822
The Obamas Endorse Harris: 'This Is Going to Be Historic'
(www.rollingstone.com)
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 26 Jul 2024
822 points (100.0% liked)
News
36043 readers
2687 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I haven't seen one I like this cycle. Neither major party has nominated one I really liked in 40 years. The Dems came close a couple times.
This sentiment is really impractical in a functional democracy of over 300 million people, if you can't find anyone in 20 candidates that have run over the past 40 years from the two major parties you were willing to vote for.
Your perfect candidate that you hold out for isn't going to be the perfect candidate for a lot of people. Part of the whole give and take is building consensus around most broadly acceptable candidates, rather than just taking your ball and going home when none of the viable candidates perfectly suite you.
Oh I voted in every election since I could. Just never for someone I believed in. It was only ever hope.
No one alive is probably fit to do the job, it’s an impossible task. Those who may come close, would probably never actually want it. And of those who remain who do want it ( which already might make them not worthy for the position) are probably not electable due to the forces of capitalism preventing such a candidate from getting elected.
So what is left is simply a pragmatic choice of the lesser evil. Many people are acutely aware of this and have gotten over it. I suggest until you manage to enact some sort of drastic systemic change you get it over it as well.
I'm working on it.
The drastic systemic change part.
I absolutely agree with your assessment of the problem. I've often thought of dividing The Executive Branch into at least two leadership roles. One of foreign responsibility, one of domestic. Though it may make sense to keep the roll as a single office, where teams of self determined size can divide responsibilities however they choose. Then it starts looks something like a parliamentary system. But I imagine the membership would be fixed somehow. I don't know. Still working on it.
Ah, well that's reasonable sounding. Perhaps the burden of understanding nuance of candidates is that you'll always be disappointed when it comes time to reconcile with millions of others.
It really is amazing how poor our choices are. There are many competent humans out there, but it's not obvious from our options. Seems like a direct result of the 2 party winner-takes-all political system.