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
You're asking candidates to compete for a job. Why are you surprised when they take actions consistent with their best interests. I don't think Schiff did anything inappropriate. Schiff mentioned Garvey to raise his profile because he's easier to defeat.
This isn't like Nixon contacting South Vietnam while he was a presidential candidate and telling them to not make peace because he wanted the war as an issue. That directly led to the deaths of thousands of Americans.
Assuming you preferred Katie Porter, what did you do to ensure she'd be the candidate?
Because they're running for a job where they should have the public interests first.
Just because America is a shitty corporate hellhole doesn't mean we can't be disappointed when politicians fail to live up to a reasonable standard.
Yes, in the job they should have the public interest first. But he's competing to get the job, he can't work in the public interest unless he's elected.
I'm not sure what your standard even is? How can a candidate act in the public interest? They put forward their platform and the people decide. That's what happened. Should he not run because you don't think his policies are best for the public? Isn't that what voting is for?
Adam Schiff spent money propping up an RNC candidate to torpedo a fellow Democrat. This isn't about him putting forward a platform, this is about him sabotaging a legitimate threat and making it more likely that a republican wins the seat - do you think his genuine interpretation is that a republican should take the seat?
Do you actually have evidence that Schiff propped up his republican rival?
Edit - looked up these claims. The claim is that he propped up a republican by running attack ads against him. That's an absurd basis to demonize Schiff for. Should he have attacked Porter instead? Dem voters definitely would not appreciate in fighting right now, when we have literal nazis to rally against.
This just sounds like more baiting to trick Progressives into grandstanding against the Dem candidate.
Yup, it's pretty well known that Schiff used part of his ad spend to promote Garvey's name recognition.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-03-06/california-senate-primary-schiff-help-garvey-column
Sorry, see my edit above. Looked it up myself
So he spent money to win an election. That's pretty normal.
Agreed. Most campaigning isn't about simply stating a platform.
Sabotage? That's an overstatement, if not a complete falsehood. He raised the profile of the Republican in an open primary, knowing Katie Porter had less support amongst Democrats.
From 0% to .005%? How reasonable is it that any Republican wins this seat, let alone this specific Republican.
I think he realizes that this is the best chance for him to win the election. Winning being the purpose of an election, he's acted as any reasonable person would.
You have still failed to state your standard, and how someone trying to win an election within the bounds of all applicable rules falls short of that standard.
Shouldn't even really call it a job, it's not, it's public service. To serve the betterment of the people.