449
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
449 points (100.0% liked)
politics
20299 readers
3225 users here now
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Sounds like they are trying to shift blame, again. We knew exactly who she was and knew she can't be trusted with our support.
Shifting blame by... checks notes... analyzing the demographics of voters.
How are they analyzing the demographics of non voters at exit polls when non voters wouldn't be exiting the polls to be questioned?
Which non voters are you talking about? The article is about politically engaged voters and voters who don't follow politics, both of which are voters.
yes. thats there point.. the voters are not why harris lost.
Ah so you ARE a Trump supporter. Got it.
Life must be so easy being binary and thinking, critique of one does not imply support of the other. Your party ran a piece of shit right-wing blue fascist who openly welcomed war criminals and you guys thought it was okay. We did not
LMAO Just more projection from a MAGA Trump supporter
classic blue maga behavior - any structural critique must be met with tribal-style ad hom: "yeah well you probably just support kang instead of kodos."
So cringe
I agree
Critique was due in any other election year without an actual literal fascist on the Republican ticket.
bLuEMaGA screechers=Projections from Trump supporters
This attitude perpetuates the Democratic ticket running terrible candidates who can't inspire either voters or potential voters. You can settle for a poop sandwich on rye rather than a poop sandwich on John Deerst but some would prefer something actually nourishing.
Thank you for the demonstration
Like I said, binary thinking
Hate to break it to you, but the US elections ARE binary for as long as FPTP is the voting system nationwide. You want real change? advocate for things like RCV. I wouldn't even vote for the DNC IF RCV was nationwide and third-parties actually stood a chance, I'm just being realistic.
As things stand now, you're just demanding a fantasy. A pursuit that will now have blood on its hands because now instead of a "not really a fascist, just not as left as id like" president we have a full throat legit fascist.
The 2024 US presidential election was a binary choice, because that's how it works with first past the goalposts elections.
If you voted 3rd party, you voted for Trump.
Why do you guys pretend to understand the electoral college in one breath and in the other assume every critic of the Democratic party lives in NC, GA, PA, MI, etc.?
My vote would have literally been more wasted voting for Kamala in a deep red state. At least a third party vote could get your party to notice something.
The vast majority of Americans do not live in swing states.
It's an ML that doesn't understand how elections work...or they are the CCP ops....one of the two.
"Corporate wants you to find the difference between these two pictures"
"They're literally the same thing!!"
Third-party candidates?
Oh, you mean the ones who have never won a presidential election in the entire modern history of the US and has become nothing but pawns for the 2 established parties to harm the other e.g. Jill Stein, Russian asset?
Those third-party candidates?
"A non-vote or vote for a third-party is a vote for Trump"
So congrats MAGAt, your guy won!
If you are so concerned with 3rd parties splitting the vote, then you should be equally upset with the first Past The Post voting system that most states use.
I hope you stop by my asklemmy post to further discuss your new commitment to passing electoral reform in your state.
We also knew exactly who Trump is. We have a very long history.
I particularly love stuff about him before he was in politics, like the Motley Fool podcast on how he duped public investors for his private company through pumping up real estate values. They went to his office, saw this weird array of gaudy decoration and oddly attractive employees, sat down with him, and saw through his lie. Then made the only short in their firm's entire history... and it paid off.
There's no excuse of bias. You can't blame any politicians. It's just him. And while not perfect by any means, you have to squint hard to see Kamala in the same light.
Why is the default argument from liberals always 'but Trump?' Harris would have been a shit candidate not worthy of being elected regardless of who her opponent was.
That doesn't matter. She was the only other option we had
She was forced as the only choice on voters and liberals find that acceptable
It doesn't matter. She was the choice we had.
Why was she the only other option? Is there something wrong with how we count our votes that artificially restricts the number of viable political parties?
Yes, our electoral system guarantees only 2 parties are viable. Whether that's good or not is irrelevant, because it's the system that was in place for this election.
Because she wouldn't have been shit. Your argument is invalid.
Harris was going to raise taxes on billionaires and corporations. Why the fuck would you NOT vote for that?
And if she said that she was going to give everybody rainbows and lollipops you would believe that you were going to get a rainbow and lollipop.
False analogy. Clinton, Obama, and Biden -- all 3 of the last Dem presidents -- kept their promises to raise taxes on the wealthy and/or corporations.
Realty matters.
And gave them more loopholes to avoid those increases.
How is reporting what PEOPLE filled out in exit polls, shifting blame? These are just facts.
You have to understand, the people who constantly attacked Harris before the election now have to figure out some way to make her just as bad as Trump, to excuse their own behavior. Is it disgusting? Yes. Is it reprehensible? Yes. Is it absolutely predictable as a means of trying to escape responsibility for the rancid shit hurricane that will be Trump Part 2? Yes.
Yeah I've been seeing the exact same thing, and I think it will be interesting to see them gradually unravel in the coming months.
You can see that all of the astroturfing, bot accounts vanished after Election Day, and all of the useful idiots are left to try to fight the cognitive dissonance they're feeling after seeing the immediate insanity of Trump since winning.
Unfortunately, if they actually are progressives, they will likely have a much harder time ignoring the cognitive dissonance than conservatives (who seem to excel at that ability). They're in for some real psychic pain when they witness Trump's actions in Palestine.
"those leftist rubes not voting for my party, well jokes on them cause I just imagined the other guys doing worse"
I'm not looking forward to Trump, but this is the path the Democrats paved by their own actions. Blaming the voters is not a real strategy for anything other than nursing bruised ego.
Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night.
I'm not the one debasing myself for the genocide party (D).
And how are they polling these non-voters at exit polls if they did not vote? Odd dog. The story is blame shifting bullshit, what Democrats love doing whenever they can't manage to run a decent candidate or election