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
Translation: “I’m not listening or even willing to pretend to engage in nuance! Which means YOURE RACIST!”
You let a convicted felon, found legally to be a rapist, racist win because you didn't vote due No True Scotsman, then yeah, you're a progressive that condones racism and are a racist in my book. You don't have to agree but then again, I honestly don't give a crap what you think at this point.
No, you’re still not getting it. And I wasn’t the original person you were arguing with. I voted for Harris, but there is so much nuance involved in the decision that writing it all off as racism is beyond stupid and helps no one but you—the same way the “I won’t vote for Harris because it’s a vote for ____” people were only doing it for themselves. Basically, it’s a glass house and stones situation. You’re both guilty of the same thing.
I know you're not the original person but you are extending the OP's argument so I'm just taking it from there.
No I do get it, I simply don't care about that particular nuance when your choice is "Man I won't vote because of X so I'll just let Mr. convicted criminal, rapist, overt racist win".
You enable racists, then you're a racist in my book and with 15 million voters, who again statistically are going to be a lot of bog standard Democrats here, who sat out and condoned racists at every level, yeah, that shows me that I was right in 2016 that this country is a racist country and I'm just going to have be okay with that.
Say you get two choices.
One is to poison a town’s water supply without telling them.
The other is poison that towns water supply, not tell them, and then pick off survivors as they flee from the town.
Can you stomach voting for poisoning a town’s water supply if you’re firmly against poisoning people, just because anyone fleeing the town would be able to leave if they managed to survive? That’s the choice we were being asked to make. I get that it’s definitely worse to shoot the survivors, but in the end…either way your vote was to poison people. Some people have strong feelings about it. So strong they couldn’t stomach being the ones to sign on to it.
We all know it’s worse adding the slaughter of the fleeing survivors…but signing your name to the poisoning is unthinkable for a lot of people. It kinda should be unthinkable for all of us.
And you’re just saying “well, all you people are racist!”
See how silly that is?
Nuance, man.