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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
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 are going for a degree in education, and you can’t understand how if Harris is higher in the polls, that a vote for somebody else is taking a vote away from her? You plan to teach individuals but can’t understand how if person is higher in the polls that if you vote for somebody who is lower in the polls, you’re taking votes from the person higher in the polls?
I mean technically a vote for anybody else is taking a vote away from somebody else, But I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of people would not see it your way.
You seem to be implying some light mockery of my degree, yet it seems you missed the nuance of my comment, which was actually turning the same logic people use against third-party voters back on them.
The point is to show how absurd it sounds when you reverse the argument. You say voting for anyone else is taking votes from Harris, but by that logic, wouldn’t voting for Harris be stealing votes from candidates who represent real change?
I understand how polls work, but I also understand that we’re allowed to vote based on who we actually believe in, not just who’s leading in the polls. It’s the classic "vote for the lesser of two evils" mentality, and I’m challenging that by showing how it leads to more of the same.
Better?
I ran an experiment: I only posted the facts without the reasoning. They're not stupid. They reasoned it out quickly. But, the conclusions disturbed their comfort. It's comfort they value most. Truth and justice be damned.
If you find one engaging IRL then investment there is a much, much better ROI for our future. All we can do here, in this format, is sow the seeds of doubt.