482
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 06 Aug 2024
482 points (97.4% liked)
politics
31115 readers
2310 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Walz is a low risk, medium reward pick. Shapiro is reverse. Can't win the Presidency without Pennsylvania. I think the jabber that the far left came up with regarding Shapiro is shameful and embarrassing, but the choice is made and it's time to move forward.
Wouldn't the opposite of a low risk, medium reward pick a high risk, medium reward pick?
Shapiro was high risk and high reward. Now that the decision has been made, I hope you can cheer for the Philly ward ladies to deliver Pennsylvania.
I don't think Shapiro guarantees PA. His approval is good, but it's not crazy high like Beshear. And his vulnerabilities make him too risky of a pick, you don't want to halt the positive momentum and alienate the young voters you have finally gotten energised.
Not that it matters, but the political tactics in Pennsylvania are a bit different. Shapiro's popularity in rural communities would be quite beneficial.
I think you'll be surprised by the number of surprise states going blue for this election. A lot has happened since 2020 on Trump's side, and none of it has been good.
Maybe true. Hopefully true. Ground game is everything, though.
Yeah, but you celebrate the genocide. I know you post a lot so the arguments between us from months ago will be far back in the history, but there is nothing surprising about someone who justifies genocide siding with the candidate who served in the military that is currently committing genocide.
I'm not siding with any candidate. I don't care who the democratic VP candidate is. Try again.
I don't need to try again, but when you post seemingly innocuous opinions that tangentially touch on your support for genocide without referencing it, and I see it, I will post so that others will know that they are interacting with something posted by someone that supports genocide.
Please practice on your soapbox.