this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
706 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19089 readers
4103 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
 

He’s had yet another horrible week. The old tricks aren’t working. Kamala Harris does not fear him. And it’s showing in the numbers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 198 points 2 months ago (2 children)

100% the same

Dude I've never been so happy to be wrong as fuck

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 56 points 2 months ago (5 children)

You know what the cool thing is? Those of us who were wrong for one reason or another will actually about it. We don't pretend we were right the whole time. We don't pretend it just didn't happen.

Hindsight being what it is, I'm almost wondering if the timing was planned in advance. Biden already told us he'd be a one term president. If in 10 years they came out and said "Yeah, that was the plan from day one but we couldn't tell anyone" I would absolutely believe it.

[–] Reyali@lemm.ee 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I threw an idea out in response to a comment here right after Biden backed out and the more I think about, the more it seems likely to be right.

My theory is that the DNC likely timed Biden stepping aside so it would be late enough they couldn’t hold primaries for the nominee. It came out in 2016 that the DNC was basically rigged for Clinton to win, regardless of what voters wanted. The 2016 primaries caused dissension with voters leading to lower turnout, and I think that was also somewhat true in 2020. By waiting as long as he did to back out, Biden took voter choice out of it and helped rally everyone behind Harris.

I could absolutely be wrong, but every time I run it through my head it feels more likely to be true. And if I’m right, it is a bit sleazy. However, I have to admit I’m surprised and impressed by how it’s turned out. I didn’t expect people to rally so strongly behind Kamala, and I’m excited to be a part of it!

[–] sirboozebum@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

It wasn't "rigged" for Clinton (and I thought she was not a good candidate).

Bernie lost because less people voted for him.

If it wasn't for the undemocratic caucuses, he would have lost earlier. For example, he won the Washington caucus but got crushed in the primary (which had massively higher turn out).

The fact of the matter is that the broader electorate wasn't as left-wing as Lemmy or /r/politics is.

[–] Reyali@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago

Do you not remember all the leaks showing extreme bias towards Clinton, derision of Sanders, and even deals between Clinton and the DNC?

The emails and documents showed that the Democratic Party's national committee favored Clinton over … Bernie. … The leaks resulted in allegations of bias against Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign in apparent contradiction with the DNC leadership's publicly stated neutrality, as several DNC operatives openly derided Sanders's campaign and discussed ways to advance Hillary Clinton's nomination. Later reveals included controversial DNC–Clinton agreements dated before the primary, regarding financial arrangements and control over policy and hiring decisions. source

Or that DNC leaders argued in court that they didn’t need to hold impartial primaries and could select whatever candidate they wanted?

… DNC attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to select their own candidate. source

For their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of ‘impartiality and evenhandedness’ as a mere political promise—political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts. The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles. While it may be true in the abstract that the DNC has the right to have its delegates “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way, the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle. source

At the end of the day, yes, Bernie got fewer votes. But that is a small part of the iceberg, ignoring all the things that led up to it and all the biases at play in the organization putting the vote on in what I would (and did) call a “rigged” primary.

[–] toddestan@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The primary was rigged before it even began. Typically when there's no incumbent you'll see several politicians make a run for the nomination. But 2016 was different. Hilary and the DNC went around to all of the presidential hopefuls in 2015 and basically told them to sit this one out because it's her turn. Hilary was supposed to waltz her way to the nomination uncontested because they didn't want a repeat of 2008. The only reason we got the Hilary vs. Sanders contest at all is because Sanders was an outsider so he didn't get the memo (or perhaps they didn't consider him a serious threat).

[–] Sarothazrom@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

my own little conspiracy theory i like to think about is that biden threw that debate on purpose lol.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

It'd be interesting to find this out, but given how disorganized the Democrats tend to be, I seriously doubt that's the case.

What an absolute gamble that would be. Trust me, reality is stranger than fiction.

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social -5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I think you’re underestimating the effect power has on the psyche.

Sure, Biden said he would be a one term president. Sure, the DNC will do anything including breaking its own rules to avoid allowing anyone left of center to be the nominee.

But when you’re in the most powerful position in the world (Biden’s donors), you want to keep going.

I think Biden really is just too old and his brain is not working properly and he has health issues, which I believe is the only reason he stepped down, and if those in power beside him did not threaten to force him out of power in an embarrassing way, he would have been happy to have the chance to lose the election and end democracy.

Even right up to the debate, people were repeating ad naseum the absurd lie from the DNC and cable news, that Biden is the only candidate who can beat Trump.

Look at Feinstein. The people pushing her wheelchair were absolutely ready to have her run for another term, with fucking dementia or whatever her health issue is…..

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Maybe! I'm not really advocating that thought, I'm just saying it wouldn't surprise me. And I'm pretty happy to say I was wrong in thinking the DNC would be a total shit show of competing interests. She's not my perfect candidate, but honestly no one is and I'm not going to let perfect be the enemy of good. Plus I like Walz.

Look at Feinstein. The people pushing her wheelchair were absolutely ready to have her run for another term, with fucking dementia or whatever her health issue is…..

