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
In 2016 Trump was an untested leader and Republicans had been spewing propaganda against Hillary for two decades.
While nothing is certain, I'm cautiously optimistic that things will turn out differently this time.
I'm hopeful, too, but I would rather Trump be in prison than be the Republican nominee, even if it means Harris faces a "tougher" opponent.
That would be nice. I'd like to see the electoral college get unscrewed first though.
The last two presidents who took office after losing the popular vote were unmitigated disasters.
The best chance to unscrew the electoral college is the interstate national vote pact. It's close, but there aren't enough blue states left to pass it. So it's unlikely, but more likely than a constitutional amendment.
Not to mention 8 years of resentment from people who watched the '08 primaries, and she decided to top up the resentment in the '16 primaries.
Harris isn't going out of her way to piss off the left like Clinton did. And she has the sense to campaign in swing states.
Same propaganda.
Your resentment comes from a primary process and series of candidates that isn’t really any different from any primary that occurred in the last half century.
Yet you are specifically wounded from that one?
The divisive propaganda spewed in that election was also about Hillary controlling the DNC as much as she controlled a pedo ring.
They wanted to sow division within as well and I hate to break it to you but it’s not like this story hinges on Hillary and her presence…
Clinton's cult is completely incapable of even thinking that she was capable of earning the loss she earned.
You assign a “cult” why?
Obama once said his campaign needed a billion dollars to win the presidency. No one thought twice in that statement.
So she has a cult? Why?
You're readin' more into my comment than I said. Go back and try again after ditching your assumptions.
Or maybe answer the question rather than assigning assumptions to me.
Cult why?
Read my initial comment without your hackles up. Then read how you responded. That's part of it.
But if you would like another example to dismiss in bad faith, consider PUMA PAC. Clinton's supporters were so upset that she lost the '08 primaries that they formed a PAC to get McCain elected out of spite.
Ok full stop…
“Hackles” is awesome. I’m gonna dig into hackles… sorry it’s mine now…
But really you complain that a PAC was formed?
Like given the Supreme Court decisions would you prefer dems not make pacs and just fold?
What’s the alternative? Dems make a PAC and become evil or the Supreme Court rules pacs rule and you now post how dems rolled over and did nothing?
They formed a PAC with the express purpose of electing McCain.
And yes, use hackles all you want. I'd love to see it enter common usage.
Electing McCain you say? Not splitting the vote, not playing the field.
Certainly they should practically ask Republicans to use those same tools… they should instead do nothing and take the “high ground” as you so graciously allow for dems to do… right?
Let me know if you decide to write coherently again.
Man coherence would mean double for your political leanings. This shit is getting old (not us).
Or don't, I guess.
Or not! Cause you don’t need to make sense. You just need to make a random sentence. But by all means tell the world how they don’t make sense.
Again coherence is a bridge too far for you. So by all means project away.
You're angry.
I have heard stuff like this so often, and I feel like it’s as silly and callous to say now as it was 8 years ago. The part of the Democrat base that chose time and time again to keep denigrating “Bernie Bros” absolutely own the consequences of their behavior at the time.
In a moment where part of the coalition has doubts, historic precedent isn’t relevant. What is relevant is the work to answer those doubts and that did not happen. Instead the infighting continued and the doubts were ignored. Smug headline after smug headline told potential Hillary voters to shut up and fall in line. But Democrats don’t really fall in line like that.
It doesn’t really matter if other primaries went the same way, because other primaries have also produced failed coalitions. Some are examples of success, some failure. You learn from both. In 2016 we saw infighting and discord dissolve enthusiasm, a crucial part of what gets Democrats to the polls. It’s my feeling that ignoring that is a bad idea.
Who sowed those “doubts”?
If you’re implying that they were deliberately sown doubts, I very much agree. I’m not saying a bunch of folks didn’t get duped. I think it was very much to blame on agents provocateur.
What I’m saying is that the acrimony can’t be waved away, not then and not now. It has to be taken seriously even if it was the result of manipulation. Saying “nah you got suckered” gets exactly the kind of lukewarm response it deserves.
There were seeds which def helped the bullshit grow.
That doesn’t mean you should encourage or embrace that growth. If you do you’re embracing shit.
Whatever bogeyman you've decided to blame because you can't take the idea that Clinton fucked up.
Oh hell no… she did fuck up.
But not because you think she somehow supermanned the DNC.
I'm surprised you can admit she's less than perfection incarnate.
Now where did I say that? I said that her actions during the '08 and '16 primaries caused resentment.