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.
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
view the rest of the comments
The fundamental principal of "democracy" requires that "The voters are always right".
Any argument that the voters themselves are wrong is an indictment of democracy itself. It is a suggestion that We The People are incapable of governing ourselves, and require the external mandate of a benevolent dictator.
You can argue that a candidate failed to appeal to the voters. You can argue that the voting system failed to accurately reflect voter sentiment. You can argue that third parties unduly influenced the voters. You can point out the paradox of Trump being worse for Palestine than Harris would have been. But in a democracy, the voters are the source of truth. Laying blame on the voters requires rejection of the very idea of democracy.
To extend your metaphor, you want to go out to the movies with a bunch of friends. You and most of the group want to watch Oppenheimer. But most of the people who want Oppenheimer would rather just download it and watch it at home. We would only go to the theater for candy and soda and popcorn. Knowing that we aren't going to show up without all three, you vetoed two of them, and called us selfish assholes for wanting what we want. Now you're complaining that the people who did show up selected Barbie, and you're trying to blame us, even as you ignore that you're the reason why we didn't bother to go out.
If Palestine is getting bombed no matter what happens, the only voters who are coming out are the ones who want Palestine bombed.
That's a lot of words you seem to be putting in my mouth there friend. These aren't mutually exclusive ideas. I can blame voters for not showing up to the polls and still see the value in a democratic government.
And I thought I had the hot take, holy shit. This is simultaneously an argument to disenfranchise ourselves from the democratic process AND the assumption that those who did participate in the electoral process, regardless of their actual beliefs, are automatically pro-genocide. I'm actually astounded that this is your argument. This is a greater rejection of democracy than anything I said. It's insane.
Just because we didn't vote for your shade of fascism doesn't mean we didn't show up. The whole get in line and comply is a thing of the past, candidates can either earn our vote or can fuck off.
If a genocide isn't your red line anything you say after that isnt irrelevant or significant
Nah, I don't think it is your intention to say these things. I think that you didn't consider what you were actually saying when you tried to lay the blame on the voters instead of the candidate.
My point is that just because action was taken by the voters does not mean fault for that action rests with the voters. Here, the candidate's advocacy for genocidal actions is the cause for her failure to win election.
That's a common error: Abstention is not disenfranchisement. The voter is not capable of disenfranchising themselves. Disenfranchisement is a concept that can only be imposed on the voter against their will.
Demanding the voters select from two genocidal candidates is disenfranchisement: the only democratic choice remaining is abstention.