Jesus christ. I didn't even mention Trump, or the Democrats, let alone suggest they were somehow a better option.
So what on earth does that have to do with anything?
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Jesus christ. I didn't even mention Trump, or the Democrats, let alone suggest they were somehow a better option.
So what on earth does that have to do with anything?
The Biden administration doesn't seem to think the Golan Heights are occupied territory. They've continued Trump's recognition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_recognition_of_the_Golan_Heights_as_part_of_Israel
What's the point of registering for a particular party?
It varies by state but in Maryland, you have to register for a party to vote in their primaries (you can only vote in your party's primaries in Maryland).
What’s the point of signing up for x club official fan club, or choose a particular flair on Reddit demonstrating your interests/teams/idols?
People want to be known as such, that’s why. If you don’t wish to be affiliated there’s the NPA (No Party Affiliation) option.
You're in the election thread. These issues are being discussed in the context of the election.
Of course what the US is doing is shameful and there should be a reckoning. It should not, however, be timed so as to hand the country back over to Trump. Do it on November 6th.
Jill Stein trying to siphon off votes in Michigan is beyond stupid. If Trump gets re-elected it will harm Palestinians more in the long run.
Disgraceful.
But primaries are done right? So now it's just for shits and giggles?
Is that an order, sir?
Most people only register to vote when they get or update their driver's license. I registered to vote when I moved to Maryland 23 years ago and registered as democrat so I can vote in the primaries. It's not something you have to do every election cycle.
Don't project, mate. I went to a march supporting palestine when I was 16. I'm 39 now.
Republicans are scum, no one expects anything from them. Democrats are supposed to be the good guys, no? Yet, they support genocide all the way.
Yes the issues are. Nobody is advocating voting for Trump though?
What bothers me in this particular instance ( I can't speak for others) is what prompted me to reply to Raoul this time.
I'm not even one of the posters on this thread constantly going on about the conflict. But it bothers me when some posters bring it down to Meh, Biden and the dems literally have no choice.
That is what I'm challenging. The gaslighting that this is literally the only possible response from American politics, even when people give actual historical occasions of when that wasn't the case.
Say that the American politics is, for various reasons, generally pro Israel.
Say that the USA were always going to support Israel, especially in the initial aftermath of Hamas' attack.
Say that the majority of Americans, regardless of the number of deaths, will always prioritise domestic issues over foreign policy ones. Even if that is a potential American supported genocide.
Say that some Americans see this as a genuine existential fight for democracy.
Say that almost anyone would get a vote over Trump.
All are true to some extent and even fair.
But please don't say that this response, even now, is the only way. It just objectively isn't and American history points to that fact.
I can say the same. It's easy to sit saely in your home in america while your government supports the murder of tens of thousands of children.
The idea that people on the left were not upset about Israel until 2023 is not even worth commenting on.
Looks to be part of a long(ish) term trend:
Republicans: +393,365
Democrats: -3,584,321
Independent: +1,802,932
Think some of this might be due to Republicans being the only party with competitive primaries this time round. Obviously this doesn't explain July.
It's always a bit strange seeing the US democratic process from a country where all citizens aged 18 and above simply get a ballot send to their home address close to election time and where the parties have decided on a leader themselves.
It's such a crazy notion. When I was younger I was heavily involved in activism and it was really difficult to have different left wing groups agree on something, everyone had their stupid little ideological quirks. But there were two things that united everyone: israel should end the occupation, indonesia should end the occupation of timor. It's been something all the left is in agreement for decades.
My guess is that a majority of them switched to "non affiliated". There was also some that flipped to republican to mess with primaries in 22, so maybe that?? Also, the NY line is odd (to me who knows nothing about how this is tabulated). Would that be based on people moving away?
Is there anything stopping someone from registering for both parties to vote in the primaries? Legally I mean.
This is going to get played over and over, in certain states.
I believe you can only be registered for one party (or unaffiliated) at a time, so since the primaries are on the same day this would not be possible.
edit: also, not all states restrict primary voting to the party you are registered for. I cannot remember which state it was, but at one point in my life I had to say Dem or Rep when I showed up to vote and then they gave me the corresponding ballot.
