news 2024 US Election Megathread 🇺🇸🏛️

[superglowy]

11 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

It doesn't help? You advocate the same policies and people that got us here, act flippant when pushed like you're above criticism, but then want to be a valued part of the discussion you only half want to have? It's not really any different than Russians funding money to Tim pool to do the same end of America talking points

Even if all said before this sentence were consistently true, which I don't believe is, I see myself as flexible in my opinion depending on the paradigm of the situation, the bolder sentence however is a perfect example of the hyperbolic fan fiction certain progressives throw out to attack posters when a lot of us just want to have an actual discussion with the ones we like.

[superglowy]

3 minutes ago, Communion said:

Re-read this out loud. 

"I can't vote for Kamala because she's a genocide enabler and that's a red line but if she willing to take on progressive ideals, I'll consider it."

 

[Communion]

18 minutes ago, anti-***** said:

It's not insecurity to ask why you guys are more critical of Harris/Biden than Trump? If you think they are all the same, fine. But give them the same energy.

Which of these statements are *materially* more critical in your view, not just which one may upset you more due to your personal preferences?

• "I will never vote for a Democrat who doesn't support Medicare For All"
• "I will never vote for a Republican"

?

[Redstreak]

38 minutes ago, superglowy said:

Ma'am, this is a (Wendy's) Pop Music Forum where Queer men argue about Lady Gaga's Make Up Tik Toks and Katy Perrys Hair.

 

8 minutes ago, superglowy said:

 a lot of us just want to have an actual discussion

?

[superglowy]

1 minute ago, Communion said:

Which of these statements are *materially* more critical in your view, not just which one may upset you more due to your personal preferences?

• "I will never vote for a Democrat who doesn't support Medicare For All"
• "I will never vote for a Republican"

?

That's reframing anti-***** quote and not engaging with the viewpoint he's expressing, so why are you even engaging with the post other than to flame bait him?

Not a day went by in this thread without Biden/Harris and the Palestinian Genocide being brought up and now Trump is in office, it's rarely mentioned and if so, it's exclusively reserved against Dems, which supports the viewpoint that much of the postering used before to attack others viewpoints in this thread do not come from the 'moral' basis that was pontificated over and over. Because is it was truly about the genocide, you should be posting essays still every day about Trumps desire to build properties with his name along the strip. And yet, crickets.

 

And you KNOW that's the point he's making, but of course you wanna reframe it in an attempt to humiliate that user. Which is why no one should take you seriously, because it's almost never a good faith response.

 

 

[superglowy]

4 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

 

?

What exactly about these two quote contradict each other? The first was to your response that not challenging users on ATRL will somehow allow fascism to rise and the other is expressing that some users aren't trying to have 'Gotcha' tween interactions, they wanna discuss politics like adults, even adults who disagree.

[Communion]

7 minutes ago, superglowy said:

"I can't vote for Kamala because she's a genocide enabler and that's a red line but if she willing to take on progressive ideals, I'll consider it."

 

I really don't know how to engage with this besides it being what a dumb person would think is a smart retort.

 

And that your engagement with electoral politics - ironically - starts and stops at personal ego.

 

Because you somehow take "consistent ideological worldview" about why people vote and for who they vote for to mean "ideologically (but misused to mean morally) consistent" and be about one's own voting intention. 

 

You have no interest in understanding why people as cohorts vote how they do and how to convince them to vote for something else - because you have no meaningful political empathy - that you can't grasp "consistent ideological worldview" is referring holding the position of "hey guys, I really don't think 'black lady cop who is tough on crime' is a winning strategy!"' and being proven by the literal election results.

[Communion]

10 minutes ago, superglowy said:

Not a day went by in this thread without Biden/Harris and the Palestinian Genocide being brought up

"HMMMM ISN'T IT INTERESTING THAT LEFTISTS HAVE STOPPED MAKING THREADS ABOUT THE GENOCIDE IN GAZA?? THEY MUST HAVE NOT REALLY CARED??"

