-5 points
Politico - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Politico:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/19/medicare-for-all-harris-progressives-2024-elections-00174447

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

permalink
report
reply
-10 points

I’m not allowed to post things from the candidate’s own blog. I’m not allowed to post articles from 2019, but what about this?

Her reversal is not ok and we should be allowed to discuss it.

permalink
report
reply
12 points
*

I want it, but I’m willing to wait a while longer in exchange for freedom now. Bigger problems to work on with Project 2025. I got a preteen niece that cannot grow up in that kind of world. And couchfucker needs to go away.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

OP posted a similar article a few minutes ago, and I will say again they’re like MAGA and are using anything and everything to kill the momentum.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Momentum sustained over here. Would love MFA but there no point in talking about it without the right Congress.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

I am not a MAGA person and I am only one person. If the candidate were consistent then she wouldn’t have this problem.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The headline saying progressives are ok with it is bullshit.

But if stupid headlines broke any rules, there’d be a lot less posts here.

This one will likely stay up

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points
*

That’s the headline from the article and I’m not allowed to change it. I ended up having to copy paste it as the automatic import did not work, so I suppose the title tag could be different. I can’t quite tell on my phone.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Nah. I meant it’s not your fault it’s a dumb headline, it’s the journalist/editor who picked it.

I should have explicitly said that to be clear tho considering how much hassle you’ve went thru to get a post in

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
*

I think discussion is fine. I think the article fosters discussion. I also completely agree with them sidelining what could give the Republicans ammo and votes in this critical time.

But I’m just a Canadian who hates headline gore and want to point out that:

Harris isn’t pushing Medicare for All anymore. Progressives say that’s OK.

Is a shitty headline. It doesn’t match the tone or even fully the bias of the article and is click baity at best. It instantly paints the discussion for headline readers and article for the clickers as contrarian.

Harris isn’t pushing Medicare for All anymore. Is that OK?

Is what a headline should look like in this case and would probably foster discussion and less downvotes. But one can’t even tell shitty journalism from manipulation these days, can we?

Edit: whipped out my black highlighter for some bolding.

permalink
report
reply
3 points
*

could give the Republicans ammo and votes in this critical time.

But republicans will immediately pivot to another area they want her to be more conservative with, and this change will have a negative effect on Dem turnout.

This one thing won’t erase her lead, but she’s also said she’s not for banning fracking anymore either. That will also negatively effect Dem turnout.

Everytime she becomes slightly more conservative to appease Republicans, she gains no votes and loses a little.

That’s not even getting into how at the end of the day, we desperately need to do these things she’s now say she won’t even try to do.

There’s no way to look at this and honestly say it’s a good move, unless you just always personally agreed with Republicans on these issues. And for those people, they were probably never going to vote D anyways.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Dunno who those progressives are but most of the progressives I know are not okay with the shift.

permalink
report
reply
-14 points

And yet they will all vote for her anyway because she is not Trump and is pro-choice.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-12 points

Democrats claim to be pro choice while doing nothing to protect women’s choice is rather suspect.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

So you’re going to vote for the overgrown oompaloompa who actively wants to take it away? We unfortunately only have two real choices here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points
*

Yup we all (all the progressives I know IRL, not everyone here - I don’t know yall) will fucking vote for Harris while giving her shit and trying to push her to the left because if Trump is elected a lot of people will die. It fucking sucks but we’ve got to play the hand we’re dealt.

I was, for the record, also planning on voting for Biden in the general if he didn’t drop out while being fucking pissed off about Gaza.

I’m fully behind whatever pressure you want to put behind trying to force candidates to the left (I have no patience for fucks that decry the “lack of decorum” in protesters) but come election day I’m fucking voting for Harris.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I’m 100% here for this. Put pressure on her. Vote for Progressive candidates in the Primary. Push for RCV or something similar so we aren’t having to do ‘risk mitigation’ votes and instead can vote Progressive knowing the main-stream leftist gets our vote if the Progressive doesn’t, or the Progressive vote percentage in the House matches the polls. Protest the shit out of milquetoast third-way bullshittium decisions that just enrich the Moneyed Class. But when the alternative to Team Milquetoast is Team Fascist, I expect EVERYONE to show up for Milquetoast.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points

and is pro-choice.

At least for now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

That’s just a bizarre statement to make - until there’s even an inkling of a shift on reproductive rights your comment is extremely disingenuous.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Honestly, as I’ve grown older I’ve come to realize most voting is risk mitigation. I was brought up to think it was about making positive change but votes that do that are less common than the risk mitigation votes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I think, unfortunately, part of becoming an adult is realizing just how much fucking inertia awful shit has behind it. Often times in business, even, you’re choosing between two shitty situations - things are rarely ideal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Bullshit it’s “ok” with progressives.

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 13K

    Posts

  • 385K

    Comments