Wow! I can't believe she didn't intentionally make the obviously worse choice. Unironically. This is entirely new territory as a democratic voter!
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)
politics
19098 readers
3334 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I genuinely did not see that coming. I feel strange.
It's hope. You're feeling hope. Kind of tingles, right?
It's actually scary at this point
I see it as purposeful messaging that they're willing to change and be more progressive, if that's what we want. Now we need to prove them right and get out to the polls.
To be fair though, democrats don’t have a problem getting out to the polls, especially for national elections. No Republican has won the popular vote for 20 years; the only Republican wins in this time were based on technicalities.
I think what we’ll see in November is the same high voting numbers, but a much different demographics pivoting the central block from old centrists to younger progressives.
20 years
But Bush did it ... in 2004. Fuck, has it be 20 years already?
That’s the last legit Republican National win. He only won the popular vote in 2004 due to 9/11. He lost the popular vote in 2000 and won by Supreme Court decision.
These fuckers HAVE to cheat to win.
That was also a colossal violation of the Constitution, because of probability and statistics.
I was too young to understand at the time, but I read that the conservative justices blocked the recount citing concern that the batch of uncounted votes might indicate an attempt by Democrats to steal the election.
But we can easily show that the uncounted batch was too small to change anything. Consider that, even if every single uncounted vote went to Gore, the resulting variance would still reside well within a statistical margin of error for that sample.
In other words, that election was the US’ first true tie in a presidential election since 1800. By the constitution it should have triggered a contingent election, which is the business of the legislative branch, NOT judicial.
I hoped that Biden dropping out heralded a tipping point away from the arrogant, conservative old guard that was stifling progress and toward a more progressive future.
I'm more hopeful still. I missed hope.
It funny how Harris is touted as a change from the old running for president. She’ll be an OAP at the end of her first term.
Do Americans retire at 63?
retire?
Oh hot damn I'm so relieved. I was pretty worried she'd go with Shapiro, and then have a solid argument against her based on his service in the Israeli military. After seeing multiple people on lemmy say "They shouldn't choose Tim Walz.... we want to keep him for our selves", that seemed like a solid endorsement by his constituents. Then Bernie endorsed the guy, so I feel pretty damn good about this selection if it proves to be true.
Shapiro's position on Isreal isn't any different than any of the other candidates.
Nope, but serving in the IDF, and having some vocal opinions on the campus protests in favor of Palestine is just the thing Harris doesn't need to be saddled with.
Walz is a low risk, medium reward pick. Shapiro is reverse. Can't win the Presidency without Pennsylvania. I think the jabber that the far left came up with regarding Shapiro is shameful and embarrassing, but the choice is made and it's time to move forward.
Yeah, but you celebrate the genocide. I know you post a lot so the arguments between us from months ago will be far back in the history, but there is nothing surprising about someone who justifies genocide siding with the candidate who served in the military that is currently committing genocide.
I'm not siding with any candidate. I don't care who the democratic VP candidate is. Try again.
I don't need to try again, but when you post seemingly innocuous opinions that tangentially touch on your support for genocide without referencing it, and I see it, I will post so that others will know that they are interacting with something posted by someone that supports genocide.
Yeah, it is.
If there is a difference you should explain it.
I'd spend more time on a response to someone that doesn't make bad faith arguments and supports genocide.
For you, though? No.