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
So you replied to my post without reading, still didn’t address the questions I asked after acknowledging this, and are now shamelessly saying you also never even read Taylor Swift’s post in the first place before making all your comments. And yet your thesis is that there’s no reason to place any value on what she says?
She provides nearly no reasoning for her perspective.
She's rich, a marketed character. She shouldn't be trusted by default.
This ridiculous comparison, and being outright incorrect in it, is why your questions weren't answered. I've rectified that.
No reason? I didn't say that. I said the implied reasons to value her perspective aren't meritable.
Now that I've read her post I find I was entirely correct. She's chosen what's safe, politic, and popular: conclusions without reasoning. She could've risked what her conscience should've told her was correct. But, she predictably didn't.
So, let's break down her post, because I'm sure you didn't read it.
Literally, her first paragraph is an appeal to each and every American to research the issues and the candidates and come to their own conclusions. Nowhere does she opt to tell you how to vote. In fact, she says repeatedly to do your own research and make your own choice.
She explained the problems with DeepFakes and AI bullshit, and used that as a justification for revealing what is normally a secret ballot. She didn't want to endorse anyone. In fact, it was stated she'd keep her mouth shut about her politics to protect her fans until her current tour was done (elsewhere, not in this thread) which meant she was initially planning on not revealing her choice at all, which most voters actually do, since our ballots are secret and all. But when Trump claimed her (fake) endorsement, she had to stop and set the record straight, despite not wanting to bring the backlash on her fans.
She doesn't go deeper into this, admittedly and maybe even unfortunately, just saying she believes Harris/Walz is the better choice to run the country for the next 4 years. She basically just lays out what motivated her to pick the team she did, and why she didn't pick the other team (Team Chaos). But there's a reason for this!
Nowhere in any of this does she tell you who to vote for. She doesn't want to. She just asks you to do your research, both on the candidates and issues, AND on how to properly cast your vote this election. I'm sure if you popped up on her thread and said you were going to vote for whatever candidate, she'd say 'good on you, make sure you are making the right choice, and check these links to verify you can actually vote!' She seems to be the kind of person that lets you make your own decisions.
Will Swifties see her voting for Harris as a justification for voting for Harris? Probably. I hope she continues emphasising that people should make up their own minds based on their own research, while advocating for harm reduction and de-chaosing. That seems to be in line with how she functions. And you should never base what your vote is going to be on how someone else votes. I would have liked to have seen a more detailed breakdown of her decision and a link to the sources she made her decisions off of, but let's get real. MANY people don't have an academic background and know how to cite their sources, so...yeah. I won't expect it from Taylor Swift.
In conclusion, she's not giving 'reasoning for her perspective' because she's not telling you who to vote for. She's saying who she's voting for because AI put words in her mouth that the major candidate most opposed to her positions used to claim her endorsement. That's all.
You're assuming I'm dumb. That's an error.
Nah, I'm not. I'm assuming you have an agenda you're pushing, and I'm using the very post you said you read to point out that no, she's not doing anything you're accusing her of, and she doesn't owe you, or anyone else, anything. And I'm doing so not to change your mind, but to inform anyone else who stumbles across your posts that you're not being forthright and honest with your claims, and that she's merely saying "I'm voting for this choice" because some jackwagon with some AI skills made a fake video of her saying "I'm voting for the other choice." That's all.
At this point, I'm not talking to you anymore, just using your words as examples of arguments that get Trump elected.
Assuming disagreement and bad faith is even worse than assuming me and idiot, particularly when you're not asking any questions.
Wow. Thanks for doing all my work for me. Keep talking.