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
I don't know what you mean by this. Progressives just need people to vote. The higher the voting turnout percentage, the better progressive candidates do. Conservative voters are the last people to stop voting due to disenfranchisement, they are practically immune to it. There are not a lot of swing voters.
Yes, and the vast majority of Americans have no interest in voting for what they consider niche culture issues. Defeating fascists will protect everyone’s rights.
You're not saying that they are disinterested, that this is an ineffective way to spend energy or something. You're saying that it will actively drive moderate Americans to hate trans people. I think you need to look into your heart.
So, to be clear, your claim is that I didn't say what I literally said?
Here, maybe an analogy will help. Suppose I run for office to fight corporate monopolies. How do I get people to vote for me?
“My fellow Americans, a strong antitrust policy will save you money at the grocery store by preventing price gouging.”
“My fellow Americans, a strong antitrust policy will save you money on Pokémon cards by preventing price gouging.”
Even though Pokémon cards will be cheaper under a good antitrust policy, that’s not a fact that will motivate average Americans to vote. They don’t hate Pokémon, you understand. They just have their own problems, living paycheck to paycheck, etc.
Hope that helps!
No, they're saying that it will actively drive some moderate Americans to not vote because they see the trans question as being a far left issue. If they have more votes to lose than to win by talking about trans rights (which trans actually know are better protected by Democrats) then why would they talk about it when their goal is to be elected?
This is a reasonable response. But generally "energizing the base" is done closer to the election. We'll see more preaching to the choir discourse around then.
I'm kind of hoping the silence on Gaza turns loud once the election is close enough that AIPAC money won't fuck the election.
I honestly don't give a shit how loud they are about it before the election, I just want to see them take action once Kamala is in office.
Right now I just want to see them win the election, because everything else I want is off-the-table otherwise. If being quiet on controversial issues right now helps, then they should do that.
Right, but turning vocal on it right before the election might get some more people to actually vote, and higher turnout means Dems win.
Like how Biden has been taking action on it while he's been in office..?
There's zero evidence Harris will do anything she hasn't voiced support for once she's in office, and she has no actual motivation to do so once the election is over.
"We just need to win" is literally just that.
And the only time when Biden has seemed to briefly change tact on Israel was when his polling for the upcoming election was suffering. All this philosophy about "don't make a stink now, it's only going to get Trump elected" is bullshit, because it very much also might make Democrats decide trans-rights/Palestine actually matter. Quietly storing it away for after the election will do absolutely nothing.
That's the only reason centrists don't want anyone making a fuss about it.