this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
289 points (87.7% liked)

politics

19238 readers
2096 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"We recognize that, in the next four years, our decision may cause us to have an even more difficult time. But we believe that this will give us a chance to recalibrate, and the Democrats will have to consider whether they want our votes or not."

That's gotta be one of the strangest reasonings I've heard in a while.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

These comments are crazy. No political party in power in the united states deserves support. Its those who cling to the democratic party who are "electing" trump by not moving to support a new alternate. Those who are promoting and supporting politicians who support genocide are those who are in the wrong and who are sabotaging progress.

[–] capital@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m not clinging to the Democratic Party. I’m simply aware of how first past the post voting works.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That just tells you there can only be two dominant parties. Which parties are those two can change. Those who keep supporting democrats are still the ones preventing it from being another party. If it not democrats, it would be a different one...

[–] capital@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I’ll bet you any amount of money that either Dems or reps win the next election. How much would you like to wager?

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd bet its not democrats if people stopped voting for them.

[–] capital@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Maybe I wasn’t clear.

I’ll bet you any amount you like that no third party wins the next election. You game?

The fact that no one ever takes me up on this shows y’all fucking know I’m right but don’t want to admit it.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If they won, they would no longer be a third party. If democrats became a third party, another party would become first party.

[–] capital@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s why I worded it the way I did the first time.

I bet you $1000 that either the Democrat or the Republican wins the next presidential election.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No one is disagreeing about that. Its irrelevant to the topic.

[–] capital@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It directly contradicts your claim that another party can win.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They can: the two statements are not contradictory. You're making more specific claims unrelated to the topic.

[–] capital@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They "can".

The sun "could" explode tomorrow and kill us all.

But neither will happen and we both know it.

[–] stephen01king@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you agree that saying the sun can explode tomorrow and saying it probably won't is not contradictory, right? This contradicts your own points.

[–] capital@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don’t forget the last part.

[–] stephen01king@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which doesn't change the fact that it is not contradictory like you claim it to be.

[–] capital@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hey while you’re here, you wanna bet the $1000 I offered the other guy?

I could use the money.

[–] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Again, you don't understand what contradictory means. Does saying the sun can explode tomorrow and saying it has a low chance of doing so contradictory? Similarly, saying a third party can win if people switch their votes away from the Dems is not contradictory to saying there is a low chance of that happening.

You're doing a logical fallacy by assuming that statements made about possible alternative events are equivalent to statements that claim the event is likely to happen.

[–] capital@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’ll take that as a no. I wouldn’t take the bet either as we know it won’t happen.

[–] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago

You're still talking about odds as if it has anything to do with my point. What's the point of replying if you don't even understand the point you're arguing against? Talking to you is like talking to a flat earther. They also like to cling to a single point without actually addressing the actual point people are bringing up.