this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2024
34 points (61.2% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3654 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
[–] [email protected] 42 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Whatever we're doing, we need to do it fast and commit to it.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago (2 children)

RN, Biden is still the best odds at beating Trump by the sheer fact that he's the incumbent. Why do you think all of the rightmost Dems and the Russian shills are hopping aboard the replacement train? Because they want Trump to win.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

Yeah, unfortunately, there's a calculus here that isn't entirely clear. The right-wing, the accelerationists, and the Russian shills are all on board with this because they THINK it's a losing proposition for the Democrats. However, whether it is ACTUALLY a losing proposition is... uncertain.

We live in a fucked-up political era. I think a replacement could go either way. I'm not thrilled about the idea, but we're rolling the dice either way, so I'm not going to let either outcome change my disposition much. What I know is that I'm voting against fascism this November, and anyone who expresses doubts as to whether THEY'RE voting against fascism are, at best, useful idiots for fascism, and at worst, fascists who are too cowardly to admit it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I want Biden replaced. Guess I'm a Russian shill? JFC

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I mean, in a vacuum, there's lots of people who I'd like to be running for president as the DNC candidate instead of Biden. However, I'm not advocating for that right now, because I think it would be a tactical mistake.

Edit: on that note, there's also a whole lot of people who I'd want to run as the GOP candidate instead of Trump as well. One of them is Biden. 😂

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Yeah OK, I respect the position that it could be a tactical mistake. But people suggesting that it might not be are not automatically Russian shills. Maybe cool the reactionary rhetoric

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Your tactical mistake leads to existential problems for some of us. As a gay man, Trump and the GOP winning this election is threat to my life and the lives of my brothers and sisters. Go ahead and say I'm being alarmist but everyone said the same thing about Roe vs Wade being overturned.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

you're making a very large strawman. Suggesting that a different strategy for the Dems might be more effective is not in any way suggesting that electing Trump is a good idea.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Maybe cool the reactionary rhetoric

You confused the statement with its converse.

"If you are X, then you'll hop aboard the Biden replacement train"

does not imply

"If you hop aboard the Biden replacement train, then you are X"

Understand? This is a common error and is known as "affirming the consequent". I never made the statement that you assumed I had.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You were the one who mentioned Russian shills not me

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

I think you have, again, misunderstood what I've been trying to say. I am not inclined to continue trying.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

I think the commitment part is going to be a problem this election cycle.