politics
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
view the rest of the comments
Wdym you don't think Harris was better for the US? /s
To the downvoters: this isn't a Dems vs republicans issue, it's a US issue. It's a uniparty system that's working as intended, which is why it needs to be completely abolished and revolutionized.
If you don't think Harris would be better for the US than Trump or that she would only let in white people from South Africa, you're insanely delusional.
While it is definitely a US thing, it's also a Republican vs Democrat thing. Neither party is even good, but one is way worse in almost every facet than the other.
If Harris won, do you think we'd be engaged in a war with Iran right now, or that the straight of Hormuz would be closed, or that the Epstein files would be as blocked as they are? Do you think she would have signed a bunch of EOs that are illegal to enrich herself and her family? Do you believe that ICE would have invaded cities all over the country, illegally capturing minorities and murdering two people? No, none of that would have happened, because she is better than Trump, and that's a Republican vs Democrat thing.
Saying I'm "insanely delusional" isn't an argument. No, I don't think Harris would be better. Like I said, she's part of the uniparty that wants billionaire oligarchs in power with no real improvements for people.
The fact you think it's a republican vs democrat thing is strange because you should know it's a uniparty. Both republican and democrat leaders were seen in unison on Epstein Island. Obama bombed Pakistan and countries in the Middle East, other democrat leaders have been going on in their so-called war on terror in afghanistan, and so on. Each "democrat" leader that's been in power can be traced to atrocities as disgusting as the next.
It doesn't matter if Harris would differ on a specific, isolated policy (white genocide spiels), because the big picture is always the same: they are not for the people, they're for the concentration of money and power and maintenance of the status quo within a broken system.
I do indeed believe the Epstein files would remain blocked under Harris, no american leader in power (kept alive) would allow that. Democrats have been involved in insider trading to enrich themselves and their families too, so I don't know what you're getting at. Minorities? Harris was known for her mistreatment of muslims and brown people in general.
As pointed out by the other comment, I do believe the US would be involved in war w Iran or another country in the middle east. Let's face it: America is Israel's bitch and does whatever Israel wants. AIPAC owns the political system in the US.
It's delusional to think that anyone would be as bad as this unprecedented administration. What you're doing is like saying Jeff Dahmer and a guy that killed one person are equally bad. There are degrees of awful, and Trump is about as bad as it gets.
Clearly you didn't understand my comment.
"Delusional" isn't an argument, and the rest of my comment addresses why the "degrees of bad" idea isn't relevant at all.
The rest of your comment doesn't make the difference between the Republicans and Democrats irrelevant. It ignores the reality that Republicans are the main baddies making a bad system significantly worse with zero positive legislation. I acknowledged the Dems suck, but there can at least be some progress made with dem leadership. It's not good enough progress, but it's still progress. Because of that by itself, the degrees of bad is extremely relevant.
Look all of the way back to Reagan. Clinton wasn't great, but he was better than his predecessors and was the last president to have a balanced budget before Bush killed it. Bush dragged us into our current political climate and decades of war. Obama continued with military action, but also got the ACA, gay marriage, and weed legalized during his terms. Then Trump had nothing good and divided the country as bad as it's been in my lifetime. Then Biden tried to do some good but was blocked at every turn. I wish he had gone harder to hold people liable, but his admin did pass positive legislation. Including his messy exit, he's still top two best presidents in the past 26 years. Was he great? No, but he did some good. Now we're back to Trump, the worst president for most of our lives. No redeeming qualities.
The US system is broken, and neither Dems or reps are the answer, we need more progressives in leadership to effectively drive the change needed. But change doesn't happen overnight, and in the interim period Dems are a vastly superior option even with their glaring flaws.
It does actually, but you don't seem to acknowledge the uniparty, their homogenous class interests in the Epstein class (not the citizens in either case), and their violence towards both marginalized demographics and war/genocide.
Obama bombed so many countries in his time, and most of the Dems in power did the same thing. There's more than enough shade out there on all of them. Kamala was islamophobic herself.
Additionally, the political system in America has allowed for someone as terrible as Trump to come into power.
