55
Rachel Maddow: What Worries Me Most About Election Night
(www.nytimes.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 19 Aug 2024
55 points (95.1% liked)
politics
19135 readers
1198 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Every state needs to help make Harris a clear winner.
Like GA, a battleground state, where they just made it legal for the elections board (3 Republicans and 2 Democrats) to refuse to certify the election results for absolutely no reason, indefinitely, without any burden of proof? Even if 100% of people in GA voted for Harris, they'd find some bullshit reason to refuse to certify the state's results. Kemp is too much of a fickle piece of shit to stand up against it, so we've already lost the state in November.
That's literally what the article is about, you clearly didn't read it.
I absolutely read it, I was replying to the comment that "every state needs to help make Harris a clear winner" by pointing out that the Republicans literally already made it impossible to make Harris a clear winner in GA.
But ok, tell me more about what I did and didn't read.
It doesn't matter if Georgia certifies or not if Harris clearly wins enough states to get 270.
both georgia and arizona have recently passed laws that allow their elected officials to effectively ignore the vote and most of the rest of the battleground states will have something similar too before the election; so where are those 270 votes going to come from?
she'd be guaranteed to win if would say something small and simple like: we should stop bombing defenseless palestinians.
No she wouldn't. I 100% agree we shouldn't be doing it mind you. But thats ignoring the reality of the situation and just seeing what you want to see.
Morally Israel should have been harshly rebuked decades ago, as well as today. There would be a lot of push back unfortunately. A lot of money, resources, and votes taken from any candidate that pushed back too hard. So it unfortunately becomes an either or choice. And not a simple do it and get everyone to vote for you type of situation.
The problem is ideologues and authoritarians don't understand the need for diplomacy or how it works. They simply jail and Slaughter those who disagree with them. Which in and of itself evolves to immorality. Unfortunately wherever humanity is involved you can have either power or Purity but not both.
It's sad that this one issue is all that some people see. So much more is on the line.
and all of it is less pressing than the imminent loss of life that they're experiencing where we can help by continuously applying pressure.