226
None of These People Should Ever Work in Politics Again
(www.currentaffairs.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2024
226 points (93.1% liked)
politics
19233 readers
1407 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Nooooo Democrats ignore working peoplllllle! They’re terrible for the underserved!! Everyone knows that that’s why they looooossst!!
Walz then disappeared for a month. The campaign sent him into the background while Harris made appearances with Liz Cheney.
They threw progressives a bone, and then forgot about it.
Waltz did a good job in the VP debate, and then the DNC told him to stop calling JD weird.
And then he played games on Twitch. Such a win for progressives! "Shut up and play games on Twitch!"
How many of these were put onto Harris' platform, and then how many had a chance of getting passed in Congress?
For the Congress, I would say mill, but that's because of the Republican party.
Turns out when economy bad stupid people vote out the incumbent.
Also white and Latino men have masculinity issues that prevent them from voting for women.
Claudia Sheinbaum the president of Mexico is a woman...
pretty sure latino men voted for her, 9 out of 10 Mexicans voted for a woman in that election as her best opponent was also a woman.
she had more votes than any previous president!
Worth noting, she also ran on progressive and leftist platform planks.
Almost as if it was not about gender
If you look at the voter statistics mainly white and Latino men stayed at home for Kamala after voting for Joe Biden.
Sorry reality is hard for you to process.
If you have a better theory why specifically these groups of men sat out besides the sexism we know they have problems with then im all ears.
https://english.elpais.com/usa/elections/2024-11-08/false-promises-and-political-neglect-why-latinos-did-not-vote-for-kamala-harris.html
it isn't hard to find if you look. But go on with your racist bullshit it helps folks know who to block
Thanks.
This bit sounds infuriating, even just reading it:
So you will never be able to buy a house, you are starting to skip lunch to save money, the government is boasting about how great everything is, and they wouldn't change anything at all, everything is fucking great, at least the Cheneys said so, the opposition wants to deport you to some country you probably only heard about in high school geography.
And in the campaign, in exchange for your vote, you get a... drumroll... dedicated WhatsApp group! And if that doesn't motivate you to go vote, you're sexist and racist, and you are the reason Harris lost.
It's just a constant shooting in the foot for Harris and I was just going "Jesus Christ, they can't blame third party voters this time, will they blame Progressives or BIPOC if we lose?"
Turns out, both.
So the high cost of living caused them to vote for Trump's inflationary National Sales Tax and inflationary gigantic tax cuts for billionaires?
They didn't vote for Trump, they didn't vote for Harris. Trump didn't gain the voters, Harris lost millions of voters.
Democrats weren't going to vote for the Candidate who had no primary, was decided upon race/sexist promotion, and was unable to show definitive reasons why she would be ifferent than Biden.
Biden didn't win the last primary because of his personal votes, he won because all of the other candidates gave him their Primary votes after Super Tuesday to stop Bernie from being the nominee again.
The DNC was not supported this time because the Democrat voters were against the coronation of Kamala, but did vote down-ballot the Democrats. Voting wasn't a zero-sum choice, many people like me, didn't vote for a president because the DNC was being fascist about the candidate.
The DNC is no longer the party of the worker, it's the party of the bosses and bankers, with the Hollywood shills paid to support their Candidate. The people aren't owed their votes, the same way companies aren't owed a purchase when they make a product that customers don't want. We can't have a marketplace of ideas if the DNC blocks all other ideas.
Sorry that reality is hard for you to process, but Trump got elected because Harris ran a dogshit campaign pandering to nonexistent Republicans who actually somehow like Biden. That's it, that's all.
Just because she's a woman, you are not sexist for not voting for her. I also wouldn't vote for Nancy Reagan or Eva Braun. Or Thatcher for that matter.
You're allowed to go look at which groups voted differently,
It shouldn't be this much of a struggle for you to engage with reality.
Maybe you need to self reflect on why that is
So you're saying just because men voted differently, that means they voted differently because she's a woman.
To be honest, that insinuation is actually sexist.
I'm a white male who voted for Harris in California.
I know lots of white men and Latino men and Black men who voted for Harris in my state. The other choice was "Deport first, then kill the rest."
It's weirdly sexist/bigoted from liberals to say men instantly hate a woman who runs.
Ah yes, Latino men prefer super macho men like the socialist feminists Claudia Sheinbaum and Dilma Rousseff.
Definitely not that Kamala was an unconvincing candidate who simply got a boost from women due to the abortion issue, relative to men.
It's almost as if Latin American voters are a completely different demographic than people who live and vote in South America.
Who would've thought.
Yeah, completely different. They don't share anything, especially not the thing we're discussing, culture.
If you look at the voter statistics mainly white and Latino men stayed at home for Kamala after voting for Joe Biden.
Sorry reality is hard for you to process.
If you have a better theory why specifically these groups of men sat out besides the sexism we know they have problems with then im all ears.
Yes, they sat home because Biden went from 53% approval at the time they voted for him to 37% approval at the time of his dropping out, Kamala Harris did not differentiate herself from him much and many more white and Latino women may have also stayed home were it not for the repeal of Roe v. Wade. Black men also shifted towards Trump.
Why don't you explain why it that Latino men voted 62% for Hillary and only 55% for Kamala?
When economy bad stupid people vote out the incumbent.
Try reading before asking questions people answered
A smarmy way to avoid explaining the absurd "sexism" angle. Keep making excuses for a political party hemorrhaging support by its own inability to change.
Even more so for a black woman.
I heard she's an indian black woman
Ain't that the truth. Fuck.
The only progressive one is the free college one. The rest are so bare minimum that India and Brazil have them (feeding schoolkids and paid parental leave.) Minnesota isn't the USA writ large either.
Til paid parental leave doesn't pass the progressive purity test.
I don't get what you mean. It's a minimum requirement. If there is a "progressive purity test", then it's the part where you write your name at the top of the paper. Huge credit for the free university though.
No, they're clearly capable of it when they want. That's the frustrating part. This republican lite theme is an active choice national democrats keep making.
Why do things you promised and ran on when you can say "My hands are tied, I need to get Republican voters come November!" for 4 years?
So why did they actually ignore working people? Because while you're right that Harris' platform was very progressive, and Walz would have been the most left-wing VP in recent history, the Harris/Walz campaign didn't care about any of that. They campaigned on being tough on immigration, protecting Israel, being pro-billionaire, and reaching across the isle to Republicans. When asked about the economy, they deflected or talked down. When asked about change, they promised there would be none. You can't be surprised that working class folks would feel left out in the cold when they were explicitly ignored.
And the weed.
It's only in one state...
The state that was run by the VP candidate.
Except, where did that guy go for much of Sept and Oct?
America is federal. States could have their own laws, that is my point. Walz becoming VP or the president would not change that. Many states would still be die-hard Republicans.
But he's an evil capitalist. If you aren't fighting for violent communist revolution, you're part of the problem!! /s