That was one of the most fucked up things I've ever seen in politics. She was more mostly dead than Westley in The Princess Bride.

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social -3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I’m torn, I really like Walz, but I also can’t in good conscience vote for someone who supports the genocide in Gaza.

I’m very thankful I live in a blue state.

I’m open to Harris walz but I need something to happen to end this genocide before I can take them seriously.

I’m so glad folks are getting excited about Harris walz though….

Edit: I suppose downvoting this comment means you openly support genocide, so I could give fuck all other than seeing how sad and pathetic your life must be to be in full support of suffering of this scale. 138,000 dead Palestinians, which is most likely a very low estimate, close to 10% of the population is now dead.

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

As a preface to this, I'm not the one downvoting you. I also think what's happening is abhorrent.

Since you're in a blue state, it's not nearly as big of a deal. However, for anyone reading this in battleground states, remember that the only alternative who actually has any shot of winning in FPTP electoral college is Trump who thinks Israel should "finish the job".

I'm pretty sure you know why you're being downvoted. If we want more real options we need to start working towards any system that isn't FPTP electoral college bullshit.

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I’m being downvoted because of libtard blue no matter who neoliberal folks who only watch cable news.

Yes, I know exactly why, and it’s very sad that they can support genocide so flippantly

And if this hurts your feelings get over it I guess there’s a fucking genocide going on and you’re in support of it

[–] SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What about "Trump who thinks Israel should “finish the job”." did you not hear? What makes the opposition, Trump, more worthy of your vote?

I’m open to Harris walz but I need something to happen to end this genocide before I can take them seriously.

But you take Trump seriously?

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

This is definitely a whatanoutism.

What about Trump. I’m not talking about Trump, I’m talking about the current vice president and president

Again, I ask you, what part of Biden is currently directly supporting genocide do you not understand?

I don’t give a fuck if it ends democracy or whatever boogeyman the dems are threatening this election cycle, much as they have done since I have been old enough to vote. Every time I have gone to vote, in fact. But this time it’s real?

I don’t give a fuck. I am not going to vote for a candidate who defends and directly supports a genocide.

There’s no lesser of two evils here. What the fuck is wrong with you. You either don’t know what a genocide is, or you don’t believe Palestinian lives hold any value in the world.

Which one is it?

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is pretty brain dead of you. It's not a boogeyman, it's just reality.

I understand being angry at the current admin. I don't like Kamala either. I don't like the genocide. I disavow the genocide and I wish Israel's apartheid regime was dissolved.

Now let's face facts. The Trump admin did a lot of damage. And honestly, the Biden admin has allowed for a lot of damage to continue. And maintaining that honesty, I think the Harris admin will not be much better.

But this is absolutely a choice between an evil and a lesser evil, and to disagree with that? Fucking stupid. You want to make a difference? Too bad. Your vote isn't going to solve the genocide. Your lack of a vote isn't going to solve the genocide. Nothing you can legally do is going to solve the genocide.

If you want to do something about it, then you should. But if your idea of "doing something about it" is not voting for the democratic ticket... it isn't productive. Maybe spend that energy differently.

I live in a red state so I'm voting third party anyway. But if the alt right is allowed to proceed with project 2025, let's see how long we have before we are dealing with our own genocide, huh?

Wake up call: literally every admin has supported the wanton murder of civilians. Literally every admin has blood on their hands. Literally every admin is a war criminal.

Advocating for not voting for the Harris admin won't do anything about it.

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

No. This is genocide. There is no room for debate on this issue.

If Harris does not come out unequivocally and with actual action against the genocide I can’t vote for her.

Period.

These are the facts. She has to earn my vote as well as the tens of thousands of uncommitted voters in swing states to win this election.

I don’t care if you or any other blue no matter who folks disagree.

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I didn't debate whether or not genocide was happening.

It is genocide. There is no debate.

The genocide will get worse if Trump is elected. I am so glad that your conscious will be clear because you abstained from voting Blue. I am, again, also not voting Blue. Doesn't make your decision any less brain dead, and it doesn't make my point any less poignant. If you believe in harm reduction, then you should learn how to practice it.

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

lol, more genocide or genocide light.

The cognitive dissonance is real.

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Don't think you understand what cognitive dissonance is. I understand the reality of the situation. Sounds like you're the one who doesn't.

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

So okay, Mr semantics, it’s fucking genocide.

Edit: also, you are holding two incompatible beliefs in your mind. And it is obviously causing you anguish.

Is genocide worse than genocide light?

You absolutely have cognitive dissonance here.

I say cease fire needs to happen or I will not vote for a candidate who supports genocide with word or action.

You are going to vote for genocide light? Is that like bud light?

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

I'm tired of arguing with a stupid person. It's genocide. You're not going to get a better candidate. I am dealing with reality. You are coping by opting out. Good luck. Hope Trump loses.

[–] Zetta@mander.xyz 36 points 2 months ago

I'm glad everyone feels this way, I do too. I thought with Joe we had pretty solid chances of winning, but now with Kamala I think we're going to win by a lot more than Joe won by last time around.