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
I think Shapiro is the most obvious pick, but also not the most strategic. His position on Gaza and Israel don't help her where she needs it the most. She is going to have to wrangle NC and GA on her own. Her VP and surrogates are going to need to get upper midwest (game is over without those) and PA. Mark Kelley ain't delivering AZ, and Beshear aint delivering Kentucky, so they're out
That leaves it between Walz and Shapiro. I think objectively Walz is better for her across the board. He's a stronger progressive and he puts WI, MI, and MN completely out of the running for Republicans to get, but he needs to be able to be "on the right side" of Israel/ Palestine to do so and it says: Undecided, we heard you. Shapiro has been on the wrong side the whole time; it would be a harder pivot and he has to come out full throated to take MN and WI off the table and make MI competitive again. Its not clear to me Shapiro does that.
Lets assume its a trade off. If you go Shapiro you lock up PA, if you go Walz you lock up MN, MI, and WI. If you go Shapiro and don't step left on Israel Gaza, you don't get the upper midwest and it doesn't matter if you don't pickup PA. Thats two additional if's on the board for Shapiro. Walz is already on the winning side of Israel Gaza, so that makes the job of getting those states much easier. Basically, you' can't suffer any defections under a Shapiro scenario. I think Walz is the more strategic, smarter bet, but I also think its the one they won't make.
As an anyone but Trump independent conservative in one of the states you stated, who is Walz and why would it make people in my state vote for Harris more than Harris already does? I didn’t like Biden and I don’t like Harris, but Harris is doing better than I ever thought possible. I really don’t see what a VP could do for her as far as my state goes. I think Harris is the selling point herself
Did you vote Undecided or uncommitted? Do you have friends or family in the ME? Are you a young person whose rights are being stripped away on college campuses, something that a candidate like Shapiro supports? Do you see US foreign policy as fundamentally racist and in support of a genocide? If you didn't answer yes to those issues, or If you don't support the Palestinian peoples cause, the VP pick might not be a deciding factor for you.
The fact is 13% of voters in MI voted undecided, largely for the reasons I mentioned above, about 100,000 voters. MI only went Biden by 150k votes in the general. Wisconsin, 8.3%, Minnesota, 19%, unaffiliated or undecided or uninstructed. That's a more than consequential number of voters who need to be brought back in for Harris to claim that state.
If Harris is good enough for you, then she should be good enough for you regardless of her VP pick and you can just go back to not knowing who your neighboring states Governors are. But there are plenty who see her foreign policy as a direct extension of the Biden WH, and a guy like Shapiro is going to look like more of the same. This is how politics works. You have to make appeals to specific demographics and blocks of voters.
The idea that winning elections has ever been about appeals to the center has always been incorrect. Winning elections is about appealing to and driving out specific demographics of voters.
As a "Never Trump" conservative, you should consider yourself fortunate enough to at least have access to a party that has kept its sanity through the decades of mess that Republicans built up for us, starting with Reagan. Its a big tent party, and making demographic appeals based on policy are part of the process.
Just because something isn't a priority for you doesn't mean it isn't a priority for someone else.
I wouldn’t call myself a “Never Trump” conservative, true that it may be. I’m more of a pro-healthcare, pro-science conservative. So while there are conservative values I agree with, I will never vote for people with the following views: anti-abortion, trans are not people, election was rigged with no proof, anti-vaccine, climate change is not real.
But I guess I do understand that I’m not the target for VP appeal right now. I didn’t like Biden and I don’t like Harris. But anyone on the Democrat side is much better than anyone on the Republican side right now.
Admittedly, I am warming on Harris. Yes, I don’t like her record incarcerating people of color in California. Yes, she did do it less than her predecessors - but she still did it. She is showing improvement.
Whitmer, bad though she is, could help Harris with Michigan. Whitmer isn’t genuine but she understands the game, I suppose. People hate on me for not liking Whitmer, but after Trump left office I realized her main appeal was as a counter to Trump rhetoric. She does a bunch of stupid, symbolic stuff. She holds corporate interests over the people. She’s a politician because she wants power not because she wants to help people and I just can’t get behind that.
