this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
479 points (97.4% liked)

politics

18863 readers
3940 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 214 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Wow! I can't believe she didn't intentionally make the obviously worse choice. Unironically. This is entirely new territory as a democratic voter!

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 53 points 1 month ago

I see it as purposeful messaging that they're willing to change and be more progressive, if that's what we want. Now we need to prove them right and get out to the polls.

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A very strategic pick.

His wiki page reads like a check-list to attract the republican women voters.

White

Male

From Nebraska

Veteran.

Supports Abortion rights.

"Think of the children" (both him and his wife were teachers).

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 month ago

Cat and Dog Dad too!

(I believe the cat has crossed the Rainbow Bridge but the energy remains)

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 28 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

Penny for your thoughts? Pennsylvanians seem to be big fans of Shapiro, though I've not heard of Walz before just now.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 82 points 1 month ago

Shapiro is a HUGE Zionist and has had problems in his office with sexual harassment (not by him, but his aides). With some saying he helped to cover it up.

He may play well in Pennsylvania, he does not play well in many states like Michigan and would not play well with the youth vote. The only real reason to pick Shapiro is for AIPAC money.

[–] APassenger@lemmy.world 67 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Shapiro has an extended history of being quite sympathetic to Israel to the point of problematic statements and treating anti-genocide protest as something it's not.

Walz has none of that baggage and seems to care about people. He's a far better (from what I know) person to be one heartbeat away from the presidency.

He should campaign well and I expect him to keep hitting Trump. Vance will self-own without too much assistance. Punching up will be a great look.

If Walz is her pick, I'm giddy.

I'm fairly far left and I want human rights for all. I don't understand why the party of small government needs to know my internet habits, what happens behind closed doors, what books are read, or why specific medical care (gender affirning or reproductive) is sought.

We're people. The republican nanny state can fuck right off.

That said, I'd like a better safety net. The nation has the money for it if we had a rational tax code. This combination on the ticket gives me hope that all the above are priorities.

I do NOT want Shapiro except as a calculated play for Pennsylvania. I have 0 interest in a war to defend Israel's right to be 1940s Germany.

[–] USSMojave@startrek.website 41 points 1 month ago

Walz also coined the "weird" label for Republicans we're using now

[–] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 17 points 1 month ago

Shapiro's approval rating is fine, but not high enough that the speculation of him guaranteeing Pennsylvania is justified.

On the other hand, he comes with a lot of baggage - some justified and some not so much - but all of which are terrible optics. He is an incredibly vulnerable pick whose only merit is the vain hope of delivering PA.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 10 points 1 month ago

Shapiro hasn't been good for education in PA, including leading the closure of several rural public universities and promoting student vouchers. Along with other views, he would not be a progressive pick.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

"Weird" - Walz

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I hoped that Biden dropping out heralded a tipping point away from the arrogant, conservative old guard that was stifling progress and toward a more progressive future.

I'm more hopeful still. I missed hope.

[–] ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It funny how Harris is touted as a change from the old running for president. She’ll be an OAP at the end of her first term.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 month ago

In the US, normal full-benefit retirement age is 67. If Harris gets the full two terms she'll retire right on time.

[–] vxx@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] tektite@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago

I was already tired!

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Online accelerated program? Interesting.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I genuinely did not see that coming. I feel strange.

[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's hope. You're feeling hope. Kind of tingles, right?

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

It's actually scary at this point

[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

I woke up this morning, figured she'd have made her VP pick public by now (I'm on the West Coast), checked my phone and said "Not Shapiro?! Bahahahahaha!"

And I laughed and laughed and laughed. F Shapiro! Pleasantly surprised she picked Walz.