this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2024
-143 points (9.1% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2165 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

It was not a mistake. A mistake would be flailing around right now, unsure who the candidate would even be while everyone trash talks their non-preferred candidates to show Trump what attacks will stick. A mistake would be to skip over the black woman presumptive nominee and risk alienating a critical voting block that Trump has been courting with some limited success.

There was no other possible good option in this case. And the proof is in the pudding. Kamala is going gangbusters.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works -4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

There was no other possible good option in this case. And the proof is in the pudding. Kamala is going gangbusters.

It is bizarre that you think Harris was literally the only option.

[–] USSMojave@startrek.website 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works -4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's because nobody wanted to step up after Biden endorsed Harris on the way out - that is a fucking bad thing that's unhealthy for our party... and it doesn't mean some potentially excellent choices weren't ready to jump in the ring.

[–] USSMojave@startrek.website 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If Democrats agreed with you, then we wouldn't be seeing the dramatic polling swings towards Kamala's favor nationwide

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why is that? I'm not saying that Harris is a bad candidate, only that it's bizarre to say she is the only possible person who could have been our candidate. She was the safe bet after Biden started waning but there were plenty of legitimate contenders and alternatives.

[–] USSMojave@startrek.website 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works -2 points 3 months ago

There are more than 300 million Americans - people who come to mind are: Whitmer, Waltz, Whitehouse, Buttigieg, Warren, AOC, Newsom and dozens of others. Some of those are better than others, but they were all reasonable choices.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago

Yes, I literally do. And I explained why. And I said it well before Biden even stepped down.