165
The Case for Kamala Harris
(www.theatlantic.com)
Won't destroy democracy: Check.
✅ Also has some good ideas
Which unfortunately will never get anywhere because the Republicans are almost guaranteed to win back the Senate...
It really sucks. Either Trump wins and gets the trifecta of control letting the fascists at the heritage foundation run rampant or Kamala wins but still loses the Senate and we get nothing but the statue quo for at least 2 more years... But if anything the Republicans will gain seats in the next cycle because they can point to the previous 2 years of nothing (caused by them) as evidence that Democrats suck...
Big sad. :(
load more comments
(14 replies)
One wants to be a dictator, the other doesn't. They're the same! \s
load more comments
(9 replies)
she's not a raging lunatic who sundowns at every rally?
There is only one sane choice. People who abstain are choosing insanity the same way that those who abstained in 2016 allowed insanity to prevail.
Having said that, I think voters would be pretty excited to get out and support a candidate that they had actually chosen in the primaries after seeing them go through some campaigning and debates. None of us chose Kamala, and Biden's late dropout was not ideal. I am hoping that America can have this opportunity back in the next election.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
165 points (92.3% 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