5
Michigan congresswoman Rashida Tlaib declines to endorse Kamala Harris
(www.theguardian.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 02 Nov 2024
5 points (51.9% liked)
politics
19246 readers
1913 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
Let me frame it this way then... in my lifetime, more electoral college votes have been awarded ACCIDENTALLY than have been won by a third party. That's an absolute fact:
https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2016/12/enduring-mystery-america-s-last-faithless-elector/
The best shot a 3rd party had was with Ross Perot in 1992, how did that work out?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election
Clinton - 44,909,889 - 43.0% - 370 EC
Bush - 39,104,550 - 37.4% - 168
Perot - 19,743,821 - 18.9% - 0
No other 3rd party run has even been close.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election
Clinton - 47,401,185 - 49.2% - 379
Dole - 39,197,469 - 40.7% - 159
Perot - 8,085,294 - 8.4% - 0
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_United_States_presidential_election
Reagan - 43,903,230 - 50.7% - 489
Carter - 35,481,115 - 41.0% - 49
Anderson - 5,719,850 - 6.6% - 0
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election
Bush - 50,456,002 - 47.9% - 271*
Gore - 50,999,897 - 48.4% - 266*
Nader - 2,882,955 - 2.74% - 0
* It was found, after Bush's inauguration, that any correct re-counting of Florida would have awarded it to Gore.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa
Perot in 1992 is what really drives home the point. He got nearly 20% of the popular vote but ZERO electoral college votes. Voting 3rd party simply isn't reasonable given our current system.
Voting is like public transportation, get on the train going the direction that you want. In the off years work to make changes and organize, most people ignore the second part.
I like the bus analogy. You aren't getting door to door service. You take the bus that gets you closest to your destination and put in the work to walk the rest of the way.
The Democratic bus gets you within a mile.
The Republican bus travels through the Twilight Zone and strands you in a post apocalyptic wasteland.
And for some strange reason, some of the regular commenters here actively oppose this part in favor of telling us the solution is to let the GOP gain power and "send a message to the Democrats".
I hate this. It presupposes that the two trains are heading in different directions. They're both headed to the same destination. One is an express train.
Plus it's glib.
I think we're living in two different realities. If you can't tell the difference I'm not sure how you even wrote this post.
Oh, which one is taking us further away from fascism? Because I'm not seeing one that is. I see one that's hurtling headlong toward fascism and another that is coasting towards it.
I get that you want to pretend that the Democratic Party is making strides away from fascism, but they're just fucking not.
What actions by Dems do you see as "coasting towards" fascism?
They could have protected Roe. They had opportunity to do so. They could have applied the brakes. They chose to coast.
They could have passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and curtailed some of Republicans' attempts at election fuckery. They could have applied the brakes. They chose to coast.
Coulda codified Obergefell, nope. Coasted. Coulda raised the minimum wage. Coasted.
Not to mention actually accelerating under power toward the same destination with Gaza and the border.
They had a majority in the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and the Presidency for like 70 days. Why wouldn't SCOTUS have overturned their law when they struck Roe? Matters of health and wellness tend to be the purview of the states. Where does Congress get the power? Interstate Commerce Clause?
And SCOTUS wouldn't gut it just like they already gutted the voting rights act already? They didn't have 60 votes in the Senate, so how were they getting it through the Senate...you know, where it failed?
No they couldn't. None of these things would get through a Republican controlled house, nor would they have 60 votes for cloture in the Senate.
This is what bothers me constantly. The Dems try to do things, Republicans block them, and then idiots say the Dems don't do anything. Republicans currently control the house and the Dems don't have 60 votes in the Senate. They only have a majority due to Independents caucusing with them. There are not the votes to remove the filibuster.
Congress only has the powers expressly given to them, all others are the purview of the states. It is ludicrous to think SCOTUS doesn't overturn these laws that could have been passed in Congress.
During which time the sun was in their eyes and the dog ate their homework. They could have killed the filibuster forever with only 50 votes. If they had wanted to protect Roe.
If they don't have the power, they shouldn't have run on it. They shouldn't have lied and said they did. Or they weren't lying and you're just making excuses.
