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.
- 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
You're a monster. "A slightly less painful genocide"? Do you hear yourself?
Welcome to the real world. Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils. It's terrible but it is also your best course of action.
yep, and you voting for twice the amount of killing, when it wasn't necessary. History, what a bitch
Some infinities are larger than others.
Most people prefer less genocide. It's quite good for it to be scarce.
What about no genocide omg. Do you have a soul?
Oh, you only want no genocide and not no killing? Do you have a soul? You're such a monster!
We can go on forever saying some things are worse than others. Eventually you have to accept you don't have a choice of perfection, and you never will.
There is no way to write that sentence without a double-negative. Quotes could have differentiated it (not "no killing"), but there's no alternative with the same meaning that isn't a double-negative (at least that I'm aware of).
I'm sorry, I don't have a bomber. That is not a choice I have. I also am not a member of the International Court of Justice nor am I an attorney or a UN representative. I don't really have any power to enforce the Geneva convention. By the way you're speaking it appears you do and you should use that power instead of telling others they aren't doing it.
What does boycotting the election do that is any different than if I just didn't exist? If they can just ignore me, then what effect does that have that forces them to change? It would appear effectively being non-existent is the cowardly option.
You speak a big game, but you don't actually play it. Its easy to say something isn't enough, but what actually would be? I can always point to a flaw. A coward would say "I'm just not going to do anything." Someone who actually cares will accept that they have a moral responsibility to do what they can to achieve the best outcome, even if that outcome isn't perfect and still has massive moral flaws, because the alternative would only be worse.
Being cowardly and letting the worst option come to fruition is true moral degeneracy. The Palestinians that die from US support ramping up will be on everyone's hands, and especially those who chose it or didn't try to prevent it, including those from outside trying to make other do so.
The reality is there are only two choices. Which will you choose?
The reality is that there are thousand of choices but propaganda makes you believe there's only two. The world and society weren't build by the red and blue party.
Aspirationally, of course there are more than two choices. Realistically, only two of those have a chance at success. The US electoral system has ensured this. The way to fix the system is to elect those who want to change it for the better, not those who wish to destroy it and all it stands for.
Realistically until elections are over everyone has the same change of winning because ballot polls are hypothetical. Voting is not the only way you have to change things for good. The same way there's people advocating for corrupted parties you can waste your energies on something more useful.
And as you smile smugly to yourself about your moral superiority for choosing philosophy over the unfortunate situation that is reality, women die due to lack of reasonable healthcare, minorities and those deemed "deviant" by fundamentalists are oppressed, and the genocide in Palestine is ramped up and overtly supported by American interests because the right doesn't do this kind of philosophical masturbation and thus handily wins the election.
Look, I want to see the end of the binary too, but only an ignorant person thinks you can win a race by being dropped off at the finish line and walking 2 steps. The end of the binary will not come from a surprise upset Presidential election out of nowhere. It just won't. Not today, not ever. If you actually give a shit about making a change and not just feeling above it all personally, you'd be out on the streets in non election years working to legitimize third party candidates in viable lower and local races where they can win and affect change outside the party system. And if you're somewhere where that has already happened, you'd be working with them to extend their reach, pushing their influence further. Or you'd be running locally as a third-party candidate yourself.
And if you are already doing that, first off thank you so much, but secondly, then you must understand what a difficult uphill battle the fight is and more importantly you must understand you can't just skip ahead to the finish line.
You mention that voting is not the only way to change things for good and you are absolutely right. Hell, I'd say it's not even one of the primary ways. But what voting is is one of the highest return on investment ways of effecting change; the amount of effect it takes to vote is beyond nominal, practically insignificant, yet the consequences have significant real world impact. Not smartly utilizing your vote is like being hungry in a cabin in the woods and taking a knife out hunt a wild boar for food when there is a literal ham sandwich in a ziploc bag in the fridge waiting for you.
I'm constantly working on local stuff, my vote has never made any kind of a difference - I live in an urban area jerrymandered to include as much of the suburbs as possible, they vote in lockstep to keep their taxes low and poors out. They are bipartisan about that. The local democratic committees are all just full of the family of people running for office and nobody with good politics has the time or energy to participate in the democratic party
I'm in a blue state, I've voted every year for decades, it's always felt like a waste of time. Any time I ask elected representatives about something they didn't already want to do they (or their staff) tell me to fuck off.
Seems a great time to see the section of my comment about legitimizing or running as a third party in your community to effect change on the local level, then.
The point of my comment was not to be satisfied, it is that change doesn't start at the finish line. If you are fed up and think your vote is worthless, then do something about it rather than impotently protesting which accomplishes nothing but throwing away that tiny bit of power you did wield.
Here's the deal guys: nobody is coming to save you. Not Harris or Trump, but also not Stein, or Bernie, or anyone else. There is never going to be a time when you can just vote and suddenly things are all sunshine and rainbows. Change takes work, and we're discussing enormous change on a massive scale.
Or, let me offer you a counterpoint - maybe the democrats in your area aren't a lost cause. Maybe they can be better utilized, motivated, incentivized, etc. Going back to the change takes work/nobody is coming to save you bit, what have you personally done to change the situation in area beyond voting or donation?
Sure, every voter in the country could suddenly and radically change their minds about who to vote for, but we both know that isn't going to happen, because it's never happened. The only time that a third party has ever upset an established party is when the Republicans threw out the Whigs before the American Civil War. They did that through years of lead-up and messaging, along with a growing emancipation movement. You're not changing anyone's minds that radically this close to an election.
Believe it or not, I don't spend most of my day voting or responding to internet comments.