think Trump will do in Israel now?
please seem previous messages. trump will allow israel to continue the genocide, just as harris was going to as demonstrated by her actions during the campaign