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
Yeah really like who are these people who weren’t going to vote for Joe? Are they stupid?
uninformed/misguided apathetic "i don't care about politics" kids who saw nothing but ancient white men and can't/won't distinguish between them
And then vote because of gender and race and not politics.
It's another reason Harris would be crazy to go with anyone but Mark Kelly. You'll get people who never dreamed of voting to just vote for the novelty of an astronaut and fighter pilot.
I want science to win so that’s a good option anyway.
Mark Kelly would normally be a great choice but Andy Beshear is way better in this election. He balances the west/east and is not that fat from the east. Also he draws from the Appalachia/rust belt area that Baby face Vance was supposed to attract but was a horrible failure.
I love Beau of the Fifth Column, but I have to politely disagree with him here. I'm originally from rural Appalachia and I don't think you try to combat Vance by one-upping him with someone from that region. To me he makes less of a case for Beshear in this video and just more explains why JD Vance is a terrible pick, which I agree. Recognizing that much of the Presidential election ultimately comes down to a popularity contest, I think you go with the more flashy figure. For instance, I'm a pretty big political junkie and even I don't know much about Beshear. That's not to say he won't skyrocket in name-recognition if the announcement comes that he's her pick, but it's just an easier sell to the average voter: "Wow, Mark Kelly is an astronaut and navy fighter pilot veteran!" The mere novelty of that will draw people to vote for him. I think this is powerful enough to draw those same voters away from Vance in itself.
Having someone popular running as VP from a key battleground state is a plus, too. We have to realize that much of rust/bible-belt isn't particularly in play anyway. We have Whitmer who will help carry Michigan; and we have Shapiro who will help carry Pennsylvania. Seems like Tony Evers is doing well in Wisconsin. These are the three key battleground states while the likes of AZ and NV and so forth are more secondary battleground states.
Wow. Americans really say shit like this without a trace of irony 🤷♂️
hahaha — oh please, do enlighten me, good foreigner.
I don’t think that’s possible.
Ah so you've got nothing. That's what I thought.
No I’m saying you’re too dense
Go on, try me.
“Wow. Americans really say shit like this without a trace of irony 🤷♂️”
What was I referring to in your opinion?
You tell me, buddy! Go on, teach!
Ok! The thing is, you revealed yourself to be a prime example of an uneducated, uncultured, too-American moron who unironically thinks that someone is a good politician because he was previously a fighter pilot. You think the only person who’d be even better to run the country is Tom Cruise because he played a fighter pilot and is a super-successful actor, I.e. your trashy version of royalty. You’re no different than the MAGA cultists who think their guy should be a dictator because he’s “good at business”. You and your ilk are everything that’s wrong with the world and if a nuclear war happens the only solace in my last moments will be that guys like you and your potential maggot spawn will be ended too.
hahahah, finally! Now we're getting somewhere!
Well now, you're just wrong here, friend. Blind speculative straw-men are not a sign of sound critical-thinking.
Now I'm glad you got all that out. But in all of this ranting, isn't it painfully ironic that you never mentioned one single policy but instead focused on the person(s), me, and the American people? lol. I bet you don't even know the policy positions of AZ US Senator Mark Kelly. For someone so hellbent on policy, you sure sling Ad-Hominems left and right lol.
Ultimately Americans recognize that policy platforms can change and mean little if the person is a scumbag. Many of us put an emphasis on the character of a person because that signals core values. We like Mark Kelly because he actually served his country; we like Mark Kelly because as an astronaut and fighter pilot he ascended to some of the most rigorous demands of intellect, courage, and knowledge. We like Mark Kelly because he's a stand-up guy, unlike Donald Trump, and that he has a reasonable policy platform anchored to the Democratic party no less. But perhaps you don't understand this because you're not American? Who knows. All I know is your arrogance is leading you to over-extend your confidence past the point of understanding.
I can be a bit of a pot stirrer now and then, but I feel compassion makes me happier. Few people wake with the intent to make bad decisions.
It's because of those people that you now have another, better, more winnable option. You're welcome.
