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
This is the type of republican endorsement Harris should be touting. His politics may be shit but at least he's got broad popularity across the aisle , unlike Cheney and the five delusional people who still think his opinion is worth considering.
I actually think the opposite shows more.
"The orange idiot calls me a communist, but even these pieces of shit are voting for me over him."
I think too many people are confusing am endorsement by a piece of shit and supporting that piece of shit, like Cheney's endorsement somehow will mean Harris agrees with him.
All it means is a massive turd is saying "Don't vote for the diaper full of massive fascsist turds".
Let it sink in:
Angela Davis - an avowed Marxist-Leninist- and Dick-fucking-Cheney both agree Kamala is the way to go.
How the hell is this election even close?
(And we can add Liz Cheney to that. She and her dad are both neo-con warmongers.)
Edit: any one have a good punchline to “Dick Cheney and Angela Davis walk into a bar….”?
It boggles the mind. I can't understand ~30% of the population apparently.
I don't know who she is but maybe something to do with getting (a) shot?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Davis
Oh I've heard of her actually, thanks for the link.
I understand the sentiment, but I think it's obvious why this election is close. Harris fucking sucks as a candidate. Apart of whether or not people should vote for her, she's a coward that refuses to take a stand (or even make promises) on literally anything while actively alienating two significant demographics in the swing states she needs to win and opting instead to get the five or so swing voters that exist in America to vote for her. If Trump was slightly more competent she'd have had no chance.
Could you provide anything to back up your claims?
I'm mostly making qualitative claims so I'm not sure what kind of evidence you're asking for.
Which demographics?
Muslims and young progressives (and young people in general, but mostly progressives).
I'm not American. Could you elaborate? Is this your personal experience as part of said demographic(s)? I understand if you don't wish to disclose that. I'm just curious as this election will affect me nonetheless.
Not American either, but the stats are clear that these two particular demographics are not okay with the current situation.
But — but surely they recognise Trump supports them even less? Apathy overpowering self-preservation is exactly what they want.
It's a bit of a lose-lose situation. Vote and you tell the democrats that you're fine with the bullshit they've been up to the last four years, including nominating a candidate without a primary. Don't vote and, well, you get Trump. Now logically it might make more sense to vote anyway, but these things don't follow logic except very roughly.