The rest of your comment is just your devotion to this one "they don't have 60" excuse. If the Jim Crow Filibuster is more important to Democrats than all the shit they won't do for their voters, then the only reason we give them majorities is to slow the slide into fascism. Not to reverse it. That would, as you are delighted to point out, require 60 votes. And when they have the opportunity to slow the train, well shucky dern, that lil' ol' filibuster is there to save them from having to do jack shit.
We gave them the seats needed to do this. If you don't demand lockstep from those we elect, don't you dare demand it from voters.
You vehemently refuse to understand how Congress works, yet you steadfastly blame the party not responsible. There is literally no point in talking to you.
50 is enough to end the filibuster forever. You don't want it to happen.
Since 2012, the Democrats haven't held more than 48 seats in the Senate. Again, you're uninformed. In fact, so much so that you're a Dunning Kruger wet dream.
When you take into account those that caucus with Democrats and vote with them more reliably than actual registered party members, there are 50 seats. Your excuses are shit, and you know it.
So it's the Democrats fault that people who aren't Democrats don't support eliminating the filibuster? And you think my comments are shit? Look inward, you're ignorant of the facts yet absolutely certain you're right. That's pathetic.
I mean they've been ignoring their constituents and instead pandering to Republicans while supporting their pet country's genocide even as it leads the Middle East closer to another large scale war. There's only one answer at the end of the democrats' right wing shift and that's fascism.
Dems haven't shifted right. They advocate and vote for rights for LGBTQ, worker's rights, and a myriad of other causes. The Democrats attempt to pass favorable laws, they are blocked procedurally by the Republicans, and then idiots say that the Democrats don't do anything. It's a tired refrain.
I would love to see Democrats take a harder line against Israel, but if they had how would this election season be going?? How much money has AIPAC spent? Does it make sense to take a hard line against Israel, and then lose the presidential election, lose the house, and lose the Senate? What do you think happens in Israel and Palestine with a republican supermajority and control of the White House?
Take time to understand situations before commenting on them. The Democrats largely haven't had the ability to pass laws through the house and the Senate without the Republicans obstructing it. Only for about 70 days in the last few decades.
I admittedly don't keep up with the nitty gritty of American politics, but Harris is campaigning on fracking and Republican-style border control. If this doesn't sound like a rightward shift I don't know what is.
No, you don't understand! It hasn't become politically expedient to throw trans people under the bus yet like Democrats did with the undocumented! As long as there is at least one vulnerable population they haven't yet chucked under the wheels for the sheer joy of hearing the thumping sounds, they're the good party!
Genocide.
Do you have a point you think you are making in regurgitating this? If so spit it out. Something I've seen repeatedly on lemmy is people for whom some answer, some framing is acceptable, being completely incapable of understanding that there are people for whom that framing isn't acceptable. Also, to be clear, we're talking about a congress-critter, not the big house in this article. Since thats the topic of the article, it would be appropriate to keep the discussion focused. The reality is that it doesn't matter how small world your view of this matter is: there are other people in the world who think differently than you, and if you want to actually convince them, these tired tropes wont work.
My argument, is that Democrats have left a lane wide open, and from a purely strategic/ cynical view of things, it would be stupid for some-one/ anyone to not just hop in and take that lane. I think we see Talib, Omar, maybe Porter, any other progressives who've been ratfucked by the DNC/ DCCC take that lane as independents. Its a blue ocean/ wide open opportunity that rarely shows itself in politics.
The point is, the winner of our elections will be either the Democrat or the Republican. There is no viable 3rd choice.
So, you hold your nose and vote for whoever is closest to your view who will actually get elected to prevent the person farthest from your view from taking office.
And don't give me that bullshit about "well, neither one is close to my view" because if Gore won in 2000 we wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11 and burned trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and if Clinton had won in 2016, we wouldn't have a packed right wing Supreme Court and lost Roe.
Both sides are NOT the same, one is CLEARLY better than the other for you and everyone else.
Its like you are allergic to the plain understanding that how you present this case, is just fucking wrong. No matter how much you wish it was that there were only two choices in this race, thats just not true. You drank the kool-aid. We get it. You see no other options. Other people do. Other people in the world see things differently than you, and clearly, Rashida Tlaib is one of them.
Voters don't have to vote. You can vote green, or blue, or red or purple. Or you can write in some other name. You can't force your opinion on the world when your opinion doesn't match objective reality.
This fantastic world you've locked yourself in, its not the real world. Its an opinion that you have (which is fine), but which is not the same as the objective reality, because people actually can (and should, my opinion) vote however they please.
