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
People just really dislike genocide it seems. It's almost like they'd rather vote for people who don't support it. The real question is why you apparently have such a problem with that?
Harris seems better on this and the party is basically united, so why fuck it up now? The fact that you jump to blame voters is embarrassing
.
I'll take "more apologetics the abhorrent" for 100, Alex.
.
I don't really care dude
.
I really don't have any intention to do that, I don't know you. Anyway looks like she chose correctly now. So it's all good.
.
Them: "We don't want a VP candidate that supports genocide"
You: "Oh look here comes the circular firing squad" ie "these people who take issue with the candidate are the problem, not the candidate"
Please tell me how this isn't apologetics or playing defense for someone supporting genocide
.
I like that YouTube series.
I'm not saying you're an apologist, but clearly your initial comment laid the blame at the feet of unhappy voters, not the genocide supporting VP candidate. That feels like apologetics. Perhaps you think he would have been a bad choice too, but you chose to blame the left (or "far left") for having a problem with this in your comment, without acknowledging the issue, and that speaks volumes.
Lol and I'm supposedly the one making bad faith assumptions?
.
Please just spell it out for me and stop this bullshit.
You could just clarify. Good VP choice, yes or no?
Not a good one so far.
Perhaps you should read more carefully. You said that tripling down doesn't make me look smarter. I don't care about that.
.
Removed, civility.
Fair
Genocide is something that should be reductively absolute.
Why do you think it shouldn't be?
If you support genocide, that should be something you are saddled with for the rest of your life.
.
I'm 45.
Supporting genocide is a good reductive test for if someone has any kind of morality. Same as with racism.
The fact that you don't recognize that, and think that not recognizing that makes you an adult that is not a cartoon says everything about your morality.
It says nothing about my age or how many people I interact with.
EDIT: You also didn't answer the question on why you think Genocide shouldn't be a reductive label.
Do you think that genocide is ever justifiable?
Seems like they're avoiding answering direct questions about their beliefs or even fully explaining them. Why you might do that is anyone's guess
.
.
I have. And you know what? Genocide isn't a matter of disagreeing. The fact that you think it is says everything anyone needs to know about you.
.