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
You don't understand that people don't want to participate in a system where both choices require them to take active participation in what they see as genocide of their own people?
Or you just don't see how anyone could possibly oppose genocide?
In either case, you certainly didn't show any evidence at all that you have given any consideration whatsoever to the idea that a party is obligated to represent people whose votes it needs.
You've only got three options.
Pick Gun A. Someone shoots 8 people with Gun A.
Pick Gun B. Someone shoots 20 people with Gun B.
Don't pick either gun. Other people decide which gun will be used. Someone shoots either 8 or 20 people with the chosen gun.
If I don't want people to die, what should I pick? Should I pick Gun A because I want to make sure the fewest people die? Or should I not pick at all, so that I can feel good about myself if gun B is chosen and 20 people die?
I'm sympathetic to them, but refusing to participate in the system doesn't mean the system goes away. It just means you pretend you don't have blood on your hands. If you care about keeping the Palestinian death toll as low as possible, you vote for the option that will kill the fewest. That's voting for Biden. Choose not to vote, and the death toll may be higher.
Blood will be on my hands no matter what I pick. I choose to see and accept that blood, if it means even one life is saved that would be doomed otherwise.
I suppose congrats are in order. We have a real life Trolley Problem.
Shit. It actually is.
You just forgot options D:
If enough people don't pull the lever to not kill anyone, nobody will be killed. But then the Democrats get real mad you voted third party.
If you can get enough people to vote third party to outright win the election, then you're wasting your time talking to me. You should be talking with a third party to take over their strategy, because it's readily apparent that no one currently leading a third party has any clue how to win.
Point and case, third parties could barely break 5% combined against Hillary and Trump.
Cause all the AmeriDrones are already too brainwashed to even consider the option cause "it will never win".
If you don't need their votes, keep acting like you can order them to vote like you want. You can always blame them for the results, but you'll still have the results.
The party would rather lose to Trump and have someone to blame than try to appeal to the voters it regards with withering contempt. It may make you feel morally superior to scream at people, but that doesn't move the needle in the direction you need.
Pretty much. If fascism takes over America centrist Democrats will be partly to blame
Won't stop them from blaming all the people they alienated.
Weird so many in this thread seem to think if you insult people for not wanting to be genocided, they'll support the candidate you like. Make it feel more clear that these people don't actually care about them and just see them as pawns for their own goals.
"Vote for me to do shit you hate, moron! Wait... why are you staying home?"
If you refuse to vote for the option that will result in the fewest Palestinians being killed, you care more about your ideals than you do their lives. Full stop. You aren't an ally if you're content with letting the more deadly option win because the less deadly option is still lethal.
As I keep having to say, I'm voting for Biden.
The party needs to start trying to get back votes it's losing. That is if they care about beating Trump and not just having yet another opportunity to punch left and never right.
I know you are, that's why I find it interesting to engage with you. You understand what I'm saying if you're voting for Biden.
I don't disagree. I'm all for discussing what Democrats can realistically do so long as we agree that Trump is an existential threat that takes priority over everything else.
So, let's discuss it. We both know that outright telling Israel to go fuck itself isn't an option. What do you think would be the best, realistic way to stop their massacre while alienating the fewest voters overall and leveraging our relationship to put pressure on them?
It takes priority over everything else for a certain segment of the party. Expecting it to take priority over everything else for the entire party gets people leaving the party as we're seeing here.
Sadly yes. One of us is sad about it, and the other is gloating.
We both know that the party doesn't actually care about stopping the massacre. They'll do as little as possible to upset the status quo of supporting Israel no matter what they do. Someone high up in the centrist wing of the party needs to advocate for placing conditions on aid. It'll be a bill of goods, of course. The party deals in bills of goods. It's exceedingly good at promising things and then preventing itself from delivering, like with the public option, bbb, and increasing the minimum wage.
The party isn't even bothering to make empty promises it has no intention of keeping here.
Well at the very least I'll need to keep a closer eye on my tone, because I very much do not want to gloat about Israel having support. The rest of what you said is good food for thought too, even if I tend to disagree initially.
These comments are crazy. No political party in power in the united states deserves support. Its those who cling to the democratic party who are "electing" trump by not moving to support a new alternate. Those who are promoting and supporting politicians who support genocide are those who are in the wrong and who are sabotaging progress.
I’m not clinging to the Democratic Party. I’m simply aware of how first past the post voting works.
That just tells you there can only be two dominant parties. Which parties are those two can change. Those who keep supporting democrats are still the ones preventing it from being another party. If it not democrats, it would be a different one...
I’ll bet you any amount of money that either Dems or reps win the next election. How much would you like to wager?
I'd bet its not democrats if people stopped voting for them.
Maybe I wasn’t clear.
I’ll bet you any amount you like that no third party wins the next election. You game?
The fact that no one ever takes me up on this shows y’all fucking know I’m right but don’t want to admit it.
If they won, they would no longer be a third party. If democrats became a third party, another party would become first party.
That’s why I worded it the way I did the first time.
I bet you $1000 that either the Democrat or the Republican wins the next presidential election.
No one is disagreeing about that. Its irrelevant to the topic.
It directly contradicts your claim that another party can win.
They can: the two statements are not contradictory. You're making more specific claims unrelated to the topic.
They "can".
The sun "could" explode tomorrow and kill us all.
But neither will happen and we both know it.
So you agree that saying the sun can explode tomorrow and saying it probably won't is not contradictory, right? This contradicts your own points.
Don’t forget the last part.
Which doesn't change the fact that it is not contradictory like you claim it to be.
Hey while you’re here, you wanna bet the $1000 I offered the other guy?
I could use the money.
Again, you don't understand what contradictory means. Does saying the sun can explode tomorrow and saying it has a low chance of doing so contradictory? Similarly, saying a third party can win if people switch their votes away from the Dems is not contradictory to saying there is a low chance of that happening.
You're doing a logical fallacy by assuming that statements made about possible alternative events are equivalent to statements that claim the event is likely to happen.
I’ll take that as a no. I wouldn’t take the bet either as we know it won’t happen.
You're still talking about odds as if it has anything to do with my point. What's the point of replying if you don't even understand the point you're arguing against? Talking to you is like talking to a flat earther. They also like to cling to a single point without actually addressing the actual point people are bringing up.