While I agree the system is broken and that Dems/reps are not the answer, I disagree that reformism within the system will yield anything. Reformism doesn't work, a radical revolution is needed.
I've said multiple times that both parties suck. That is acknowledgement that both parties have crossover that's bad. Only the majority of one party is fighting to release the Epstein files. I'm not saying Harris would have made a blanket release, but I don't believe for a second that she would have fought to keep them secret the same way Trump has. I'm not going to defend her on what may have happened in the war. Her silence on Israel was not good. However, harris doesn't have a strong history of islamaphobia. I tried to find damning instances from her, but the current Israel/Gaza situation is about the only thing surfacing, and it's not a good look. But she doesn't have a stories history that I can find suggesting this is chronic. Again, not saying she's a saint.
As far as Obama, I mentioned the bombings were bad. Not defending them. I'm just saying that he also successfully passed domestic policies that were good. That's different from any Republican president that has done all of the bombing with none of the positive extra stuff.
I don't think reformism is the answer. I'm just saying that since change takes time, the best option we have is Dems, because they aren't as bad as Reps. I'd take 4 years of almost anything else than the current admin, which is a testament to just how bad it is now and the parity between the alternative. No change is better than worse change, but it does move the Overton window. So yes, we agree the system is fucked. I just believe that the biggest factor is Republicans because Dems do the smallest of good sometimes.
That's a fair enough take, then.
you can't comprehend the difference. amazing. I'm not sure if you're insufferably dense or just duplicitous, but abjectly wrong either way
Your non-argument ad hominem doesn't add anything.
sure thing sparky. whatever helps you sleep at night, I'm sure if I'd made these same decisions it'd keep me up lol.
Posturing and more ad hominems.
Cool
LOL it is cool, thanks for noticing. Bet it really burns you up that absolutely no one agrees with your garbage lol
Disclaimer, I don't think harris would have been as bad as Trump. But this is the US.
Yes, Israel is America's ally and this is Israel's war. The choice would be between letting Israel get absolutely destroyed which would have unironically happened by now if there weren't 3 carrier groups trying to intercept missiles and drones, or going to war with Iran.
Yes, as an AG she spent her time refusing to charge pedos and disproportionately arresting (and arguing against the conditional release of) minorities. She worked with a know pedophile for four fucking years and called him one of the best people she knew.
She went fairly middle class Californian to one of the richest women on Earth by the time she ended her tenure as Senator. You tell me. Maybe they would've been legal like how all other presidents massively enriched themselves in office. Maybe that'd be the difference.
It'd be way more than two, and it would be less invasion and more silent takeover based on how Biden and Obama used ICE to terrorize cities for decades.
The main difference is it would still be comfortable for the ever shrinking middle class, and it would be quiet since liberals by and large don't listen to unapproved news sources for information. Just like Obama's kills of US citizens across the world, just like Biden's record number of child arrests, many of whom are still detained in "Trump's" ICE facilities (or just missing).
No. Previously when Israel has said "We're going up against Iran next week, join us or it'll be a shitshow", the US has had the sense to say "No deal", and Israel folded. But somehow the "Art of the deal" president doesn't get this, so went all-in with Israel. Dumb as a rock.
You think that under Harris, more immigrants would have gotten murdered than during the massive ICE push, where they hired thousands of ill-qualified goons, hardly trained them, and let them loose on the population? That's bizarre.
just making shit up.
not in the top 100 - https://www.celebritynetworth.com/list/top-100-richest-women-in-the-world/
fuck, she's barely a multi-millionaire if you don't count her shared assets with her millionaire husband.
https://fortune.com/2024/10/26/how-much-is-kamala-harris-net-worth-money-salary-president/
nowhere anywhere near 'one of the richest women on earth'
so easy to check, what the fuck mate do you believe everything fox news or whatever shit source you got this garbage from tells you?
Oof, this is certainly a take. I'll go ahead and just disagree and we can go our separate ways on this one.
Material analysis does tend to go contrary to liberal fantasy. Have a good life full of surprise and wonder at how the blue tie doesn't materially change things.
Don't you dare try to reason, mister!