222
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 25 Sep 2024
222 points (87.8% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2137 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
She's been getting a lot of hate for not endorsing Harris and people fail to realize the difference between endorsing and voting. Her entire point is that the government can't be fixed in a day. Voting for Harris is the obvious choice but her being in office isn't going to magically solve all our problems.
Except, by definition, she is endorsing Harris by publicly supporting her candidacy. Endorse doesn't mean you agree with everything they stand for, but if you are publicly saying who you are voting for, that's an endorsement.
A: this isn't really an endorsement, more than it is an acknowledgement of how fucked the options are. If you'd like to know the difference, go look at what Swifts endorsement looked like
B: she wasn't even going to say who she was voting for, but libs decided to harass her until she did
example: I use windows for work but i'm sure as fuck not going to recommend it to other people. Saying that i'm forced to use windows for work is not an endorsement. I'd go so far as to say that in this context it's more of a complaint or indictment than a endorsement.
She is telling the world that she thinks Harris is the best choice to vote for in this election. It's 100% an endorsement. Literally by definition. People seem to be confusing endorsing someone to marrying yourself to all of their views.
Err, you working from a different dictionary?
This is why she resisted saying who she was voting for initially, and why she is explicitly saying she is not endorsing
What does voting for someone do if not show support for them? In a democracy it's the ultimate form of support.
Lmao, idk maybe go watch her videos, she is definitely not voicing support and certainly not approval
Just so I'm clear: you're saying that if I had a gun to my head and was forced to choose between getting shot or eating dogshit, and I chose dogshit, that would be considered an endorsement?
She is neither being forced to vote for anyone, nor forced to let us know who she voted for. So, no, you're not clear about it at all.
You really don't see the distinction? Being forced into making a choice you don't like, and voicing a public approval of someone's candidacy?
I mean think what you want i guess
? We don't have mandatory voting, she isn't forced to vote at all. Additionally, she isn't forced to publicly say who she is voting for. I see the distinction when it comes to being forced to do something, the question I have now is if you understand the word forced because it doesn't appear that way.
Lmao
So wait, are you suggesting that she is forced to vote and forced to announce who she is voting for? I don't follow your response.
Yes, she was pressured into both of those decisions. Pretending as if it were not only a 'free choice' but an actual endorsement is cringe-levels of desperate, honestly.
Funny, you have now moved the goal posts from "forced" to "she feels pressured" without a single admission that you used the wrong word.
Look, I recognize that it's a weak endorsement, I'm not pretending it is something it's not. But, by definition, it's an endorsement; she publicly stated who she is voting for, revealing that she thinks the best way to cast her vote at this point is for harris. You just don't want to accept the definition of word of "endorsement" and now "forced." Endorsement doesn't mean you're over the moon ecstatic about the candidate. Plenty of right wings and conservatives have endorsed Harris, not because they agree with her policies but that they recognize what a disaster trump is for the country.
All it means is that you publicly show your support for a candidate...which she literally did by publicly saying she would vote for Harris.
"I didn't force you to eat dog shit, you chose to do it of your own volition while I stood next to you with my gun to your head" 🤷
Lmao jesus christ. Is 'compelled' a better word, then? Her entire statement is about how she is explicitly not endorsing because of how shit kamala is, but if you'd like count that as an endorsement for your team then all the power to you, bud
She can not vote at all, vote for someone else on the ballot, or write in whoever she wants. There is no forcing here. Certainly she was not forced to announce her decision. You seem to keep ignoring that second part. Your attempt to paint her actions here as "forced like a gun was to her head" is actually as cringe a you claimed my argument is.
And I couldn't care less if this artist endorses Harris. I had never even heard of her before this and probably wouldn't have heard about this endorsement if it weren't for it making it here on lemmy. Your attempts to project your "taking sides" is your issue alone and not mine. I'm not the one who has, not once but twice, tried to paint her position as equivalent to having a gun to her head. You're the one who feels compelled to make objectively ridiculous arguments in order to defend your position.
Well there ya go! Agreement!
I think we would agree on a lot. Even our disagreement here - a weak endorsement vs a non-endorsement - isn't that far off from one another.
This is why nobody should ever disclose who they are voting for in public.
The problem is she's trying to bring nuance to a bumper sticker platform.