this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2024
221 points (97.0% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2659 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The appearance at a health center will be the latest leg in a nationwide tour by Ms. Harris, who has emerged as the most outspoken defender of abortion rights in the administration. While White House officials say they have largely reached the limits of their power to protect abortion rights, the issue has emerged as a linchpin of their re-election strategy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] silence7 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It is not. There is a history of the Democrats including people who are anti-abortion within their tent.

[–] Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I kinda think if they actually cared they would have codified Roe during his free reign no? This feels more like a bargaining chip than anything, same as the random pot seminar.

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Broken Senate rules basically require 60% to bring something that isn't budget-related to a vote.

[–] Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Why vote for either party that put forth the broken Senate rules?

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 8 months ago (2 children)
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Voting 3rd party is better than not voting for sure

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Not practically, especially when plurality takes all and there's no ranked choice voting system. Say you had a candidate who was 95% perfect for you, another who was at 80%, and another who agreed with 10% of your beliefs. Now let's say that only the latter two had a realistic shot. When you throw your vote away on someone who never had a chance, rather than the guy who came close and could've won, you may as well have voted for the guy you agreed with least.

Take a look at Hawaii's special election in 2010. This district should have been a shoo-in for a Democrat running against a Republican. But when two Democrats run against a Republican? Their vote splits and the guy with 40% of the vote wins - even though one of the other two better lined up with 60% of the voters

Thanks for playing, though.

[–] Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You may vote for the genocidal old man, but I can't/won't in good conscience. And the "he's worse" argument (when I'm not voting for either primary party) is a silly hill to stand on.

Either you let them walk all over you, or you vote for a candidate that will implement ranked-choice voting.

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

President Trump thanks you. At least he should put Netanyahu in his place just like he did Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, Xi Jinping, and Viktor Orbán

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 8 months ago

Because unless most of the populous is going for the same alternative you are, voting for some other party mostly benefits the major party farthest from your views. It's a consequence of FPTP, which always collapses into a two party system.