this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
555 points (95.3% liked)

politics

19240 readers
2626 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jonne@infosec.pub -3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Harris has her own share of problematic endorsements (Cheney, Gonzalez,...). Sure, they're not explicitly racist, 'just' war criminals, but she accepted them and is actually bragging about getting them.

[–] WrenFeathers@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Right. Because Harris needs the support to keep a criminally charged rapist from being a dictator for a day and calling the military against his own people. Having the support of a Republican in this environment is a pretty big deal. That is reaching FAR across the aisle in an almost unheard of show of support- and it sends a message of solidarity against a fascist.

Having a dirt bag irrelevant racist support a sketchy spoiler candidate?

Well, that’s just damn easy to “deny,” isn’t it? I mean… there’s no downside. And it sure looks good to the press to turn him down, doesn’t it? But then again, it doesn’t look good to have him up her ass to begin with…

[–] jonne@infosec.pub -4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why can't she reach far to the left to get their support instead? If potential Jill Stein voters can lose her the election, she could see what those people care about and reach out to them?

They would've probably been fine with a stop on sending offensive weapons while keeping iron dome stocked or something like that.

Instead they're trying to find the mythical voter that gives a shit about what Dick Cheney thinks.

[–] WrenFeathers@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Because sadly, FAR more people seem to give a shit about what Cheney says than there are those that seem to give a shit about what Stein says. And not only that, but I’d wager that no matter what she does- a large percentage of the far left and socialists probably aren’t going to vote for Harris anyway. Even if Stein endorsed her.

(Remember a guy named Bernie back in 2016? Yeah. A lot of the “Bros” voted for Trump to spite the DNC)

Their minds are made up and are locked in every bit as tight as their folded arms are.

And I’d wager that she is ACUTELY aware of this. Between her, and all of her advisers- do you think there is no one that understands what she must do to get the votes she needs? Do you seriously think she hasn’t thought of courting the far left vote? She’s not an idiot.

She knows the far left exists.

And she knows many of them have a track record of not showing up regardless. Over 100,000,000 people didn’t vote in 2016. And we got trump- with warning signs of what he would do.

We don’t have warning signs now. We know EXACTLY what he will do, and the far left are all holding their vote hostage over shit many of them didn’t even care about a year ago.

So I’m sorry, but their demands are going to fall on willfully deaf ears. The far left vote is not something Harris is going to risk losing an election over. And historically, candidates that lean too far left…

Lose.

And now, at this point, I’m going to say that we’re far too late in the game for me to care about how you feel about this. This is what it is. This is where we are. You can help us keep America breathing by voting for the one person that has a chance to win, or you can pull the plug because of a single-issue that most of you don’t even really understand.

Either way. Someone is getting elected. Whether you like it or not- with or without your help.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

So if you think you can win without trying to court their votes, why the vitriol?

Also: https://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/election_scorecard/2007/10/sour_grapes.html 20% of Clinton supporters ended up voting for McCain, the number for Sanders voters is 10%. Sanders did everything to make sure Clinton won, and he still got blamed for her terrible campaign losing.

[–] WrenFeathers@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It’s not vitriol from the democrats, It’s ridicule.

And about your link there,

  1. It didn’t account for the amount of people (1,000,000) that didn’t vote at all- IE: protest votes.
  2. It didn’t account for Irrelevant Stein votes.

And:

1 in 10 Bernie Bros voted for Trump.

The Bros helped trump

So just stop it already. It’s too late to bother with this. If you’re not voting, that’s your right. But please stand aside and stop interfering with those that are.

[–] LifeGivesYouLemmys@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

bragging about getting them.

What a disgusting and willful disingenuous pile of horse shit.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] LifeGivesYouLemmys@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't need to watch anything to know that what you're implying isn't reality

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's literally a video by a pro-Democrat channel of Harris promoting the endorsements.

[–] LifeGivesYouLemmys@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago

You two want to imply she actually wants to be associated with that bastard, whereas clearly she's saying even that monster thinks Trump is worse. It's obvious that's what it means and you fucking know it. But for your agenda you're willing to pretend she is pRoUd of it. I won't get sucked into a thing with you so don't bother writing a bunch of crap arguing how fucking proud she is