politics
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.
- 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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
Endorsing is not the same as undying loyalty. Seems obvious. But I guess it has to be stated clearly.
I think it's perfectly fine to criticize anybody who says they'll do everything in their power to support LGBTQ+, and then refuse to endorse Harris (even though she basically has).
No, endorsing isn't the same as voting. Being forced to choose between two shit things is different than being made to reccomend it to someone else
You're just up and down this thread attacking things nobody said. I can't tell if it's intentional or not.
You're complaining about her saying she doesn't want to endorse Harris by accusing her of insufficient queer advocacy
I'm angry with those who choose to spend their time casting accusations against LTBTQ allies simply because they refuse to endorse their political candidate.
I live in a red state. Federal protections are the single most effective way way to support LGBTQ+. So yeah, don't say you're doing "everything" if you won't even endorse.
Love what she does, I love the activism. She has no obligation to endorse. I totally get Gaza if that's the holdup. But saying you'll do "everything" in the same breath as saying you won't endorse Harris is a lie and is offensive to me as someone who lives in an impacted state who desperately does not want another Trump presidency.
Democrats haven't done anything on the federal level to protect LGBTQ rights in red states, nor is Harris running on any LGBTQ protections. Go ahead and look through her campaign website. There's not a single mention of LGBTQ or gender. There are only 2 mentions of 'minority', and only one of black americans, and only in the context of business ownership.
Don't tell me Harris is going to protect minorities in red states when she's not given a ounce of time or effort doing anything to defend them.
edit: on her website she doesn't even discuss queer, gender, or immigrant issues when discussing project 2025. It looks as if she is going out of her way to avoid the topic altogether.
I don't give a fuck what she has to say to voters to get her elected. If you don't think liberal judges over the next four years are a net positive over conservative judges, you need to pay more attention to politics more holistically.
For the record, this is also why I'm forever grateful to Joe Manchin for giving Dems a majority despite him not agreeing with Dems on many subjects. The alternative was far, far worse.
Why the fuck would an LGTBQ+ activist artist have any reason to endorse a candidate that can't even bring herself to utter the acronym in public?
Honest to god, what kind of partisan gremlin would go around accusing lgbtq activists of abandoning their cause because they refuse to go out of their way and endorse a candidate that doesn't even want to be associated with queer minority rights, especially when that candidate happens to also be supporting an ethno fascist regime engaged in genocide?
She said she is still voting for her. I wouldn't endorse someone active in genocide and who doesn't match my values as well. I think she was fair and told people to think for themselves. It is good to see a celeb that isn't a yes man for once.
I completely respect Gaza making people reluctant voters. But don't tell me you're doing everything in your power for LGBTQ+ if you're not going to support the only candidate who supports those rights. Just don't even mention it if you're going to contradict it.
Now, I only discovered who this person is this week (I heard one of her songs before all this stuff blew up). I don't hate this person. My issues with her stance is about as minor as it can possibly be.
I'm just a passive observer who is watching half the country vote for a megalomaniac, a sliver of ill informed cynics vote for a Russian stooge, and a bunch of otherwise rational Americans pretend they don't STRONGLY side with one party of another on 95% of issues.
You’re a passive consumer of cable news.
I watch enough cable news to know that they don't take the extremism on the right seriously enough. And they're too chicken shit to call it out 90% of the time because then they'll look biased. They try to attack the left over literally anything to appear impartial.
I pay attention to politics. And I notice the shit that happens that gets ignored.
I think it’s because the corporate media supports corporate status quo of corporate politicians on both sides.
They manufacture culture wars when a real leftist starts to get their message out, for example the millionaire cable news hosts called out Bernie for having a million dollars after he wrote a New York Times best seller. lol, wtaf.
That’s one small example, but the corporate cable news doesn’t want us to see past R good D bad, or vice versa.
We actually have a lot more in common than we realize. Every body is pissed pff about money in politics, for example.
I think it’s because the corporate media supports corporate status quo of corporate politicians on both sides.
They manufacture culture wars when a real leftist starts to get their message out, for example the millionaire cable news hosts called out Bernie for having a million dollars after he wrote a New York Times best seller. lol, wtaf.
That’s one small example, but the corporate cable news doesn’t want us to see past R good D bad, or vice versa.
We actually have a lot more in common than we realize. Every body is pissed pff about money in politics, for example.
I don't think Trump should win. I also don't think the status quo works for all Americans, and I would be skeptical of someone who recently bragged about Dick Cheney endorsements and seems to be shifting right on policy. Chappell wants voters to come to their own decision, and I think that best. Even Bernie said something similar of just don't blindly listen to me if you think I'm wrong. It is healthy for democracy.
Perfectly fine. But in the upcoming election, because of FPTP voting and the electoral college, you have one choice: vote Harris or be OK with Trump getting elected.
Doesn’t mean you have to agree with Harris or support her policies. Just means that not voting for her means Trump is just that much more likely to be elected, at which time it doesn’t matter who you voted for, who you endorse, or what personal values you hold.
But those aren’t the only names on the ticket.
My general rule is to vote for individuals at the municipal level, vote first causes at the state level, and vote strategically at the federal level, to get the representatives who will steer policy closest to the direction I want into office. Then comes the letter writing to remind them that I helped elect them, and they still need to win my support by acting in accordance with my values in key areas.
They aren't talking about their decision at the booth, they are talking about not being forced to endorse someone.
People really need to stop cornering other people over who they're voting for, and especially public figures. They're not obligated to campaign for your choice of politician.
I fully support questioning both sides. I support making up your own mind. Although I think the news goes out of its way to sanitize the dangers of right's extremism, which makes it harder for low-information voters to make informed opinions. But that's a separate conversation.
None of that changes the fact that she has a platform and she isn't using it for her cause as she claims she does. But I'm glad that she's definitively voting for her causes along with tens of millions of other people.
She isn't using it for your cause.
She is certainly using her platform for the issues she cares about.
It's literally THE cause that SHE mentioned. That's the entire point of my comments.
Wtf are you talking about, she's literally famous for using her platform for trans and LGBTQ issues
I think you missed the conversation entirely.
No, I didn't.
start of thread:
You're accusing her of not using her platform for LGBTQ+ causes simply because she isn't endorsing your candidate, and the op and others in the thread are pointing out that Harris is a mixed-bag of policies and not by any stretch the champion of LGBTQ+ support anyway, and that choosing not to endorse her because of those apprehensions is perfectly understandable.
You're bullying her and others into hyping up Harris by accusing them of not really supporting queer issues if they don't.