841
Teary-eyed John Oliver begs reluctant voters to back Harris
(www.thedailybeast.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 04 Nov 2024
841 points (97.3% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4529 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
i live in a solidly blue state and i'm voting third party. i could never help trump even if i wanted to because of the same electoral college that's helping him win; i'm using the system against itself, as you should do every chance you get.
my ancestors where genocided out of existence in this country so i'm 100% sure that they would agree with me that being party to the same system & people that have a history of repeatedly using genocide as acceptable political collateral damage is a bad idea and anything good that comes from it is an accident.
I hear this a lot but:
I'd argue that driving up the support for Harris in the popular vote is critical. If Trump wins Electorally, it's still rhetorically important to stifle the notion of a mandate by not letting him get 50%.
Blue states have fallen in the past or can shift purple if the line isn't held.
That said, I'm glad you're not in a swing state at least.
Reminder that it was Biden who just recently issued a forceful formal apology to the indigenous people of America. GOP didn't it. Trump mocked it by having a rally on their sacred grounds no less.
it was another public display of the same "shallow understanding" from moderates that MLK jr wrote about; but i think he can be forgiven for it since the native americans in canada and united states seem to have similar understanding.
and the blue states conversion is going to happen at the same rate as democrat's conversion into diet republicans.
Yet for all of MLK's grievances, who ultimately provided the pathway to lawful change in Congress in 1964?
waiting for election to end before taking action to stop a genocide sounds too much like the definition of that timetable MLK jr was referring to and voting for an genocider enabler to help maintain negative peace is something he actively warned against.
moderates have a "shallow understanding" of MLK jr's efforts because americans are indoctrinated against all it of it except for his nonviolence and it's relevance along with my experience is saddening since i'm literally watching history repeat before my eyes as it's enabled by the overwhelming majority who never bothered to reach out past that indoctrination.
All due respect, you didn't answer the question.
Pyrrhic victories are meaningless. In the end, who actually followed through with change?
Obama himself, the first black President, sympathized with you that change never seems to come quickly enough. Partly because people like Trump are so damaging and disruptive to progress. In their absence, we'd be far more free to advance more quickly. Alas, that's just dreaming.
So in the end, it was those liberals in Congress who passed the monumental change. And without question, MLK had more allies among them than he did the Confederate successors in the KKK, obviously.
In the end, some change is better than no change is better than regression through entropy.
there is no objective answer to your question; only responses that align with our world view and in my world view neither biden nor harris represent progress based on my experiences.
MLK jr was successful because of the portrayals of racially motivated violence in the media galvanized the voting public into passing the civil rights acts and our leaders have since taken efforts; spent money; and have repealed several civil rights related acts to ensure that it doesn't happen again; this isn't progress.
If you believe we haven't made progress since Emmett Till and Stonewall, then you're looking at the arc of history through a drinking straw.
that's the last time we made progress and those too come from the same generation of civil rights pushes.
similarly to MLK jr, our leaders have also taken efforts, spend money and legislated away rights to ensure that they never happen again; yes we did progress at those times, but haven't since then.
So legalizing homosexuality (2003) and legalizing same-gender marriage (2015) are not progress? What an odd thing to suggest. I'm guessing a lot of married queer people who aren't imprisoned would disagree.
And if Trump gets to appoint Thomas and Alito's replacements, we never will again.
yes and the vast majority who only have that "shallow understanding" and the people who have worked ensure that they do have sealed our fate.
I'm sure you intended for that to sound more erudite than it actually does.
i'm never that lucky and this is clearly hitting close to home for you as it does for me based on your comments.
i have the benefit of doing this for about 50 years so i have my own ways of coping and i hope you have your own version of touching grass too.