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
It’s pretty telling that they’re not critical of “kill them faster” trump.
Oh, they have been very critical of Trump as well. Maybe that doesn't show up so much in this article, but they definitely do NOT like Trump.
Even tho this community would like you to believe they are all trying to get Trump elected. lol
*emphasis mine
Oh yes. That’s quite clear.
Where's the lie, though? This is 100% accurate.
Did I say there was a lie?
Is there a an "abandon Trump campaign", though? I'm not insinuating that Biden isn't gargling Netanyahu's balls. I'm insinuating that Stein is a willing spoiler candidate.
You know, Democrats should try appealing to anti-war voters instead of accusing them of having hidden agendas.
I think Democrats forget this, but the Democrats need the votes of independent voters to win. Appeal to them. Don’t insult them.
I remember when Hillary accused Tulsi Gabbard (who built her brand on being anti-war) of being a Russian agent. How well did that go for Hillary?
Even if Gabbard was a Russian agent, it does not inspire anti-war voters when you say that the only anti-war candidates are foreign agents. (I’d be like “well I guess I’m voting for the Russian then”.)
Did… you just reply to yourself?
As for stein….
She wants to provide no support for Ukraine, and for the US to leave nato. Which are the two things Putin wants the US to do. If she’s not willingly a Russian agent, she’s still very pro-Russia.
I mean, here’s her own words given after the 2014 Crimea invasion:
First off, while Obama definitely offered verbal support to the people of Ukraine, we certainly didn’t incite the euromaidan revolution (which was sparked by Yanukovych ignoring parliament and moving closer to Russia instead of Europe- like the people wanted.) no, the five billion we spent in aid wasn’t to incite euromaidan- it was development assistance for ex-soviet states, spent over 20 years and mostly approved before Obama was ever president.
Which brings us to how she’s practically reading off Russian propaganda. Remember how Putin’s “special military action” was to “eliminate nazis”? They’ve been using that one for a long time.
If the only anti-genocide candidate in this election is a Russian agent, then I guess I’m voting for the Russian.
Guess that makes you pro genocide then, because in this world, ethics are messy, and not getting involved means allowing Russia to genocide Ukrainians.
I can’t believe you would look at Ukraine, which has been stockpiling weapons for 10 years (provided by every Western power), which has membership in the United Nations, which gets nothing but sympathetic coverage in the Western media (because they’re white), and say “this is just like Gaza”.
Did I say it was just like gaza? no.
I did say it was a genocidal campaign, though.
By the way, this war started in 2014, with the invasion and annexation of Crimea. So, naturally they've been seeking weapons for that long.
But it’s not. Russia isn’t targeting civilians.
Sure. I believe you. Totally.
You mean, aside from the systematic attack on healthcare, and their Schools, and other , Civilian, infrastructure.
Including blowing up a hydro electric damn and flooding an entire region.
oh, and lets just ignore the cultural genocide of abducting children
As tragic as the situation in Ukraine is, you can’t just call everything genocide. That’s a disservice to the victims of actual genocide.
Here’s some information about genocide:
https://www.hmd.org.uk/learn-about-the-holocaust-and-genocides/what-is-genocide/the-ten-stages-of-genocide/
Genocide is defined, under international treaty- specifically, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide , aka, the Geneva Convention.
Specifically, Article 2 defines genocide as:
Care to explain how 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 aren't literally all being ticked off by Russian forces in Ukraine? any one of those actions is sufficient.
Even according to your own source... Russia is ticking most of those stages- 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. 10. the only one (so far as I know,) not being actively engaged in is "symbolization" and I would suggest that's not necessary for a genocide. at least not in a literal "force them to wear symbols of their oppression" level of symbolization.
and you're also participating in #10, too.
That’s enough. We’re done here.
Of course, people in this sub don’t believe that independent voters exist. You’re either “vote blue no matter who”, or you’re a Russian agent.
You uh, forgot to change accounts when replying to yourself.
I was adding to my previous thought.
Preach!
She's not though.
He says this, but he has yet to post an article of them actually being critical of Trump.
Because the Biden administration is the one committing genocide in Gaza. Not the Trump administration.
Is that too hard for you to understand?
If you're going to be a condescending, the least you could do is actually be accurate.
Neither Biden, his administration, nor American troops in general are actively engaged in combat operations in Gaza. Sure, we're supplying arms, and yes, we can be critical of biden.
By all means. I certainly am and have been.
However, Harris doesn't set his administration's policy agenda. that's why it's the "Biden Administration" and not "the Harris Administration", right?
Further, is it really that hard to grasp that in our stupid electoral system the choice is between either Trump or Harris, and that there are no circumstances at all in which Trump would be more beneficial to Palestinians?
Voting third-party is also a choice.
Yup.
And it’s a choice they want democrats to take!
Ask yourself why.
They said why. You quoted it.
Pretty stupid reason to drop Harris when the other team would be far worse on that one issue.
Unless, of course, the real motivation is as a spoiler candidate.
So is there an “Abandon Trump” campaign? Because trump is universally worse on Gaza.
You're honestly just driving me away from Harris.
Hey man, vote how you want.
We both know that the election is between Harris and Trump, at least baring some unforeseeable thing happening like trump dying from choking down a hamburger.
We also know that Stein has had dinner with Putin, and wants to pull the US out of nato, and in none of the pro-stein/Green Party stuff here, has there been any criticism of trump.
I would love it if the US didn’t have a de facto 2 party system, but we do. That’s how it is. Not voting for Harris isn’t a vote for trump, but then, you should ask yourself which of the two candidates of the 2 parties that actually have a chance, is the one who best represents you.
Because if you care about Gaza and what Israel is doing, that’s not trump.
Oh no! I better stop saying how I see things, if you’re being driven away from Harris. My sincerest apologies.
Well to be fair, I said how I see things and it inspired people to actually follow me around Lemmy and vote down every single article I post, regardless of content. So...
I feel same way. This crowd and their bullying attitude has definitely reinforced my choice to vote third party. I'm more proud of it every day that I read replies here.
A choice that helps elect a side you're least aligned with.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, you agree with Harris 90% of the time, and you agree with Trump, I dunno, 4% of the time (hey, he's right on not taxing tips, right?)
But your 10% disagreement causes you to vote 3rd party.
That 3rd party has 0 chance of winning. Source: No 3rd party has won ANY state since 1968, and even then, they didn't win enough to sway the election.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_United_States_presidential_election
So you've removed a vote from a viable candidate, whom you agree with 90% of the time, and given it to a non-viable candidate. Had they not been an option, your vote would have supported the candidate most in line with you.