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
The day Democrats grow a backbone and double-down on progressive policy because it actually works instead of appealing to ignorance is the day Democrats never lose again.
There are some good signs in the party they're moving away from this; notably ignoring a lot of the advice from Hillary Clinton strategists (thank fuck), while also promoting progressive voices on the national stage such as at the convention — AOC, Bernie, Warren speeches. Still, there are remnants of the old that need to go.
Also:
- Tim Walz
That is a well spoken summery of the current issue with our political system. Thank you for taking the time to write that up and share it.
It is sometimes hard to have faith in the future when we are so inundated with our current issues. To cultivate hope in the future it is key to remember that time marches on and the older generations will always be replaced by a younger generation. I believe if we keep our democracy alive for long enough we do have the potential as a society to right many wrongs that the younger generations have lived under for the past 50 years and if we stay on target with our wants and needs and can put empathy and compassion for our neighbors as a core belief then it is only a matter of time before we get elected representatives in power to start affecting change.
I believe we, as a people, can do better for our future generations and that is why we all must do our civic duty and vote, not just for president but in our local elections, no matter how small, and every election above that. We have the power to change all this and I believe we will in time. It won’t be overnight but it can be within our lifetimes. Small steps matter because right now we aren’t capable of making huge steps but when the big steps forward become attainable we are prepared as a society to take those steps.
Thank you again for your post, stay strong and motivated and we can do this. Remember this isn’t just about you and me but us as a country, as a species and our responsibility to the future generations that will come after us. We can right our past mistakes and keep hope for that future alive. We have a greater voice now than we realize and are already electing people into positions of power to affect this change. We are not in this alone but in this together; not me, Us!
Aw thanks — and wonderfully said, yourself! Indeed despite everything along with much work to do, I feel quite optimistic. It feels as though we're beginning to rip band-aids off that were placed there decades ago and I'm all for it. I should also note that I come from a rural Republican blue-collar family who flipped under Bush's first term... So people can certainly change and I know I can get quite feisty with my rhetoric toward conservatives these days but sometimes it pays to extend an olive branch for some of those still reachable.
IDK if they are shocked at the results. There's a calculation that needs to be made between convincing voters you have their back, while convincing donors that you have theirs, when those groups have irreconcilable differences of material interest. A cynic would say that a politicians job is to convince the voter base and the donor base that you'll protect each from the other.
idk. They seem to be running on the "if you don't vote dems you hate black people" shtick that didn't work in 2016. Lemmy users are eating it up though.
Where are they doing that?
The response Harris made to the protestors at the DNC is the best example I can think of. I'm probably exaggerating how much the Harris campaign is relying on this strategy because lemmy is inundated with "DO YOU WANT TRUMP TO WIN???" commenters,
She responded to the protesters and said if you don't vote you hate blacks? Can you link me to that quote!?
I specifically recall her responding to protesters, "if you want trump to win, then keep talking" at a rally in Michigan. It's not "hate blacks" but it has the same effect as what Hilary was doing. It's not a forthcoming approach to tell voters they have to vote for you vs actually doing the legwork and coming up with policy to make them want to vote for you.
It's really frustrating because it's obvious the administration has its hands tied but it can't come out and outright say it, and she's also absolutely 100% correct in that Trump would just laugh at protesters, mock them, and tell his rally to beat them up.
I remember during the Democratic primaries these more scorched-earth pro-Palestinian protesters (I'm pro-Palestinian; just not to the point I'm shooting myself and them in the foot) would say along the lines, "Well this is the primaries and the time to advance change and protest — and I at least respect that. After the Democrat is locked in, then of course it's a binary choice, and Trump is obviously far, far worse for Palestinians. So it comes down to 1) what's more likely, that these protests change official policy ahead of polling, or 2) it leads to wedge-driving and disunity among the Democratic banner, handing the election to the far-worse opponent? Harris and I believe the latter is more likely, hence saying something along those lines.
I mean Jesus, they're actively working on a permanent ceasefire while Trump is calling Bibi to undermine it. So why aren't protesters protesting Trump rallies?
VP candidates can appear as progressive as they want because at the end of the day they don't really have that much power. I won't believe any real shift is happening towards progressives till we get a presidential candidate talking about more progressive policies. Until then it's mostly them trying to pay lip service to progressive policies while chasing the moderate as the Republicans continue to drag the country to the right. If the Democrats really wanted to get more votes they would stop chasing moderates and try to activate disaffected voters who don't care about voting because from their perspective both parties don't really care about helping them. But then that would get in the way of the donors wants or stop politicians from being able to make lots of money from trading stocks and they would rather lose than give up that.
This can be shortened to:
Democrats have learned to talk like arguing traders on a ME bazaar, with that "munnat" tone, but haven't yet learned to actually bargain like people do in such situations.
The issue is, I'm not sure this is correct. You are presenting Democrats as acting in your interest, just dumb.
I seriously doubt there are people dumber than you and me anywhere close to their leadership. But assuming that they are acting in your interest is unsubstantiated.
Also I hope this
doesn't mean you want a single-party system.
Soviet newspaper quotes of the kind "our single-party democracy is showing itself to be more efficient than their useless oscillations between Democrats and Republicans" are supposed to be a joke.
I think of it more like Republicans disintegrate. Democrats become the conservative party, ranked choice passes and we get coalitions with numerous third parties.
Why would Democrats pass ranked choice when they don't have competition under existing system?
Has anyone ever yielded power voluntarily?
OK, sometimes very illuminated and virtuous souls do that. Just in case, these are not on the ballot.
In my hypothetical a progressive party would surely arise to contest the conservative democrats. Hopefully they would bring ranked choice mainstream.
Its absolutely malice not incompetence