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
Uh, they're definitely supporting Harris. Liz Cheney is out there appearing at events trying to get her elected. That's a hell of a lot more than Duke is doing. This claim is just expanding the mental gymnastics in a new direction.
You still haven't addressed how Biden's foreign policy and Harris's presumed foreign policy (due to her unwillingness to create daylight) isn't a part of her platform aligned with the Cheneys. Dick Cheney's defining political interest was foreign policy, specifically one that bombs Arabs for geopolitical gain, and it just happens to be pretty compatible with what's going on right now. If her platform was that neocons were war criminals and should be tried at the Hague they might have been a little less likely to get on board.
David Duke, who said he doesn't agree with Stein on most issues and was actually rejected by the Stein campaign, is somehow an all-in representative supporter, but Liz Cheney, who also said she doesn't agree with Harris on most issues but was embraced by the campaign and is literally campaigning for it, isn't. Hell, Duke's endorsement, if anything, is likely to work against the supposed shared goal of electing fascists. He could have just endorsed Trump, the fascist who most of his racist followers would have naturally supported.
Their endorsements are both self-interested with a limited overlap on platform, but one counts because you want it to. And by every possible measure the Cheney endorsements is getting more acknowledgement and encouragement from the campaign. Either bad people endorsing a campaign is in itself a mark against the campaign or it isn't. You're trying to figuyre out some complex logical structure that permits one and not the other but it's nonsensical, especially since one set of the bad people was embraced by the campaign and it wasn't the one your end goal demands.
I think I understand why you’re not getting this. You simply can’t understand that under FPTP, the only way to vehemently deny one candidate and to keep them out of office is to ‘support’ the other, even if you don’t agree with them. When one candidate will destroy democracy and usher in an autocracy, if you actually care about having a choice in the future, the only effective solution is to support an opposition that will not destroy everything.
This is not the topic of conversation, and I’ve already given you enough of my time. Google exists., and I’m not your polisci professor. You can look the rest up for yourself.
I think they know. I just want this election to be over so this plague is gone from this site.
Oh, don't you worry. No matter what happens, there'll always be something for them to bitch about.
Oh my god, what a mind numbingly stupid lesson from someone stubbornly refusing to answer the question that blows their whole argument up. I'm not even sure why you would think my question, a question to you personally, would be answerable by either a polisci professor or Google. It's just a nonsensical response by someone who knows they don't have an answer and simply wants to avoid acknowledging their hypocrisy.
None of this is about who I want to win or whether I think Stein is a responsible and sincere political candidate (she isn't), it's about your hypocritical assertion that bad endorsements only sometimes reflect on candidates.