this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
758 points (95.7% liked)

politics

19123 readers
2725 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

they refuse to believe her.

I mean like, I would believe her if she rolled out a plan for how the US is going to stop funding Israel? Or a plan for holding the Israeli military accountable? Or maybe I would believe her if she didn't hold a press conference last week gaslighting us that Israel has to right to defend itself?

[–] ceenote 15 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I agree. I'm just hoping they've made the calculation that remaining ambiguous on Gaza is a better electoral strategy, and once in office she doesn't intend to spit in the faces of her base the way Biden has.

It's her or Trump, and there's zero chance Trump will make things better, so anyone who cares about Gaza and has a realistic outlook on the situation should support Harris.

[–] Ensign_Crab 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I’m just hoping they’ve made the calculation that remaining ambiguous on Gaza is a better electoral strategy, and once in office she doesn’t intend to spit in the faces of her base the way Biden has.

Progressives should start working on a primary challenge the moment the polls close. Democrats should never have the opportunity to claim a mandate on this issue.

[–] ceenote 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Maybe. I'd prefer we give her a year or two to see how progressive she's going to be. We're forced to work within the Democrat party for now, and if we're seen as a bunch of malcontents, centrist Democrats will see that as an excuse to reach out to more "gettable" moderates and conservatives instead

[–] Ensign_Crab 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Maybe. I’d prefer we give her a year or two to see how progressive she’s going to be.

If she shows some progressive bona fides, she'll have no problem. Without the threat of a progressive challenger, I'm afraid we'll get 4 years of centrists screaming that she's the most progressive president since FDR and expecting everyone to buy it, like they did with Biden. And that's at best. At worst, they'll gleefully announce that moving to the right works, double down on Gaza, and THEN announce that she's the most progressive president since FDR.

We’re forced to work within the Democrat party for now, and if we’re seen as unpleasable, more centrist Democrats will have an excuse not to even try.

As though they have ever tried.

EDIT: Responding to your edit:

and if we’re seen as a bunch of malcontents, centrist Democrats will see that as an excuse to reach out to more “gettable” moderates and conservatives instead

Democrats do that in response to the sun rising in the morning.