this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2024
189 points (86.2% liked)

politics

19097 readers
4206 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 45 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Except if you read the editorial he wrote, he’s mainly critiquing Arafat and the PLO. He literally says he supports peace but doesn’t think it’s realistic (edit: and closes the article by saying that he hopes he’s proved wrong). He also mentions how Israel won’t relinquish sufficient land to Palestine for peace to be made.

There are many legitimate criticisms of Shapiro (your first link, for example, as well as his flip-flopping on school vouchers), but claiming he’s significantly more pro-Israel than any of the other candidates is misleading. I’m not aware of any other candidates who called Netanyahu the “biggest barrier” to Middle East peace.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

But is the average voter going to actually read his editorial and form their own opinion? Or will they get swayed by loose quotes and bad optics?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

Good point. But then we shouldn’t be pushing those quotes imo

[–] [email protected] 44 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Either way, Waltz is probably better as a VP pick anyway.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, but progressives are a wing, not a core. If you want us to become the core, we need to convince people of the importance of simple progressive policies, and how they can benefit people out in their day-to-day life. Not just assume we already are something we're not.

This is especially important these days, when so many independents are fleeing Trump, and applying pressure to the dem party to move closer to the center to court them. We need to convince some of them to become more of us, increasing our numbers.

Then we actually will be core. We can't just lie about the dem voters not leaning more neo-lib than progressive, though, that accomplishes nothing.

What is the top issue among dem voters this cycle? It isn't Gaza or the climate, it's the economy. Again. 63% of dem voters said it's the top priority as of Feb. That's a majority, a core, and not a particularly progressive position.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/02/29/americans-top-policy-priority-for-2024-strengthening-the-economy/

They're just people, though, they can be convinced of the primary importance of sustainability.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What is the top issue among dem voters this cycle? It isn’t Gaza or the climate, it’s the economy. Again. 63% of dem voters said it’s the top priority as of Feb. That’s a majority, a core, and not a particularly progressive position.

Since when is the economy not a progressive issue? IMO the primary failing of the Democratic Party has been its utter refusal (probably due to the influence of corporate donors) to apply any progressive solutions to economic issues.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 months ago

Shapiro is an argument to sacrifice MI and WI for PA, and it doesn't even come close to guaranteeing PA.

You have no path to the white house with our MI and WI.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

On Wednesday, he continued his sentiment noting that protesting is a right that should be protected, but that a Jewish-owned business should not be held responsible for the actions of the Israeli government.

That’s from their linked article about how he tried to stifle free speech by condemning protestors. Yet the article says he said they should protest elsewhere and not attack Jewish businesses.

These articles critiquing him on Israel always seem to omit that Shapiro has called Netanyahu the “biggest barrier” to peace in the Middle East. They also omit that his college editorial focuses on his personal views on Arafat. Even though he opines that both sides should set aside their differences for peace, the point of that article is that he doesn’t think it’ll happen.

The article goes on to say he made “a false equivalence between criticism of Israel and antisemitism.” Again, he literally said they should protest not in front of businesses, as well as one other comment where he said the encampments were unsafe.

I also think it’s laughable that these same people continue to hold up Walz as some sort of example of perfection. He has refused to engage with the BDS movement and actively engaged with AIPAC (more than Shapiro has, from my understanding). He even stated “Israel is our truest and closest ally in the region, with a commitment to values of personal freedoms and liberties, surrounded by a pretty tough neighborhood.” The only thing he’s done that is remotely in support of Palestine is to say that Democrats shouldn’t ignore the uncommitted activists if they want to win. That’s a logical statement about the math behind winning an election, not a support of Palestine.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I gotta say, I didn't know much about Shapiro before this so started, and frankly I still don't.

But nothing is more suspicious than seeing someone go from limited mention to being called a zionist constantly, 0 to 100 like I've seen with Shapiro.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

But nothing is more suspicious than seeing someone go from limited mention to being called a zionist constantly

I think that’s a pretty natural consequence of:

  1. Reports that he is the front-runner to be Harris’s vice-presidential pick (which pretty naturally takes someone from “who?” to the topic of national discussion); and

  2. The Philadelphia Inquirer digging up an old op-ed where he says that the Palestinians are incapable of governing themselves.

I’m going to skip over everything else that has been reported about that op-ed and focus on that one line. Because that is bonkers.

I do believe people’s political opinions can change, and that’s why I’ll forgive most of the op-ed (my opinions have certainly changed since I was 20, and I’m not much younger than Shapiro). But that one line speaks to a bigoted, colonialist mindset that would have been more at home in the 1860s than the 1990s.

I honestly think it’s disqualifying. For someone to think like that at age 20 points to such a lack of empathy, it’s probably the sign of a sociopathic personality.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Makes zero difference for me. I'll vote for Harris no matter who the Vice is.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 months ago (5 children)

Then you are not the target audience for a vp pick.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Correct. But each potential VP has it's advantages and disadvantages. It's utterly impossible to predict which one will gain and lose more. It's like timing the markets. Can't be done. At the end of the day, Harris is at the top going up against Trump, and that will be the deciding factor.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We made sure that he hasn't fucked any furniture, right?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

Only when he's standing very, very, very still.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (5 children)

There is one functional question for a VP pick. Can they give me the state I need?

And Pennsylvania is it folks. Georgia is nice, but not a dependable thing. From the Campaign's POV, if Shapiro can secure Pennsylvania and he doesn't have a literal serial killer body dump in his backyard, they're going to smash that button.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (12 children)

A) It's not a given that Shapiro will deliver PA. B) Even if he does, he makes Michigan a loss. C) Bad VP picks lower enthusiasm. Hillary chose to ignore the progressive voters that were energized by Bernie's campaign and instead picked boring centrist Tim Kaine. It turned out to he a bad strategy, even if it did deliver Virginia.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (6 children)

we had this discussion when people said Biden dropping out would mean certain defeat. people are severely underestimating the danger of depressing voter turnout countrywide. this is not much of an issue for the GOP but for Dems it's their main antagonist.

i think they're going to take PA anyway. it's not worth risking losing on other states showing that there's nothing new and everything is actually the same as the democrats you always hated for never listening. Biden dropping out was the first time this image has cracked, mending it right back would be a liability; falling into the Hillary trap there imo.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (4 children)

This isn’t how it works anymore; it hasn’t been for like 24 years. There is near-zero home-state advantage in 2024.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

Good news lol

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How can it be anyone other than the astronaut?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Probably because of the electoral college. There's reason to believe she is going to choose a governor as her VP pick, which would exclude Mark Kelly.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Not an issue

load more comments
view more: next ›