this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2024
4 points (51.5% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2607 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (12 children)

Its like you are allergic to the plain understanding that how you present this case, is just fucking wrong. No matter how much you wish it was that there were only two choices in this race, thats just not true. You drank the kool-aid. We get it. You see no other options. Other people do. Other people in the world see things differently than you, and clearly, Rashida Tlaib is one of them.

Voters don't have to vote. You can vote green, or blue, or red or purple. Or you can write in some other name. You can't force your opinion on the world when your opinion doesn't match objective reality.

This fantastic world you've locked yourself in, its not the real world. Its an opinion that you have (which is fine), but which is not the same as the objective reality, because people actually can (and should, my opinion) vote however they please.

Both sides are NOT the same, one is CLEARLY better than the other for you and everyone else.

I don't disagree, but you @jordanlund@lemmy.world , are going to have to take responsibility for the fact that this rhetorical approach you are using has done more damage to Harris' chances than it has convinced anyone that they need to vote Democrat. Its a view point that has been cultivated, selected for across lemmy which is toxic, not based in reality, and counter productive to the actual goals you suppose to have. Everyone that thinks the way you do has been convinced. Now what are you going to do about the people who don't think the way you do? How are you going to get the voters for whom a genocide is unacceptable? Its too late at this point, but what I'm showing you is how this this toxic culture divided the party and its ability

Blue MAGA/ Blue no matter who; they were always going to vote Democrat. You don't need to work on them. They're just followers and setting your rhetoric up to convince them is a waste of time, because you've already got their votes. Its the people for whom certain issues are a bridge too far that need to be convinced. And when you offer an argument that "they have no choice but to do what you want them to", do you think that is going to convince them. When you abuse them and gaslight them, how convincing do you think they'll find that?

I'm of the opinion that you can't ask a Palestinian or Muslim voter to vote Democrat this year, since Democrats don't even see them as people. They wouldn't even allow a Muslim 3 minutes on stage to make the case to other Muslims why they should vote for Harris. What Tlaib is doing here is probably the right move politically if she wants to hold her seat. Her job is to represent her constituents, not the party, and if she thinks this is the right thing to do, I support her in that.

My argument, is that Democrats have left a lane wide open, and from a purely strategic/ cynical view of things, it would be stupid for some-one/ anyone to not just hop in and take that lane. I think we see Talib, Omar, maybe Porter, any other progressives who’ve been ratfucked by the DNC/ DCCC take that lane as independents. Its a blue ocean/ wide open opportunity that rarely shows itself in politics.

If the Democrats are going to keep heading to the right like Harris has, I expect more progressive Independents to start appearing, striking back to the approach that Bernie Sanders used to great effect in the senate over his tenure.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

There are only two choices WHO CAN WIN.

Stein can't win, the Greens don't have the power and have NEVER had the power. Their best shot was Nader with name recognition and he couldn't crack 3%.

Without Nader the very best they have done was 1.07% in 2016. Other than that? Sub 1% over, and over.

The Libertarian candidate could have pulled it out if disaffected Republicans had become Libertarians instead of Independents. Pro-Tip - they have not.

Kennedy's out.

The idiot socialist isn't even on the ballot in enough states to win.

West is on the ballot in fewer states than that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access_in_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election

I agree, I'd love for our system to have multiple VIABLE parties, but we don't. Your choice is the Democratic or Republican candidate, full stop.

If you want to change that, you aren't going to do it by voting for fringe candidates who will get 1% of the vote or less.

The correct way to change it is to pass ranked choice balloting. If you have a chance to support that (we did, on our ballot!) then go for it!

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)

There are only two choices WHO CAN WIN.

It's clear from this sentence alone that you are completely ignoring the comment to which you are responding.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 2 weeks ago

You have no idea how relatable this is. This community has gone feral these past two weeks.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)