Which of your views do you have that you consider yourself conservative?
I have a feeling they are wealthy and have voted Rep to keep that wealth
There’s nothing wrong with being wealthy. It means you have the opportunity to contribute more to society than those with less means (and we should fix the tax loopholes that allow otherwise). Past a certain point, your effective tax should be 99.9%.
I also believe that fines should be proportional to income. If you’re going to charge the person who makes $30,000/yr a $300 ticket, you should charge someone who makes $1,000,000 $10,000 for the same offense. Wealth should not be able to buy you out of things like that. Bail should also be set proportionally.
Also, I am not wealthy
I’m asked about this a lot on this site lol
I agree that the government should reign in its spending - although I disagree with the typical conservative in where and how. For example, I believe that NASA should move exclusively to fixed prices contracts. In fact, it has worked well enough that I believe the military should work that way too
I believe that typical liberals jump too quickly at new technology. For example, I think democrats are really putting the cart before the horse with electric cars. I believe that we should mandate electrical charging infrastructure to match or exceed ICE “charging” stations BEFORE electric cars are mandated. I also believe that there may be a better technology and/or method than semi-permanently mounted high voltage car batteries. In fact, eliminating cars in general may be the best method after all.
I am against bicycle infrastructure over car infrastructure. I think bicycle infrastructure is worse for the majority, especially in area with colder winters. I believe a subway system is the way to go. I also believe that it’s not okay to start deteriorating car infrastructure before an alternative is in place.
I believe (generally) I’m a capitalist society. I believe that, if regulated to INCREASE (or preserve) competition, that the problem will take care of itself. I don’t believe in too big to fail (sorry Boeing, sorry car companies, sorry banks)
I believe that we need to clamp down on illegal immigration but that we should increase the number of people so that we can properly vet more people for LEGAL immigration
I believe I should be able to own any gun I want so long as I am able to pass a stringent background check. More controversial is that I believe that every gun owner should be in a federal database and that if you are ever caught doing anything unsafe with firearms, you will never be able to pass the background check again.
I am extremely anti-marijuana. I am open to research, but I believe it should be illegal until it is proven to be safe
I believe that we should be able to disagree and that the whole “team” aspect of politics is stupid. We should be able to vote on someone based on their platform and NOT their party (im looking at you, Texas. I’m also looking at you, vote blue no matter who). I think political parties are stupid.
Here's a recent and surprisingly short opinion piece I happened upon that sells him pretty well.
It's a Newsweek on MSN horror show website, so I went ahead and archived it.
https://archive.ph/nxuKi
I would be just as excited about Harris/Shapiro as I was about Biden/Harris. I think it is suicidal to pick him, but I think all indications make that likely. Just about anyone else is a better pick. He is just so far into advocating for this genocide, it is like getting Biden back on the ticket.
If you don't mind, since it seems like you have a grasp of the material, can you outline the bigger issues with Shapiro for those in the audience or not paying attention? I know he was basically against the student protests, and the whole "scandalous" conduct thing, but honestly not in great detail. Its good to have specifics.
But if its how you say it is, it seems like there is almost no way you retain the upper-midwest with Shapiro on the ticket, unless its a complete reversal for him. You just won't get the Muslim with an islamaphobe on the ticket. And i think if you are currently siding with Israel on this issue right now, thats the right word. Muslims face the reality that, apparently, a majority US politicians see their lives as less valuable than even farm animals. Its also clear that Israel has never been acting in good faith regarding negotiations, even the bastardization of whatever a ceasefire is the US tried to roll out. Its also clear that they never cared about getting the tourists back; their lives were always part of the cost of doing the business of the Zionist colonial project.
Dem's can't suffer any defections among MI, WI, and MN. If they lose any one of those states, this election is done, because it also means they've almost definitely lost PA and either GA or NC or both.
You got that right then went off track. Josh Shapiro would be a huge and strategic asset to the ticket.
No you are wildly wrong.