 

Edited Sunday at 07:03 PM by Communion

[superglowy]

2 minutes ago, Communion said:

I really don't know how to engage with this besides it being what a dumb person would think is a smart retort.

 

And that your engagement with electoral politics - ironically - starts and stops at personal ego.

 

Because you somehow take "consistent ideological worldview" about why people vote and for who they vote for to mean "ideologically (but misused to mean morally) consistent" and be about one's own voting intention. 

 

You have no interest in understanding why people as cohorts vote how they do and how to convince them to vote for something else - because you have no meaningful political empathy - that you can't grasp "consistent ideological worldview" is referring holding the position of "hey guys, I really don't think 'black lady cop who is tough on crime' is a winning strategy!"' and being proven by the literal election results.

I'm sure you don't know how to engage with that comment since it's asking you how you can hold a moral position of dogging Democrats and Harris for being a 'Genocide Enabler' only to then express interest in Harris as a candidate once you projected progressive potential views onto her, thus allowing you to look beyond the genocide while attacking other posters for looking at ramifications of the election outside of the Genocide.

 

My engagement about politics isn't 'personal ego', and this accusation feels like projection, it's actually what most people in a forum do, which is express their view on a topic/situation and then enjoys interacting with other viewpoints, even opposing ones. Thats it. It seems to be only you that turns it into a referendum or court case against users.

Again, that last sentence is pure projection. When do you have an interest in understanding the view points of others in this thread? This thread is just an ego stroke for you, nothing more.

 

And once again, this thread and the interesting discussion  we were having has been derailed the minute you start interacting with it. 

 

[superglowy]

13 minutes ago, Communion said:

"HMMMM ISN'T IT INTERESTING THAT LEFTISTS HAVE STOPPED MAKING THREADS ABOUT THE GENOCIDE IN GAZA?? THEY MUST HAVE NOT REALLY CARED??"

 

Making a THREAD and making a POST are two different things. Let me explain that like to a child. 
 

And as I stated to another user, the minute you start with your fan fiction is the minute to disengage, so I'm out. Whatever makes you Happy.

[Communion]

1 minute ago, superglowy said:

how you can hold a moral position

Again, this is the insecurity that's mentioned over and over. You've invented a thing that never occurred because your only relation to electoral politics is not seeing it as the best means to a end of changed material conditions but as part of parasocial projection. Why would I - someone who has explicitly argued voting is not rooted in moral duty but is innately transactional - make anything about voting out to be about any kind of moral positioning? 

 

So people criticizing Harris is somehow an affront to you as a person. To where people who simply had no issue with others not voting for Harris - and who thought it is Harris' job as the politician to earn votes - "bullied" those who uncritically supported Harris. 

 

It's just the same empty rhetorical attempts over and over despite them all already being disarmed and dismantled.

 

You're tryin to re-litigate battles you've already lost. Kamala Harris lost. Every criticism over her as a bad candidate has been validated. 

[Redstreak]

32 minutes ago, superglowy said:

What exactly about these two quote contradict each other? The first was to your response that not challenging users on ATRL will somehow allow fascism to rise and the other is expressing that some users aren't trying to have 'Gotcha' tween interactions, they wanna discuss politics like adults, even adults who disagree.

But you don't want to discuss, you want people who will just rah rah the party no matter how awful they are

[Bears01]

Getting away from 2028 talk: we are in serious, serious trouble. 
 

And the only people who can stop it: 

 

[anti-bitch]

24 minutes ago, Communion said:

Which of these statements are *materially* more critical in your view, not just which one may upset you more due to your personal preferences?

• "I will never vote for a Democrat who doesn't support Medicare For All"
• "I will never vote for a Republican"

?

I mean, I support univeral healthcare for everyone. I'm not fully aware how Medicare works, but if that's what it is, I support it.

 

I don't wanna get in an emotionally charged back and forth about this. I'm not telling you or anyone else how to vote. Me saying that please focus more on what Trump is doing now almost half a year after the election is not an endorsement of Harris, past, present or future.