I don't disagree, but you @jordanlund@lemmy.world , are going to have to take responsibility for the fact that this rhetorical approach you are using has done more damage to Harris' chances than it has convinced anyone that they need to vote Democrat. Its a view point that has been cultivated, selected for across lemmy which is toxic, not based in reality, and counter productive to the actual goals you suppose to have. Everyone that thinks the way you do has been convinced. Now what are you going to do about the people who don't think the way you do? How are you going to get the voters for whom a genocide is unacceptable? Its too late at this point, but what I'm showing you is how this this toxic culture divided the party and its ability
Blue MAGA/ Blue no matter who; they were always going to vote Democrat. You don't need to work on them. They're just followers and setting your rhetoric up to convince them is a waste of time, because you've already got their votes. Its the people for whom certain issues are a bridge too far that need to be convinced. And when you offer an argument that "they have no choice but to do what you want them to", do you think that is going to convince them. When you abuse them and gaslight them, how convincing do you think they'll find that?
I'm of the opinion that you can't ask a Palestinian or Muslim voter to vote Democrat this year, since Democrats don't even see them as people. They wouldn't even allow a Muslim 3 minutes on stage to make the case to other Muslims why they should vote for Harris. What Tlaib is doing here is probably the right move politically if she wants to hold her seat. Her job is to represent her constituents, not the party, and if she thinks this is the right thing to do, I support her in that.
If the Democrats are going to keep heading to the right like Harris has, I expect more progressive Independents to start appearing, striking back to the approach that Bernie Sanders used to great effect in the senate over his tenure.
There are only two choices WHO CAN WIN.
Stein can't win, the Greens don't have the power and have NEVER had the power. Their best shot was Nader with name recognition and he couldn't crack 3%.
Without Nader the very best they have done was 1.07% in 2016. Other than that? Sub 1% over, and over.
The Libertarian candidate could have pulled it out if disaffected Republicans had become Libertarians instead of Independents. Pro-Tip - they have not.
Kennedy's out.
The idiot socialist isn't even on the ballot in enough states to win.
West is on the ballot in fewer states than that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access_in_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election
I agree, I'd love for our system to have multiple VIABLE parties, but we don't. Your choice is the Democratic or Republican candidate, full stop.
If you want to change that, you aren't going to do it by voting for fringe candidates who will get 1% of the vote or less.
The correct way to change it is to pass ranked choice balloting. If you have a chance to support that (we did, on our ballot!) then go for it!
It's clear from this sentence alone that you are completely ignoring the comment to which you are responding.
The comment I'm responding to is attempting to change the subject.
The winner of the Presidential race will be either Harris or Trump. There is no other viable choice.
Do you think they don't understand that? Everyone understands that. You seem unwilling to move beyond that and confront a broader perspective than the vote of one person.
They keep arguing for an alternate choice where there is none, so, yeah, I'm pretty sure they aren't getting it.
No, they aren't. That literally is nowhere in their post.
You either didn't read it all, or you're lying, or you have poor reading comprehension skills.
I doubt it's the latter for a mod on a text based platform.
P.S. I'm an admin on a fairly large platform for a fairly large group. When the group took off, I started interacting on it a LOT less because my moderation responsibilities (which also increased with the groups growth, why are so many people just blatant assholes or trolls?) required that people view me as impartial and unbiased.
Choosing to engage frequently in controversial topics and using straw man arguments against posts that literally don't say anything related to what you say they say is certainly... a choice... for a mod to make.
Don't get me wrong, I miss my ability to interact with the group I admin like a normal person, but my duties to the group take precedence. I understand the desire, but there are other options.
You have no idea how relatable this is. This community has gone feral these past two weeks.
I'd bet money you voted against measure 117.
You'd be wrong, but I did vote against 118.
I haven't voted on 118 yet. It's the only bit unfilled. Not sure which way I'll go. Probably no, and then walk the ballot to a Dropbox in my neighborhoods library.
My beef with it is that it's just a Robin Hood law. They want to replicate Alaska's oil dividend, but we don't have a natural resource like that so the plan is to just soak the largest companies in the state instead.
I'm all for fairly taxing the wealthiest companies, but the money should be used to reduce our tax burden, not just kick it back to everyone else. Phil Knight doesn't need $1,600 back.