Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
For everyone who thinks their vote won't count.
The anti-vaxxer BC Conservative Party, of whom more than half are functionally Qanon fuckwits, came within 18 votes of preventing an NDP(left wing) majority government in British Columbia.
18 votes, in an election of more than 2 million votes. Go and vote.
In this thread:
People tripping over themselves to ignore the content of this Palestinian-American's statement, so they can instead criticize the DNC.
Anyone want to explain to me why she's wrong for voting for Harris?
Anyone want to explain to me why she’s wrong for voting for Harris?
She isn't. Harris should still change her position on Gaza.
I have yet to see anyone advocate that its wrong to vote for harris. Most people are advocating that its fine to vote third party.
Which is then followed by Democrats bitching and moaning that people are helping trump ny not supporting their shitty candidate. A group that apparently is so entitled they think they're owed that people should vote for their candidate because not trump.
🤷 Harris should be better. Im crossing my fingers she did the math correctly. But who knows
You are privileged or an accelerationist if you don't vote for Harris. Trump will cause massive damage to Gaza and America.
Wa wa wa. You wont vote for my candidate! Your x your y. Let me know when you learn how to apply contextual information to a situation. For everyone else: deep blue go 3rd, for red make the call based on your environment. For purple you probably want harris to win. Let your critters know what your doing and why.
To be clear, the DNC tried and succeeded in silencing her.
I mean, you are reading a Rolling Stone article written by her.
Not that I agree with the DNC's point of view here, but it's not like they cut out her tongue.
She's a Georgia State Representative. She should have been allowed to speak at the party she helps represent.
Getting an article out there and getting time on stage with the party that you are literally an elected representative of, are quite, quite different things. I watched interviews with Ruwa before and after this happened on Zeteo.
How this campaign has been run; it has show Arab and Muslim voters that they are second, maybe even third or fourth class members of the Democratic party.
They and all marginalized people are more the Eloi than actual humans to the DNC
I am interested to see how downballot elections are impacted. It will be interesting to see how pro-palestinian candidates that survived their primaries compare to the presidenial race.
Will they win where Kamala loses? Or vice versa, etc?
Rolling Stone - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Rolling Stone:
Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution. The publication's capsule reviews deserve less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. See also Rolling Stone (politics and society), 2011–present, Rolling Stone (Culture Council).
Wiki: unreliable - According to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 (inclusive), though it must be borne in mind that this date is an estimate and not a definitive cutoff, as the deterioration of journalistic practices happened gradually. Some editors have said that low-quality reporting also appeared in some preceding years, but a specific date after which the articles are considered generally unreliable has not been proposed. Previous consensus was that Rolling Stone was generally reliable for political and societal topics before 2011. Most editors say that Rolling Stone is a partisan source in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should be attributed. Moreover, medical or scientific claims should not be sourced to the publication.
Wiki: unreliable - There is unanimous consensus among editors that Culture Council articles (of URL form rollingstone.com/culture-council/*) are self-published sources and are, in most aspects, equivalent to Forbes and HuffPost contributors. Editors, however, have also expressed concern that at least some of the content published is promotional and thus not usable. Editors should thus determine on a case-by-case basis whether the opinions published there are independent and also if they constitute due weight. Usage of these sources for third-party claims in biographies of living persons as well as medical or scientific claims is not allowed.
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/ruwa-romman-harris-dnc-gaza-uncommitted-vote-1235144105/