189
Josh Shapiro Is a Terrible Choice for VP
(jacobin.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 Aug 2024
189 points (86.2% liked)
politics
19145 readers
2298 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
Ok. do whatever stupid shit you want. Keep thinking that enthusiasm doesn't matter and that second worst is always a winner.
You'll blame anyone but yourself when you're wrong, like you did in 2016.
Enthusiasm is fine. Fanaticism is a problem. Know the difference.
Second worst has always been the winner throughout American history. Much the rest of the world too. Apart from that one time a Republican invented his own party to run on and won on his name recognition. Because the Republican party abandoned him. But hey if you got the stats to prove otherwise. We'd all like to see them.
Name calling and casting baseless aspersions won't make your points anymore reasonable or sound. Honestly it just makes people see you as a cringy obsessed weirdo. Which isn't helping any of the people you and I both want to see helped.
You may think that Trump was second worst to Clinton, but I don't.
Definitely unsurprising. Irrationality definitely doesn't appear to be against your modus operandi when it comes to these topics.
If second worst always wins and Trump beat Clinton, you're saying that Trump was second worst to Clinton.
As always with centrists, abuse is what you use in lieu of defensible positions.
Oh I see you back to making strawman and calling names again? Is that really all you have. Just so you know that's rhetorical question.
You're accusing me of the only thing you've been doing for this entire conversation.
I see so you have no actual replies. That's on brand for you.
I already replied to you. You made the idiotic assertion that second worst always wins. I countered it by saying that Trump won in 2016 and wasn't second worst.
Since you can't take being called out on being so obviously wrong about this, you did the only thing any centrist ever does when they're wrong: start slinging abuse.
Do you haven't posted an actual serious reply to any response I make you in this whole chain. Not just that one. But it was obvious that that when you were not replying in good faith. Which is your modus operandi. All you can do is call me wine and split hair in order to find any technical out.
You said something provably false and evidently expect me to immediately and unquestioningly accept it as incontrovertible fact. You can't admit you're wrong.
The only thing you accept as serious is agreeing with you about everything. Or maybe being to the right of you.
I said something that any reasonable person in the context it was being discussed would have understood that the second worse always winning was in the context of the absolute worst not winning. If the absolute worst wins. Then yes of course the second worst doesn't win. But I made the mistake of assuming that you were a reasonable person.
Nope I accept people giving me serious replies all the time that don't agree with me. I find having a discussion with someone in good faith whether or not they agree can be very informative and refreshing. Having a discussion with you is tedious and pointless. Because you are nothing but bad faith.
Harris nominated the better candidate.
That's great and?