this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
1062 points (98.8% liked)

politics

18789 readers
2817 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

All joking aside, you have to assume they're going to challenge her candidacy and eventual legitimacy in court. Debating her is not only politically ill advised, but also a tacit agreement that she's a legitimate candidate.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

She's been vice president for the past 4 years, so she already meets the legal requirements for office, and Republicans haven't ever challenged it.

The DNC is next month, and the party has every right to make her the nominee if Biden isn't running for reelection.

I don't see any actual legal battle here. There's absolutely zero legal precedent for blocking a party nomination before the convention or any of the relevant state deadlines pass.

They're just running their mouths about this switch-up being improper because they're panicking. They spent the last 4 years priming their base to care about one thing and one thing only: getting rid of the "Biden Crime Family". Now that it's down to the wire, Biden isn't their opponent anymore.

They're in the bargaining stage of grief, since Trump's chances of winning have pretty much been killed, especially after introducing professional wet blanket J.D. Vance as Trump's running mate.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

When has Precedent mattered to Robert's Extreme Court?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Exactly. Just because they don't have a legitimate argument doesn't mean they don't have an argument.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Felon, pedophile, rapist, coward.

There are so many ways to describe this man

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago

At least he admits he isn't in the same class as her.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Even if Trump says no, Harris should at the very least discuss her opinions and views on camera. It could just be a single person question and answering, a debate other Democrats, or debating a third party candidtae if they don't want to back other Democrat candidates. Leaving Harris a mystery is the worst thing Democrats can do.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Leaving Harris a mystery is the worst thing Democrats can do.

This is half the reason he doesn't want to do it.

The other half is that "man yelling at clouds* might beat "well meaning elderly man with a poor memory" but doesn't stand a chance against anyone who can consistently string three sentences together in a coherent fashion.

Having the debate would both make Trump look bad and make Harris less of a mystery and neither of those things helps Trump.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

Harris is a beast when she debates, too. She would mop the floor with that orange clown. Trump will simply refuse to debate her.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This is half the reason he doesn’t want to do it.

I really hope the democrats take full advantage of spinning that as yet another anti-democratic Trump move.. that it’s anti-democratic to impede informed voting.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

She should %100 debate RFK. No one voting for her is going to magically jump to him.....but people who voting trump might jump to voting RFK...plus she can show how scared the turnip is of debating someone who is semi competent

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Why are we giving a man who had a brain worm and believes that Wi-Fi gives you cancer a platform?

This man was trying to be a spoiler for the Democratic party, extremely unsuccessfully. He does not have hopes of being president he has hopes of swaying moderates away from the left.

He is a brain dead Trump cultist. He never wanted to win.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

100% also call out how RFK is not a coward for debating Harris.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Usually insane people are not cowards.

Do you believe that Wi-Fi gives you cancer? RFK adamantly argues this (while being around Wi-Fi constantly)

The guy had a literal brain worm that permanently altered him. It is disgusting that we're parading is mentally ill man around as a spoiler for a political race

Just leave him alone and let him inject steroids in peace

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

This! Do the debate whether he shows up or not. It will expose him for being a massive pussy

I know it's hard to believe sometimes but people are slowly realizing what he is. All of my Trumper family are now apolitical all of a sudden lol

Works for me!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

pussies are tough. he's a ballsack: quite sensitive, shrivels up in cold weather, and prone to premature ejaculation

load more comments
view more: next ›