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
It's looking more realistic. Twice now American voters have picked the absolute worse person imaginable over a woman.
The first time we can excuse with ignorance, but the second time around there was no excuse. We knew what he did the first round and he's doing it again for a second.
The only logical explanation I can find is there is a subsection of the population unwilling to vote for a woman.
Obviously yes each campaign had it's issue we can go into, but when you look at the opposition it's hard to find the logic
Fixed it for you. While I'd never go to such ridiculous lengths as to say that sexism isn't a serious systemic problem, that's not why Hillary and Kamala lost.
It wasn't that people aren't ready for a female president. It was that the vast majority of people to the left of fascism are more than ready for a president that listens to them more than to owner donors, strategists stuck in 1992, and other unrepresentative power brokers
Fixed it for you again.
Nobody except the aforementioned owner donors, strategists stuck in 1992, and other unrepresentative power brokers want "Republican mild" candidates with no substance except an almost religioud reverence for the broken system that has enabled them to fail upwards for decades.
Understatement of the decade.
Not really no. When you consider the following, it makes a sick sort of sense:
Republicans are many times more effective at messaging. This is mainly because they're much less likely to be constrained by such details as objective reality, ethics, and authenticity, but their propaganda is nonetheless MUCH more effective than the thrice-measured sound bytes of the Dem leadership.
In the vast majority of states, it's MUCH more difficult and time consuming to vote in the kinds of neighborhoods that skew more Blue and diverse than Red and filthy rich.
During covid, the number of absentee ballot dropoff points in the most populous county in Texas (Harris, almost 5 million) was decreased to ONE, all the while country clubs of a hundred members still had their own official polling station and even impoverished Red areas are typically rural so there's not many people per polling station
As a result of this, Dems NEED a candidate that's inspiring enough that even the most jaded will go way above and beyond the amount of effort it SHOULD take in order to vote for them.
Neither Hillary nor Kamala was anywhere close to being that candidate and they wouldn't have been if they were men either.
And before you go "but the man Biden won! Checkmate!", I'd like to remind you that he actually won the popular vote by a smaller margin than Hillary did, and that he did so during an active pandemic that the incumbent fascist had been failing to manage so spectacularly that anything other than a landslide victory would be extremely worrying for the future of the Dem party.
I love the argument that the Dems must run the ideal canidate to beat an 80 year old fascist. That the reason Americans picked hate isn't because they could possibly be prejudiced against women, but that they just don't like centrists and need to be more inspired to do anything.
I think the answer is plainly far too many Americans are too hateful.
Also love the "no you can't use the example of the male centrist winning because that would make my point bad", solid argument
Now credit where credit is due I do think a progressive canidate would have had a much better chance. I just also believe there are too many old, sexist, hateful Americans that will never vote for a woman. Hopefully they die out and that changes
You may, but that's not the argument I made. Please refrain from strawmen and other logical fallacies if you can.
Again with the strawmen. Misrepresenting my argument isn't a good way to bolster your own.
Sure, you'd think that if you willfully ignore all of the contributing factors I and others have ever mentioned beyond "fascists are just voluntarily bad for no reason other than being bad" 🙄
Again with the strawman. The male Centrist BARELY scraping by against the most hated incumbent in history SUPPORTS my argument.
You either have the reading comprehension of a toddler or the capacity for arguing in good faith of a Republican politician, so I'm not gonna waste any more time on your willfully obtuse ass. Have the day you deserve
I mean it is, but okay
So you want to explain the reasons to be a good fascist?
So you find "strawmen" (none were used btw) too offensive and disingenuous but you find the need to resort to an ad hominem.
Uh oh another ad hominem. This must be very upsetting!
Don't you worry I'm already on it. It's a rainy day with some chance of snow and I get to enjoy being about 4,000 miles away from the orange fascist. Don't worry I'll get a mail in ballot or vote early for midterms if the fascists don't dismantle our democracy by then. Otherwise I'll enjoy being an ocean away for the next couple of years