-17
No Endorsement: Uncommitted Mvmt. Won’t Back Harris, Trump or Third Party as U.S. Keeps Arming Israel
(www.democracynow.org)
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
-17 points (36.5% liked)
politics
19238 readers
2123 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Republicans have en mass sought to defund or end democratic rights and institutions constantly. Both within the United States and without. For the last 50 to 100 years and you are skeptical? Trump held a coup in 2020 and should not have been allowed back on the ballot and you're skeptical? Our Supreme Court has gone out of its way to give him total immunity and you're skeptical? He said he'd be a dictator on day one and you're skeptical? The people who were in his administration and that he still surrounds himself with are the ones responsible for the fascist project 2025 whose goal is to overthrow the United States and you're skeptical? You're having problems with definitions. That's not skeptical. That's willfully naive or ignorant. Not skeptical. Listen to what they're telling you.
Yes! The institutions have been heavily rotted over the last 25 years at minimum. If not 50 to 100. Yes trump could deliver the finishing blow. He's only said he would. Many many times. And thank you for that straw man argument. Because absolutely voting is one of the least things. One of the easiest things anyone could do. And yet so many are seeming to fail so hard by not understanding the basics of how it works. Or what's actually at stake.
Let me clarify. I am skeptical that the picture presented "Trump wins = Democracy ends vs. Harris wins = Democracy prevails" is accurate.
We were told voting Biden would solve things in 2020. It did not.
Democrats had 4 years, or rather 8 years including Trumps first presidency to acknowledge the threat to democracy and prepare to counter it. However what we saw under Biden and to a lesser extent Harris, was to go for business as usual and choose paddling to neoliberal donors over making fundamental policy changes to "progressive" economic, social and foreign policies. "progressive" because what would be revolutionary by US standards is conservative by the standards of most other developed nations, e.g. access to healthcare, workers rights, prevention of child labour...
And we need to understand that Biden stepped down under heavy pressure and Harris was set to continue, because she is the defacto continuation of his administration. There is nothing past some rhetorical differences that truly puts her apart. she became VP because she was a reliable technocrat, not because she had particular popularity among the people like for instance Bernie Sanders had.
So there is no indication that the Democrats have any motivation and plans to address the issues threatening American democracy. Meanwhile they have shown to crack down on peoples initiatives to address these issues. Be it Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter or now the protests on US campuses against the genocide in Gaza.
The way i see it, the US is headed for another civil war, and it will come regardless of Democrats or Republicans being in power at the time. Also what we saw is the Democrats becoming increasingly authoritarian in the way they conducted themselves in the election process so far. The discussion about Bidens mental health was shunned and it was doubled down on him as the candidate, until it was impossible to hold. Harris was declared successor, without opening up to properly discuss where the party should head and who would be the best candidate.