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
Penny for your thoughts? Pennsylvanians seem to be big fans of Shapiro, though I've not heard of Walz before just now.
"Weird" - Walz
Terminally online leftists have seized on a few very old comments from Shapiro (when he was like 21) and taken more recent ones out of context for performative outrage with regard to the current Israeli conflict. The oddest part is that his actually policy position is shared by Harris, Kelly, Beshear, and even Walz. He's the only Jewish person on that list, though. That couldn't have anything to do with it, right?
Establishment dems like you need to suck it up and vote with the democrats. You always complain when you don’t get everything you want. Don’t you know how compromise works? You’re like little babies it’s not all or nothing. That’s not how real politics works
His "actual policy position" was saying the protests in his state should be forcefully disbanded and implicitly compared protesters to the KKK. He was worse than every other option, for very specific reasons that would have been easy for you to learn if you tried.
Like in the protests themselves, charges of antisemitism are inappropriately deployed whenever criticism is leveled against Israel and its supporters.
Kamala Harris' husband, Doug Emhoff, is also Jewish. So no, it doesn't have anything to do with it.
Neat, I bet you totally have a black friend too, right?
Shapiro's approval rating is fine, but not high enough that the speculation of him guaranteeing Pennsylvania is justified.
On the other hand, he comes with a lot of baggage - some justified and some not so much - but all of which are terrible optics. He is an incredibly vulnerable pick whose only merit is the vain hope of delivering PA.
Shapiro hasn't been good for education in PA, including leading the closure of several rural public universities and promoting student vouchers. Along with other views, he would not be a progressive pick.
Shapiro has an extended history of being quite sympathetic to Israel to the point of problematic statements and treating anti-genocide protest as something it's not.
Walz has none of that baggage and seems to care about people. He's a far better (from what I know) person to be one heartbeat away from the presidency.
He should campaign well and I expect him to keep hitting Trump. Vance will self-own without too much assistance. Punching up will be a great look.
If Walz is her pick, I'm giddy.
I'm fairly far left and I want human rights for all. I don't understand why the party of small government needs to know my internet habits, what happens behind closed doors, what books are read, or why specific medical care (gender affirning or reproductive) is sought.
We're people. The republican nanny state can fuck right off.
That said, I'd like a better safety net. The nation has the money for it if we had a rational tax code. This combination on the ticket gives me hope that all the above are priorities.
I do NOT want Shapiro except as a calculated play for Pennsylvania. I have 0 interest in a war to defend Israel's right to be 1940s Germany.
Walz also coined the "weird" label for Republicans we're using now
Shapiro is a HUGE Zionist and has had problems in his office with sexual harassment (not by him, but his aides). With some saying he helped to cover it up.
He may play well in Pennsylvania, he does not play well in many states like Michigan and would not play well with the youth vote. The only real reason to pick Shapiro is for AIPAC money.