And for this I am very thankful!
On the other hand, if more people had turned out in 2016 we wouldn't be here.
Politics shouldn't be a popularity contest.
You could also say, if the Democrats had nominated a more likeable candidate in 2016, we wouldn't be here.
Clinton got less votes than Obama in 2012 and 2008, even though the population had grown during that time.
And it wasn't the Bernie bros who stayed home. Polling revealed that the Bernie bros showed up.
Blaming the voters is like having your bakery go bankrupt and trying to blame people for not buying your shitty cake.
First, bake a better cake.
"Where are all those advertisers I told to fuck off last year?"
What part of "I like soldiers who didn't get captured" and "grab them by the pussy" confused voters?
Count Dracula should have beaten Trump.
I totally blame the voters.
The voters are literally the ones who picked Biden though.
I know, but we were having a conversation about 2016 and the voters didn't pick Clinton then.
At least, not enough of them in certain swing states.
It also shouldn’t be a duopoly game but here we are.
The shorter election cycle is appreciated. This should be a thing. Say, on July 5th of an election year, then it begins.
Keep the primary results a secret until a couple of weeks before the convention. It'd also help the states with late primaries to not feel irrelevant.
"If wishes were horses then beggars would ride."
We're celebrating the apparent increase in voters that aren't even following the duopoly policies enough to recognize literal fascism vs imperfect but generally good faith politicians.
If they're not informed enough to see the face eating leopard party for what it is, adding more parties to the mix won't improve anything.
I agree that ranked choice voting is desirable. But it won't help with these kinds of voters.
I don’t get that. I still have relatives trying to tell me trickle down economics works, that it is the way. Really? You think successful trickle down economics is why we all feel squeezed right now? You think that’s why Amazon workers go through hell while Bezos flies around in a penis rocket?
Reality isn’t tracking as reality. I’m not sure how one gets to that point where a confident person in a suit announces that x is the truth and so you just start repeating x is the truth and actually believing it.
If more people had thought they were being listened to, perhaps they would have.
If you want politicians to listen to you, try voting in the primaries.
People need to educate themselves. Look at how Jerry Falwell and his 'Moral Majority' took over the GOP. They had one simple trck; if the local Republican clubhouse got 20 people at the regular meeting Falwell's folks would show up with fifty. They got the little jobs, like county clerk and sheriff, and then the bigger state positions and finally were in a position to control who got the white House.
Please don't gloat that the primaries have had a preordained winner for every presidential race since 2012. Particularly not when the most recent preordained winner had to step down, to the acclaim of the vast bulk of the party.
and BotH Sides aRe ThE SAme, right?
If you're going to tell people not to vote, try coming up with an actual alternative action.
I did not say that people should not vote, or that both sides are the same. You lost the argument and you're strawmanning. The shitty preordained candidate you wanted stepped down. We have a better candidate now.
You said that the primaries were fixed.
If I misunderstood you, it's because you weren't clear.
You made false accusations about me and are now trying to act like it's my fault.
How is it not your fault?
It's your job to write clearly. If someone makes an honest mistake, it's the fault of the speaker.
Also, you claimed the primaries were rigged without giving any actual proof; by your own logic you're the one making false accusations.
What you did was neither honest nor a mistake.
In a democracy. Politics is absolutely a popularity contest. The population votes. If you want better outcomes, do more for the population. When you don’t give the population what they want, you get totalitarianism which is the course we are on.
No it's not. It's because of those people Trump still has a chance.
He had a chance. He's shaking in his shoes now because he knows she will wipe the goddamn floor with his shitty toupee/combover or whatever the hell that thing is. He thought he was going to have it easy against the old man. Now him and his whole party are fucked, scrambling to throw anything against the wall to see if it sticks, because they have nothing. Not even ancillary shit like Hunter's laptop.
Come sit down and watch, here's some popcorn 🍿.
Polls don't show that at all. Harris isn't ahead in swing states either. Don't start taking a victory.
Yes they are also #StopfacismVoteHarris