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
Whereas I will take the guy who is 81 over the treasonous rapist wannabe dictator who has 91 felony counts.
In fact, all of that other stuff comes before the felony counts.
Not sure why it doesn't for Swalwell.
Because it was another number. No need to be obtuse.
I can honestly say I have no idea what you're talking about.
The "81 vs 91" thing makes for a snappier soundbite. It doesn't mean that the other things don't matter, just that there was a catchier way to mention the felony counts
I would suggest "I would vote for the guy who's 81 over the rapist treasonous wannabe dictator" would be a better soundbite.
I can't help but assume you don't work in politics and have zero experience with this
That is true. Do you?
I would have thought him being a rapist and wanting to be a dictator would be better reasons to convince people not to vote for him.
Do you think this one sentence was the only opportunity every Democrat had to talk about this?
I think Democrats are not talking about Trump being a rapist very much and not talking about how he wants to be a dictator enough. And instead are going for what they think are pithy soundbites.
"Don't vote for the rapist" seems like a pretty good sell to me.
Are they talking about the genocide enough or is that one of the topics you'd like to sweep under the rug?
Sounds like you've already decided I support Israel, so I doubt anything I say about that would change your mind.
But do feel free to support that decision with evidence.
If you're supporting Biden, you're supporting Israel. Do I need to explain how that train of thought works?
Please tell me which candidate that has a chance of winning that I should vote for in order to keep the traitor rapist wannabe dictator out of office. I'll consider voting for them. Because I don't like genocide either. And I don't want to see my queer daughter being part of the Republican genocide they dream about.
I'm not here to help you morally justify your vote. You'll have to live with your choice for the rest of your life.
Surely you have other options besides genocide abroad and genocide domestic.
Again, please name the candidate that has a chance of winning.
I guess it's time to rise up and say no more genocide.
That's not a name. How am I supposed to know who to vote for if it shouldn't be Trump or Biden if you can't even give me a name?
Genocide it is then.
So because you can't give me a name for who to vote for, I support genocide?
It sounds like you're saying I will support genocide no matter who I vote for.
So should I just not vote?
I would be more upset with my government than holding my nose and voting. But I'm pretty far left. You do what you have to do to sleep soundly at night.
Maybe if you told me what I should be doing, I could do it. You just keep berating me instead. I mean from what I can tell, no matter what I say or do, you'll accuse me of supporting genocide. No matter who I vote for or whether I vote at all, I support genocide. I apparently support genocide because I exist.
Anything other than organizing against your government is supporting a genocide I'm afraid. Protest, riot, demand change.
Please present your evidence that I have done none of these things. You must have evidence, right? Since I definitely support genocide?
solidarity
Could you be a little more specific?
Because "either you support genocide by existing or solidarity" doesn't really make much sense to me.
i was expressing solidarity with nudding.
Solidarity with their implication that I support genocide by existing?
solidarity with the sentiment that we need to organize, protest, riot, and demand change.
Well you sure as hell could have been more clear about that.
i wasn't talking to you.
Perhaps the zeitgeist of a large swath American voting public is opaque and inscrutable to you then. But that's not a bad thing. Sympatico with those views could be far worse.
But you're debating the catchiness of a phrase. There might be nobler fights out there to choose. Is it not enough that the rep in question is speaking out against a wannabe dictator? Or are we going to split into factions concerned with the degree of condemnation and the minutiae of what words he used to condemn him with?
Yes, well, someone thought differently about how they would answer. Certainly there's room for that?
I don't have an issue with what you posted outside of the small chance that it's an unnecessary purity test. I don't think that's your goal but what do I know
There is indeed. Is there also not room for my suggesting a different answer might be better?
Edit: Apparently multiple people think I don't deserve to give my opinion. Should I delete my initial post?
no.