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
There are people who, for various reasons (some well-meaning, some nefarious), put the plight of Palestinians above all other concerns, and decry anyone who doesn't do the same. And they think the solution is to hold the rest of the left hostage by letting Trump win if they don't get their way (though to be fair, I think most of them live in solid blue states where they can do what they want without actually hurting the election, and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't do so).
But people will make choices based on their own needs. How many queer folks are going to choose to allow Trump to win for the sake of Palestinians? Some, I've no doubt, but enough in swing states to change the outcome? Seems doubtful.
Israel is the most complicated thing in geopolitics, perhaps ever. It'll never be solved in a way that leaves anyone hands clean. I support the right to protest and solicit money to help civilians in need and get the message out and to lobby politicians. I think anyone in a swing state who lets this dictate their vote is shooting themselves in the foot for no possible gain. I guess it's their vote, but it's just as frustrating watching them as watching poor Republicans vote against their own interests every election.
I mildly disagree with this only in the sense that there is a time and place for everything. I completely agree that they should make their voices heard if the administration is doing things they don't agree with. But for those who want to ensure that their protests don't do more harm than good, wait until after the election. Heck, start putting the pressure on the day after she's elected, while she's still making front page news on the daily. Make sure Harris understands "Hey, we got you here, and now this is what we expect of you, or we're going to support a primary challenger for you in 2028, and we're going to make your life difficult the entire time in between."
And I agree with your point about dems in solid blue states protesting without really hurting Harris' chances. It's when they're encouraging those in swing states that actually do matter that it starts getting problematic. Sitting home in protest is one thing if you're in CA, MA, or NY. But doing so in Pennsylvania or Georgia is essentially a vote for Trump.
What pressure is even possible after the election? There is only one legal way to put pressure on a politician, and that is with your vote. If you vote for them despite everything, simply because they're the lesser evil, how do you expect to put pressure on them after? They'll do what they always do, which is whatever the owner class tells them to do, up until a few months before the next election. Then it's not about what they have or have not done in the past four years, it's about defeating the Other Guy. Again.
For the record, I agree with you. There's no good choice here. And I'll be voting for Harris come November, though I don't see it as a vote for Harris particularly, just a vote for the Democratic Party, to reward them for actually listening to ~~the people~~ their primary donors and getting Biden to step down.
The community has four years to put pressure on Harris right from day one.
AIPAC, for example, could issue a statement that they are looking forward to supporting "any candidate we feel most meets the needs of the Jewish Community in 2028". Especially after seeing them almost singlehandedly dismantle the squad, their threat of backing another candidate in the Democrat primaries becomes very, very real. And they have four years to hang that around her neck.
And then when 2026 comes along, they can reinforce it by again putting their money into primarying any candidates in the mid-term races not meeting their goals. Harris is no stupid woman. She'd get the message. Especially if the size of the Jewish voting population would be enough to cost her the primaries, or re-election in the general two years later.
(Now, for the record, I am no fan of this kind of bullshit money being allowed in politics at all. But I'm also aware of the reality of the world we live in, and in that reality, AIPAC absolutely can and will do this if given the opportunity. I do not agree with this, but am merely showing an example of how Harris can be put under very real pressure right from day one, from a lobbying group who very well could cost her her political future in a way that doesn't also hand the White House right back to Trump.)
You can't try and pressure the Democrats after the election, don't you know that defeating the Republicans in 2028 is more important? /s