[Gaia]

We need a good speaker to run for the Democratic Party. One of Kamala's biggest drawbacks is she can't command a crowd like the Obamas can. Have whatever opinion you want of them, then are undoubtedly the best speech givers and well spoken in the party. Hardly ever a stutter or misspoken word, it's very impressive. 
 

Biden was criticized for not being able to make a coherent sentence and Kamala just didn't really bring much energy. Jon Ossoff has potential but I guess is still too young and has less name recognition. 

[noodlelymph]

Blind Partisanship is not a proper substitute for ideological commitment to policy… Yall would literally vote for a Dem who mass murdered children just because you have an immaterial understanding of "lesser evil." It's literally no different than the excuses GOP voters make in their defense of everything bad Trump does!!! 

[Communion]

10 minutes ago, superglowy said:

Making a THREAD and making a POST are two different things.

"Why aren't you arguing about how Trump needs to be more pro-Palestine in order to win????"

 

51 minutes ago, Communion said:

Re-read this out loud. 

Again, your stance is illogical because it comes from an illiteracy to realities innate to politics in America.

 

You're still unsure if we're talking about how people decide to personally vote or how people make others feel about their own vote.

 

You're seemingly unaware of the reality that Donald Trump and Republicans don't need to support M4A or be anti-genocide to win because their voters don't care but, yes, Democratic elected officials need to be because they have different voters. Progressives acknowledging this fact and calling out the bad campaign Harris was running and which centrists Dems run is seemingly - in your eyes - not just unfair to Democrats, but somehow secretly an endorsement of Trump.

 

It's 2016's "a vote NOT for Hillary is a vote FOR Trump" incoherence just over and over and over. 

 

You're angry over "progressives just wanting to be right" cause no progressive is going to deny factual reality to satiate your preferred political reality.

[Redstreak]

9 minutes ago, noodlelymph said:

Blind Partisanship is not a proper substitute for ideological commitment to policy… Yall would literally vote for a Dem who mass murdered children just because you have an immaterial understanding of "lesser evil." It's literally no different than the excuses GOP voters make in their defense of everything bad Trump does!!! 

I think what gets lost is that if you still believe in neoliberalism that your choices are good v bad and that leftists are letting great stop good. But to us these aren't good policies, they're just not nuclear bad like the far right, and not the worst can't be our positions going forward

[CandyCoatedClouds]

6 hours ago, lyk251 said:

I'm not Europeans but i still say it is not enough unless the number of protestors higher than the number of kamala voters .

Over five million people protested yesterday. It's insanely difficult to get people out there to protest in the fourth largest nation on earth with such piss poor transportation like the US has. Also Gen Z were sitting this out/protesting something worse while black people weren't protesting at all so that makes it a little more difficult.

6 hours ago, Communion said:

 

They were probably at the protests not organized by cut-out groups silent on genocide!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hands off was a protest for a good cause and so is this so I'm glad to see that they were out for fighting for the civil liberties of others.

[Communion]

18 minutes ago, anti-***** said:

I mean, I support univeral healthcare for everyone. I'm not fully aware how Medicare works, but if that's what it is, I support it.

 

I don't wanna get in an emotionally charged back and forth about this. I'm not telling you or anyone else how to vote. Me saying that please focus more on what Trump is doing now almost half a year after the election is not an endorsement of Harris, past, present or future.

This argument and the current argument at large is literally just a cycle of:

 

How Liberals Think Elections Are Won:

• Republicans are dangerous fascists
• To beat Republicans, Democratic candidates simply have to be less unpopular than Republican candidate
• This means that all efforts may be centered around never criticizing the Democratic candidate in any capacity to stop fascism

How Progressives Think Elections Are Won:

• Republicans are dangerous fascists
• To beat Republicans, Democratic candidates must offer voters an alternative vision and actual tangibles vs the Republican
• This means that all efforts may be centered around pushing the Democratic candidate to the left in order to stop fascism

"Change" winning while "We're Not Going Back" bombing suggests progressives should just be listened to stop fascism!

[ClashAndBurn]

21 minutes ago, Gaia said:

We need a good speaker to run for the Democratic Party. One of Kamala's biggest drawbacks is she can't command a crowd like the Obamas can. Have whatever opinion you want of them, then are undoubtedly the best speech givers and well spoken in the party. Hardly ever a stutter or misspoken word, it's very impressive. 
 