I mean yes? The two party system is extremely fecking stupid and should be done away with - but I fail to see why considering the broader context of the election in the election thread is a problem?
I don't disagree with any of that. Biden has done a pathetic job holding the Israelis accountable and it's a stain on his legacy. That said, I think some people at times put too much of the blame on him solely - ignoring the billions of dollars spent over decades by lobbyists who have their tentacles in everything now.
My point is that the election is a zero sum game. Criticizing the US and its pro-Apartheid foreign policy is a good thing and should be celebrated - but I don't think this is a reasonable critique to throw at Kamala specifically, especially given the alternative.
Barring large errors with the figures it would seem so, maybe more. That spreadsheet just covers the states where info is easily retrievable. It would be interesting to see a breakdown based on age to see where this decline is coming from.
My intuition tells me that at least some of this is Democrats not having a competitive primary added to voter apathy due to being the party in power. There's also been a fair bit of a "purging" of the voter rolls in certain states. It would be hard to argue that it doesn't reflect some change in voter sentiment though.
I do worry how this affects poll sampling. Independents would be more likely to vote Democrat than usual, but there ought to be a reduction in the sampling of people identifying as Democrat.
So it is looking increasingly likely that the Democrats will win the election. A couple of weeks ago, there were reports about Biden planning a supreme court reform and getting rid of the presidential immunity to an extent. I asked the same question four years ago but are there any hopes that all the rather undemocratic and outdated constitutional stuff like electoral college, gerrymandering, two party system, etc. are being tackled by the Democrats if Harris becomes president?
It would make it much, much harder for Republicans to be elected, especially lunatics like Trump, in the future. d
It would make it much, much harder for Republicans to be elected, especially lunatics like Trump, in the future. d
I disagree to some extent. I think it is valid criticism to levy, at Biden, and by association, Harris. The only way to push the party to change is to keep up pressure via criticism, protesting, "undecided" votes, etc.
That being said though, once the general election rolls around it becomes a which is the least bad situation.
The EC, if i believe correctly, requires a constitutional amendment to be taken care of, 2/3 of congress, so its not happening.
There is nothing much, i think, that prevents dems from adding more states though, if dems have a trifecta again they need to prioritize self-preservation, abolish the filibuster and add Puerto Rico and DC, for extra EC votes, and to level the playing field in the senate.
3 months is an eternity in politics. Let’s not count our chicken yet.
But to answer your questions, no, those are beyond the power of any modern era president. There must be a groundswell of public support, an organized effort, and generations of elected officials beholden to those organized effort to make those come true. It took the likes of Heritage Foundation 50 years to overturn Roe, or the NRA to turn the assault weapon ban into Heller vs DC.
There needs to be at least, at LEAST, 6 consecutive Democratic administrations to get a majority on the court that will be solid for campaign financing, VRA, gerrymandering, abortion, etc
I'm in Europe.
If +5 in Florida is true then it’s very likely + 1-3 Harris everywhere else. Trump won by 3.5 in 2020 and it has gone even redder since.
Hehehehe
Fairly small sample and RVs (not LVs). Probably best to find something with more respondents.
I think for many of these people, a better reply is that both candidates being pro-Israel is simply a reflection of US public opinion which is deeply racist, imperialist, and pro -genocide; in need of widespread re-education at best
I think for many of these people, a better reply is that both candidates being pro-Israel is simply a reflection of US public opinion which is deeply racist, imperialist, and pro -genocide; in need of widespread re-education at best
You would be correct in the first part. The US public are generally pro-Israel with the exception of the youth, who are notorious for protesting and complaining on social media, but not actually to turning up to vote.
Hence the ‘if true’. FL’s RCP average were off by like 8 pts in 2020 so any number out of there needs to be treated with caution.
Then your comment is even stranger.
Any constitutional amendment also requires 3/4 of states as well as 2/3 of Congress, that's even less likely.
Re; Filibuster, abolishing it has consequences, this was done for the nomination of SCOTUS judges and look where that ended up, the filibuster needs to change, probably by reducing the numbers required, it serves a purpose as it means there needs to be some bi-partisan ship
Doesn't sound as if there will be any significant changes to those things anytime soon. A bit disappointing but I guess it is what it is