Washington Post reports that owner Jeff Bezos stopped it from endorsing Kamala Harris
Washington Post reports that owner Jeff Bezos stopped it from endorsing Kamala Harris
You're viewing a single thread.
At this point, don't let the news, horserace polls, TV and social media's narratives of false equivalency (like how Trump wanting generals like Hitler's is equally newsworthy as Harris not going on Joe Rogan's show) paint your attitude.
Give it your all, give it your best, vote, volunteer, encourage your friends, DO NOT GIVE UP until the day after Voting Day at least.
As a Canadian I can't vote, so I can feel especially helpless sometimes with what's happening to the USA. What I can do is inject hope and positivity and courage to give Harris the best chance to cross the finish line. So take this energy and run with it until the end.
I remain optimistic about Harris's chances, completely honestly. But even if my optimism is well-placed, it is vital that we remember this bullshit, not only in the lead-up to the election, but in the days after it. Fascist cunts will try to pretend none of this ever happened. We have to remember it, and cite it, and push it forward every time one of them tries to convince some burned-out swing voter that both sides are 'just as bad' or 'the mainstream media is in the pockets of the DEMS!'
I'm not optimistic, but only because I see how well trumps vile behavior is playing in the south.
He's playing them like a virtuoso pianist, and their advantage in the EC might make it enough.
I hope you’re right. I have hope too, but it’s really only denial that there is a reality where Trump is a serious candidate. This is 2016 all over again, but with proof, plus he’s gone even darker
DO NOT GIVE UP until the day after Voting Day at least.
This kind of brought us into this place in the first place. If people had cared to push the Democratic party to deliver, rather than being the other right wing economic choice for the tech billionaires, the Reps being for the oil billionaires (although the tech billionaires seem to have grown much more fascist these years) they could actually bring proper policy. Especially the unwillingness to make deeply needed economic, social and political reforms is a result of the party remaining in the firm grip of established elites like Biden, Clintons, Obama... Of course the fascist get stronger every election, if the two choices are fascists and economic right to far right.
Voting is not enough. It can merely be the start of digging the US out of the whole that it has moved itself into deeper and deeper.
You're right, voting is the first step of many to fix the country. People need a bit of a break from it all at some point. While tuning out for 4 years is what gets us in this situation, power through to election day then give a few weeks for voters to reward themselves if Harris succeeds.
Remember that Harris and Walz aren't even elites. For now they have to cater to voters of all stripes and billionaire, religious leader and warmongerer sympathies to an extent. Only once the nation has evaded the worst of outcomes, is there an opportunity for things to be fixed using normal processes. Downballot effects if it's a massive blue wave would be huge for the country, and when Harris is preparing to take charge in January, people everywhere petition for change in the system from the people they freshly elected or re-elected.
Canada doesn't have voting?
They meant in the US election.
That's right I voted in my local provincial elections where a clear winner still hasn't emerged. My local NDP MLA wrecked the hell out of her Conservative opponent in votes, thankfully.
Then they should have said that.
It was pretty clear what they meant if you had at least two functioning brain cells to rub together.
It was pretty clear I was making a joke about their ambiguous wording if you weren't a complete asshole.
Here you dropped this
(つˆ0ˆ)つ /s
If you were joking, then you figured out what they meant. If you figured out what they meant, then everyone else can too. Their wording was fine and clear within the surrounding context
Shit, you really don't understand sarcasm.
I'm not sure that you do. Pretending to not understand something you then say that you did understand is not sarcasm. It's more like feigned ignorance. And while I guess that can be used to point out that something is unclear, in this case the thing was clear, so the 'joke' didn't really land
Shit, you really don't understand sarcasm.
Sometimes they just don’t land.
I'm flying this fucker to the moon.
To be fair the Harris campaign hasn't been able to get traction.
It's infuriating Harris is taking about medical records while Trump is planning to undermine the results.
What do you mean? She’s on fire!
No she's not.
There's every chance she's going to lose the election to a criminal, fascist, rapist, lying, insurrectionist octogenarian who's only policies are lynching political opponents and tanking the global economy with a tarrif war.
I like Harris immensely and I think she would make a fine president, and maybe go a long way to healing the yawning chasm between progressives and conservatives.
However given the remaining likelihood that she will lose against such an opponent you have to agree that her campaign hasn't really gotten traction.
No, I actually don’t agree respectfully. I wholeheartedly disagree. I think she’s on fire.
🔥🔥🔥Harris🔥🔥🔥
It's like you haven't watched any commentary at all.
I desperately want her to win but every indication is that she has even odds.
Sounds like you’ve been listening to the wrong people instead of watching her interviews and rallies for yourself.
Come on. If you want to evaluate the effectiveness of Harris' campaign, should you listen to her talk, or listen to commentary from a variety of sources?
To evaluate the effectiveness, you would listen to the people, of course. What “sources“ are you talking about? News pundits? Because that would be a terrible metric.
That doesn't make any sense.
How can you evaluate how well the voting public is resounding to Harris by listening to Harris talk?
If only there were some way you could kind of collate the thoughts of voters and try to predict which way they were going to vote. Like a statistical analysis of voters opinions. You could call it an election survey. You could do it every week or so to get a trend showing the comparative effectiveness of each party's strategies.
I mostly listen to the British and Australian public broadcasters. Both have journalists in the US. No media is completely free of bias but these are pretty good imo.
Regardless, I challenge you to find a commentator who's saying Harris is on fire.
It makes plenty of sense actually. In my line of work I get to talk to a wide variety of people. Not just regionally, but even out of country at times, which I was fortunate enough to do earlier this month.
When it comes to regional excitement around a Harris presidency, I’m seeing a lot of excitement around her. Even from my republican friends and folks I meet. I’m seeing libertarians saying they’ll vote for her.
In Europe they love her and pray Trump doesn’t win.
But that’s who I choose to listen to. You like to listen to media pundits. Okay, to me those guys kind of suck balls. You have to listen to them with some real heavy filtering.
🔥🔥🔥Now get out there and vote for Harris🔥🔥🔥