this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
287 points (87.5% liked)

politics

19148 readers
2948 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
 

"We recognize that, in the next four years, our decision may cause us to have an even more difficult time. But we believe that this will give us a chance to recalibrate, and the Democrats will have to consider whether they want our votes or not."

That's gotta be one of the strangest reasonings I've heard in a while.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn’t. I was sarcastically pointing out that we have a 0% chance of that happening under republicans.

Meanwhile if we had elected Clinton we would be looking at a very different SCOTUS and still have Roe standing.

I naively thought that out little Trump boondoggle would remind people of what can happen when they forget what kind of system we all function under but here we are, again, saying “you really don’t want to do that”.

Guess we need another round to make things even worse?

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

I didn’t.

Bullshit.

Meanwhile if we had elected Clinton we would be looking at a very different SCOTUS and still have Roe standing.

If Clinton had run as though she needed votes in states she ignored, she might have won.

But trying to get votes is beneath Democrats.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

lol the fuck? It’s literally a facetious statement “maybe republicans will do it” while knowing full well that would never happen.

Nothing in that comment even slightly suggests I’m calling you a Republican.

How does one “ignore” a state?

That’s it, if Biden doesn’t come knocking on my door I’m not voting for him. Otherwise, how could I ask him questions and gather information on his policy positions? [this is another sarcastic paragraph meant to point out the fact that people shouldn’t need a visit from a candidate to make a voting decision. TV and the internet exist.]

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

How does one “ignore” a state?

By not campaigning in them.

That’s it, if Biden doesn’t come knocking on my door I’m not voting for him. Otherwise, how could I ask him questions and gather information on his policy positions?

I mean, that's what Clinton failed to do in swing states. And it's why she lost. You may think that swing states have an overinflated sense of their own importance and that talking to the flyover hayseeds is unbecoming, but ultimately, votes are earned, and can be lost. Clinton couldn't grasp that. She lost.

You can't grasp it either.

Maybe it's because understanding it means you'll have to admit that Clinton earned her loss.