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.
- 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.
- 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
Your argument here might hold some weight if it weren't for the fact that the only reason this conversation is even happening is that the presumptive Democratic candidate just voluntary withdrew from the race when it became clear that he couldn't win. The last guy staged a fucking coup after he lost.
How many months did you just spend bitching and moaning about how anyone would be better than Joe? Now you have anyone else and you're still salty about it. I wonder how you could make it any more transparent that your goal is just to discourage people from voting.
Since you seem willing to engage in discourse about this, I feel similarly to the person you replied to and can explain my position. I don't want to discourage anyone from voting, I have two goals:
I'm guessing we agree on #1 and disagree on the premise of #2. I see #2 as a systemic pattern that really launched after the 2008 primaries when Obama disrupted the plan to place Hillary in the White House. It came to a head in 2016 and has been rippling ever since.
I never believed Joe should have run again in the first place, and in the last month it became clear that him running was detrimental to #1. So we push for him to step aside, while I still think he shouldn't have run in the first place. He steps down, and you feel satisfied because goal #1 is protected. But I'm deeply unsettled by the damage that has been done to #2. The Democrats just figured out how to skip the voice of the people entirely.
The last time this happened (1968 primaries, eerily similar) the Democrats launched a committee to reform the primary process into what it is today. A big improvement over what it was before, but Biden just revealed a significant weakness in it.
I'm happy to vote for Harris to fulfill #1, I'm thrilled that there was a surge in registrations. But if the Democrats don't address the critical problem of this process we all just witnessed, I fear #2 becomes unreachable. The Democrats are our only hope of saving our democracy, so if they abandon democracy within their party (like I have seen happening over the last 16 years), it's a hollow victory.
THANK YOU. It's fucking insane seeing people claim "well uhhh nobody ever complained about this before! maybe you should've complained about this before, maybe then things would've changed!" just because republicans decided to adopt it as a talking point since they're scrambling to come up with a new strategy and their plans have gone to shit. It's partisan brainworms of the highest order. I guess it's not surprising that they haven't heard these complaints or noticed these trends when they all only become fixated on keeping the pendulum republican candidate out for 6 months out of every four years at most and then completely go back to sleep for the rest of the time.
God, these people are so fucking intolerant of any criticism of their party, it's absurd. I really tried to engage in an honest discourse and the person reverted straight back to petty sexist bullshit and nonsequitors, ignoring what I said entirely.
It's such an embodiment of the out-of-touch Democratic party and how they can't possibly fathom any other point of view.
Are you really this butthurt that I calmly disagreed with you? I guess it's my own fault for actually believing you when you said you wanted an honest discussion.
Calmly? You invoked a sexist term and then when I called you out on it you called me "triggered" and now "butthurt." It's very clear what kind of person you are now, and it's not the even-tempered tolerant person you like to paint yourself to be.
I do want an honest discussion, my first comment was very respectful of our differences of opinion. You then immediately brought in bigotry-charged name-calling to the thread.
Being a bigot "calmly" isn't something anyone should ever tolerate.