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
False dichotomy.
Since there's only 2 viable candidates, then one of them is going to win. Both of them support the genocide.
You are not conceding on genocide if you are going to pick the one you disagree with less, ethically and morally speaking, outside of that.
If you don't vote, or if you vote for a non-viable candidate, then you are conceding on all the other ethics and morals that you would otherwise agree with, just by not voting for the less bad but viable one, whoever you believe that is.
You are actively supporting all the negative things about the candidate you agree with least by not voting for one of the two primary candidates.
It sucks, but guess what... when you are stuck on a sinking boat, you can sit in angry defiance and complain all you want about how you don't support the way that your boat manufacturer supported genocide. Or you can pitch in and try to save the fucking people on the boat with you.
One of these behaviors could make someone look like a selfish asshole.
Unless you are introducing a viable candidate who is against the genocide, then there is no concession being made on genocide.
FOH with your false dichotomy.
that's not what active support is.
viability is a media myth. kerry was viable. mccain was viable.
McCain was a Republican and Kerry is a Democrat. Of course they were viable! They have nothing to do with what we're talking about.
Also, it's not a media myth that third parties aren't viable. It's statistically proven fact. Third party candidates only poll around 1-3% of the popular vote by state, cumulatively, and none have received an electoral college vote since '68. The last viable third party candidate was Perot and even he couldn't win a state.
I wish it wasn't the case, because 2 candidates no longer provide enough variability in policy, but it's the truth.
they didn't win. the label of "viable" is a myth.
This argument is a classic example of fearmongering that keeps the status quo alive.
Voting for the "less bad" candidate out of fear just perpetuates the very system that got us into this mess. Choosing between two evils still supports evil.
True change doesn't come from settling for the lesser of two bad options; it comes from standing up for what you truly believe in, even if that means going against the grain.
If the boat is sinking because of the same flawed thinking that built it, patching it up with more of the same won’t save anyone. It’s time to build a new boat, not just keep bailing water on the old one.