Biden was criticized for not being able to make a coherent sentence and Kamala just didn't really bring much energy. Jon Ossoff has potential but I guess is still too young and has less name recognition. 

There won't be much demand for an Ossoff run once he loses to Marjorie Taylor Greene next year anyways. But he runs into the exact same issue in that he won't separate himself from being pro-Israel enough to satisfy younger cohorts of voters while at the same time isn't rabidly pro-Israel enough for the Israel lobby to get behind.

 

Yes yes, I know, seeing Palestinians as human beings is a fringe issue no one other than delusional out of touch leftists gave even an ounce of care to, blah blah blah. But AIPAC definitely cares, and will have to choose between giving millions of dollars in donations to a Jewish man who isn't as pro-genocide as they want versus the Jewish Space Laser conspiracy theorist. I'd personally expect them to choose the latter.

[anti-bitch]

36 minutes ago, Communion said:

This argument and the current argument at large is literally just a cycle of:

 

How Liberals Think Elections Are Won:

• Republicans are dangerous fascists
• To beat Republicans, Democratic candidates simply have to be less unpopular than Republican candidate
• This means that all efforts may be centered around never criticizing the Democratic candidate in any capacity to stop fascism

How Progressives Think Elections Are Won:

• Republicans are dangerous fascists
• To beat Republicans, Democratic candidates must offer voters an alternative vision and actual tangibles vs the Republican
• This means that all efforts may be centered around pushing the Democratic candidate to the left in order to stop fascism

"Change" winning while "We're Not Going Back" bombing suggests progressives should just be listened to stop fascism!

I don't know how you got all that out of my post. I have said before that I would prefer Sanders or Walz on the ticket. Also, it was me who said last year that nobody should be able to have a second home until everyone has a home. We are not on different sides.

[Ashley Banks]

3 hours ago, ClashAndBurn said:

I'm not convinced either, only because she's probably going to be the least bad option. And when Democrats are presented with choices of least-bad/middling to godawful/terrible, they tend to choose the worst possible human being on the list. That's how it's been since 2016, and it got progressively worse when they chose Biden in 2020, who was far more awful than Hillary in every possible way.

 

That's why Shapiro feels like an inevitability - purely because he's the worst out of whom is being thought of so far, and yet he could still be supplanted by Cuomo after he inevitably wins the NYC mayoral race for much the same reason- because he's the worst human being running there. And progressives don't actually have a Bernie this time either. All of the possible successors have other plans (AOC maybe primaries Schumer) or just suck in general, like Ro Khanna.

Nnnn I don't even want to think about President Cuomo  I forgot he was eyeing the presidency before his resignation. 

 

3 hours ago, jakeisphat said:

Not since 1908 I think… but I'm not counting her out because just look at what happened in 2020. There were so many establishment democrats that voters were not consolidating around any particular candidate. Joe came in 3rd place in Iowa, 4th place in NH, 2nd place in Nevada, only for him to win SC and give a fiery speech and the DNC decided to just clear the way for him because he had most name recognition and they didn't want Bernie to win. 
 

Clyburn publicly pushed for Kamala to be VP in 2020, then said publicly since 2024 that he "wasn't going to let the establishment pass over Kamala" as Joe's replacement after he dropped out. If she runs in 2028 she will win SC and probably NV. Meanwhile, Josh, Pete, Gretchen, Andy, J.B., Tim, Gavin, etc. will all be fighting for a moment of shine and will struggle in southern states where Kamala would likely clear them like Hillary and Joe did.

 
It's kind of insane to think that if AOC doesn't run for president in 2028, Kamala and Tim will be the most progressive of the candidates following a conservative 2024 campaign. 

Yeah we're kind of screwed there. The only person I think who might run to their left is Andy Beshear, who I like but I don't think has much of a chance.

[Chemist]

welp digital money is having a meltdown too

[Thuggin]

Right wingers are calling it an economic detox now