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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
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
Except he claimed he didn't vote for Kamala vs Trump. Therefore allowing and be in agreement with the outcome. Any outcome.
He's in a blue state. If we didn't have our asinine and backward EC, it'd be a different story.
I'm absolutely exhausted with snowflakes being so very precious and that think they need a specially curated and artisanal candidate to cater to them, most especially to their purity tests, and if they hear one wrong note, they'll stamp their feet, cross their arms, and do absolutely nothing to help. Stay home, vote for some absurdist clown-show bullshit like the Green Party. Even maybe vote for Republicans.
You know, "to send a message". Because everyone needs to listen to THEM, and of course, everyone is going to be able to look at this ridiculous childish behavior and respond according to what these types want, because obviously mind-reading is possible. 🙄
Talk about narcissistic bullshit of the highest fucking order. Hell, we all can remember being late teens/early 20s, but most people grow out of this kind of selfishness.
But I think he's pointing out he's in a safe district and so basically his vote for Kamala would not even matter.
He may be in a blue state, but it would be foolish to think his influence didn't extend beyond the state. People like to forget there are more Republicans in California than Texas and more Democrats in Texas than New York.
If enough people think like that more parts of California will flip Red. It's already spreading before this line of thinking is in play.
And Purity tests? I don't know where you got that with my comment. If anything I was harking on Morello and his dumb purity test. Only thing his stupid purity test carries influence around the country and can lead to more people not voting like idiots.
He explicitly says he's in favor of voting Democrat, even corporate Democrat in EVERY contested race. If people listen to him, they will vote accordingly. If people don't actually listen to him, it doesn't matter what he says.
Sorry, I'm not talking about you and purity tests.
I'm sick of it in general where there is a certain kind of "leftist" / contrarian "independent" that loves to act like they need to be catered to and they often have a purity test or two. They especially love performatively standing on the sidelines and proclaiming how they are so moral because of that. I have the honor of having a few of them in my life (and seeing lots online) and boy, are they precious about it.
Favorite catchphrase: "elections are decided by independents!"
I'm just saying that I don't think Morello is being like that...
What kind of privileged-ass take is this? I'm sorry, but if you can't understand why some groups need to have hard red lines about who they'll vote for, then you're a moron. For example, the hard red line for the Muslim community was, "don't support a genocide against Muslims." We're not talking about minor preferences here. People attach red lines to their votes on things that are absolutely essential, sometimes for their very lives.
I'm sorry, but I as a trans person will never vote for a transphobic Democrat, even in the general election. You can fuck right off with the tired "lesser evil" bullshit. I'm thinking 10 elections ahead, not just the one right in front of us. And Democrats turning transphobe represents a much greater direct threat to my life than Republicans winning a Senate seat in Ohio.
That's great. The options, after the primaries, basically boil down to these two types of scenarios:
A candidate that will genocide the hardest and gleefully and sell off Gaza to the likes of Jared to create beachfront property, while attacking opposition within this very country - meaning deportation/prison/stripping citizenship. The other candidate may only tepidly go along with things (but maybe not actually) due to military-industrial inertia.
A candidate that very well may start throwing trans in prison, or worse. Versus a candidate that may be rather squishy and need convincing/pushing on things like sports and what treatments are available to children, etc.
I happen to have trans in my life that I agonize about every day, given the dangers under this administration and conservatives in general. I have basically two real choices. Withholding my vote on some Democrat I deem to be less than perfect will only advance the fascist agenda and it will endanger those I care about.
Quit mansplaining trans issues to trans people.
Okay, we are done here.
He's in California. He could make his voice heard by voting 3rd party, because it was a given that all electoral votes from Cali would go to Harris. Thus, voting 3rd parry sends a signal without endangering vulnerable people by helping Trump.
There's a reason the GOP cancer is slowly spreading in California. If enough people vote third party or don't vote it could eventually flip red with enough propaganda and money.
Protest voting doesn't work with first past the post system.
And if California get's anywhere close to vote parity, he, like many others, will then start to vote democrat. But right now, there is absolutely no danger of a purple California, so why not vote his conscience?
Or if our reps would actually make a platform and stand by it. That might also work.
Maybe blame the violent people instead.