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
What is this? Harris said that she didn't disagree with what Biden had "done," so she must agree and plan to implement everything that Biden was even thinking or hinting at, or at least what you personally thought Biden was thinking or hinting at?
I don't think that has any reasoning in it. I'm not sure it counts as an argument.
Harris appearing completely uncritical of Biden's administration and doing almost nothing to put forward her own policies or priorities does imply she liked what was happening and wanted to keep doing it. I'm not pulling rabbits out of a hat here: this was a criticism consistently levied during the campaign and discussed in the autopsy report that the DNC reluctantly put out. I cherry picked one quote as an example out of a whole article discussing missteps the campaign made. I even included the link so you could see the context, including the part where Harris seems to realize she made an error with that quote.
But I appreciate the unduly condescending tone. It really makes this place feel like Reddit.
The problem is that the argument requires taking sweeping generalizations and trying to make a specific conclusion. Even if people are 98% the same, they are still 2% different, and so you can't just say, "Well, they're similar, so I'm sure that they have the same views even in the most extreme issues."
This is a stunning admission. You're previously claiming that Harris will do all the same things that you imagined Biden might do, and now you're saying that she claimed the quote you used to prove it was an error.
So, you have no argument at all.
I was condescending towards the argument, not you, because the argument really was that worthless. I felt embarrassed responding to something so obviously empty and wrong. Since I have made the point and now you seem to be making it personal by attacking me, I'm done here. Adios.