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.
- 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
I was one of them, so I'll answer your question as honestly as I can. I was against it only because the argument seemed like the next phase of anti-Biden (stealth pro-Trump) propaganda:
Sleepy Joe -> Hunter's Laptop -> "Genocide Joe" -> Biden's too old -> Biden had one bad debate and should drop out
While some of the criticism was perfectly valid, the fact that it was being constantly drummed and amplified by the "usual suspects" prevented me from hearing the argument in anything but bad faith and left me to assume the intention was to inject chaos into the democratic side of the election. I still feel the "usual suspects" were operating as described, but broken clocks and all that, you know?
Now that it's happened (regardless of whether I feel Biden was forced into it) and everyone is actually coalescing around VP Harris, I'm willing to admit I was wrong.
While I wasn't excited for Biden (nothing against him, he's done a great job and I'm sure would have continued to do so), I am energized by having someone younger and more energetic who will continue the work started in the current administration. It appears I'm not alone in that and am glad to see support for Harris coming in.
As long as we don't nitpick, single-issue, and in-fight ourselves to defeat between now and November and actually line up behind the presumed candidate, I'm optimistic Harris is the right choice.