191
Kamala Harris told Teamsters president she'd win "with you or without you"
(www.newsweek.com)
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 24 Dec 2024
191 points (84.2% liked)
News
35754 readers
805 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm gonna hate the next four years because the dems ran a candidate that they knew couldn't win and idiots like you shouted at people who pointed this out and called us trump lovers
"Anyone who wants the Democrats to win against Trump is actually a Trump supporter!"
I hated hearing it in 2016, 2020, and 2024
Yes, democrats are vegetative. You can see my comment history, im the first one to point that out. But you are even worse than democrats if you actually thought that trump was the winning option.
Are you claiming that trump didn't win?
🤦
I'm going to assume you are being intentionally obtuse. Its very simple.
Trump bad.
Any other option good in comparison.
Arguing good option bad means you are arguing in bad faith.
Yes Trump bad, that's why I want the dems to run a candidate that isn't a delusional failure so that we can keep Trump from doing bad things. The only way that "good" people can stop bad people is by winning power.
I agree. Now that we are not in an election year, it would be a good idea to attempt to do something about that. But spreading division in an election year is why we now have the worst possible outcome. Thats the glory of the two party system and the illusion of choice.
For both the Biden and Harris campaigns they had internal polling telling them they were gonna lose back in May and they changed nothing. Calling that out and putting pressure on them to change things is helping them, not hurting. If you care about winning you would welcome criticism and adjust accordingly
Exactly, they changed nothing. They do not care about their consituents. As evidenced by the outcome of the election. Pressuring them to change wasnt ever going to change anything. The only thing it did is allow people to "both sides"
Keep thinking the same way and keep losing. I hope the Democratic party dies
As do i, as long as we get something other than republicans vs republicans 2
I think it's fair to say that, notwithstanding the badness of Trump, the Democratic Party needs vast improvement if it's going to be part of an effective opposition to Trump and his gang of MAGAfascist oligarchs and lumpen God-bothering thugs. I'd even go so far as to say that, if any resistance emerges beyond finger-pointing and bleating, it won't originate with the Democrats.
I wholeheartedly agree.
The second line doesn't logically follow from the first - you're talking about a relatively better option all the way to that top line and then you switch from "better than other" to "good" - it's like going about how in a choice between being knifed twice versus being knifed just once the "just knifed once" is good in comparison and then jumping from that to saying that getting knifed once is good.
Even beyond that totally illogical jump, the other flaw of logic is treating each election as a unique totally independent choice whose results have no impact on the options available on subsequent choices - I.e. that who the Democrat Party puts forwards and who the Republic Party puts forwards as candidates in an election isn't at all influenced by how the electorate responded to previous candidates they put forward in previous elections - it is absolutely valid for people to refuse to vote for Kamala to "send a message to the Democrat Party" (I.e. to try to influence the candidates the party puts forward in subsequence election) and it's around the validity or not of risking 4 years of Trump to try and get an acceptable Democrat candidate in at the end of it that the discussion should be (and there are valid points both ways) not the hyper-reductive falacy you seem so wedded to.
Choices in the real world are a bit more multi faceted and with much more elements and implications than that self-serving "simpleton" slogan the DNC pushed out in its propaganda which you are parroting.
Nah, thats the logical reasoning of a non two party system. Youre acting as though we actually had a choice, or that democrats would ever capitulate to their base. I hate kamala as much as the next guy, biden was even worse. But what other option was there? Vote Trump, dont vote, vote third party. All of which were a vote for Trump. There was ONLY one correct option in this election.
If you guys want a decent option, get rid of the two party system, because democrats will never seek to actually improve anything. But they will always be the better choice so long as Americans dont grow a backbone. Which is unrealistic.