this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
67 points (73.4% liked)

politics

19079 readers
4436 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TropicalDingdong 37 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Walz went from around 20% at the start of the day, to over 50% over the course of the day on polymarket.

Walz makes more sense than Shapiro does for winning the election.

[–] Ensign_Crab 26 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Harris is a Democrat, and Shapiro is a very tempting unforced error. Defeat is right there in the very jaws of victory, and all Harris has to do is reach down and seize it.

[–] TropicalDingdong 21 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Look, I've trained myself to not do what I'm about to do. I've sought professional help to stop me from typing exactly what I'm about to type. I've lost fingers to this mousetrap.

I really think Harris might be different.

She's shown better political instinct than I could ever have hoped. She is like, actually working the opportunity, and frankly, seems to be good at it. Overcooked pasta was going to poll better than Biden. But it really seems like Harris understands that she needs to do better with specific groups, and progressives and Muslims, the undecided vote, is that group. PA and "never Trump" Republicans might just have to come along on this ride. Democratic politicians and party managers have spent their entire modern political history wishing they had Republicans for voters. It might be she recognizes what she needs to do to win.

She might be able to win with Shapiro, but it comes real fucking close and its a big fuck you to a lot of people, who specifically withheld their votes because of the US policy on Israel Gaza.

If she goes Walz, all the fucking blue-maga/ Biden bullshit artists here who sandbagged, like they know shit and were giving us, and people like @[email protected] grief can suck our collective dicks. If it wasn't for a very small, but very vocal cohort of people CONTINUOUSLY ringing the alarm bell, we would be facing an absolute fucking blow-out in November. The Democrats deserve all the fucking criticism they earn, and if you have a problem with that, fuck off and go be a republican.

But maybe, just fucking maybe, Harris is different.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Representative Kathy Manning [...] told Axios in a statement that [...] his opinions on Israel are "in line with the position of the Biden-Harris Administration."

Which is not good. The position of the Biden administration is a bad position and we were happy to leave behind with Harris. Branding aside, she wasn't making policy for the administration and has already been less blindly supportive. Shapiro bringing us right back to where we were before is one of his major downsides.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago

Not only that, but the implications for the future. It puts him in the potential rising star category and makes him a contender for a future election - which puts us in a terrible position for that election. I'd love Kelly and I'd be okay with Walz.

[–] jeffw 19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (9 children)

Yeah, lefties just hate how Shapiro called Netanyahu “a dangerous and destructive force” and “one of the worst leaders of all time.”

This is all just attacks from the people who can't attack Biden anymore but know they'd look bad saying Kamala isn't left enough. They prop us Walz because they know he won't get picked, even though he's been just as bad as Shapiro on Gaza. Shapiro has been explicit when he's said Netanyahu is an obstacle to peace, something Walz has not said afaik.

Make no mistake: there's a reason the person who posted this is known for spamming anti-Biden content.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 3 months ago

No other potential nominee has been as bad as Shapiro on Gaza. There's a specific complaint about how he's worse right there in the article.

"[He] was unique among the top VP picks in his willingness to deploy the National Guard on peaceful protestors. He even went as far as to compare peaceful university protestors to KKK ralliers."

[–] kylie_kraft 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

When Biden dropped out, I asked r2o in a number of their threads if they were going to cool it with the source-agnostic concern troll spamming. Never got an answer. It was pretty obvious where this was going.

[–] return2ozma 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"anything critical of Democrats is trolling!"

Yeah, no. I even said I'd still post critical news articles as well as positive news about Biden/Harris/Dems.

[–] TropicalDingdong 2 points 3 months ago

They're lost.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Not that I'm agreeing with OP or the "lefties", but if that's why you think they're talking about it you're missing a lot. It's just not that simple, and putting it into terms like that certainly isn't going to get people to think the same way as you.

Again, not trying to start a shit slinging match. I honestly will vote for Kamala either way, because that's who my vote is for.

[–] Blackbeard 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Preemptively labeling him "Genocide Josh" is no less reductive or divisive. Them putting it in terms like that isn't going to get people to think the same way as them. Yet here we are, with them being given a giant megaphone and the party having to cater to their self-defeating absolutism.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

I agree. Which is why Jeff said what they said. But doing what they're doing because they did it first probably won't help either side.

Once again, I am not taking a side or trying to sling shit. It's not going to matter for me either way. I'm still voting for blue no matter who.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (5 children)

I don't love that he volunteered for the IDF, but I can also acknowledge that I'm a different person than I was 20+ years ago.

I'd prefer Kelly, personally.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

I have the luxury of not growing up influenced by shitty adults, so maybe it's easy to cast judgement, but his college statement was pretty seriously racist. And it wasn't just quietly racist, but actively sending it in to the opinion section to have it broadcast to everyone at his school. I'm willing to accept that people can grow out of racism, but I'd find it pretty reasonable for the targets of that racism to strongly object to someone who went out of their way to write a racist opinion piece in college. And like, we could just choose someone without that stain.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

And yet......

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)
[–] return2ozma 5 points 3 months ago
load more comments
view more: next ›