this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
418 points (94.7% liked)

politics

19223 readers
2816 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Montagge@lemmy.zip 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Trump is the status quo as well so apparently they will

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] Montagge@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No he really is. What is more status quo than a rich white guy as president with conservative values?

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Trump is campaigning on making massive changes to American domestic and foreign policy. I don't like the changes he's pursuing, but he is absolutely not running on the status quo. And that is, in fact, exactly what won him the race.

If he was just running on the status quo, he wouldn't be a threat to democracy. Deporting 20 million people isn't the status quo. Repealing civil rights isn't status quo. Attacking or ending NATO isn't status quo. Abandoning Ukraine isn't status quo. Befriending Russia isn't status quo.

Yes, Trump is a conservative white guy. But type of thinking, focusing on identity groups and demographics, is what has got us here. Kamala herself is a historically novel nominee, she was new in terms of personal identity. But she wasn't actually offering anything other than the same milquetoast centrism of Biden.

This is the problem. People are hurting. Trump actually had something to offer these people. He said, "elect me, I'll throw out all the immigrants, and by doing so I'll lower the cost of housing and increase wages!" It's a horrible, evil, and long-term unproductive solution, but he was actually offering SOMETHING. Democrats offered no meaningful answers to the things people are actually hurting on. The only thing Democrats offered were wonky dismissals of economic concerns by citing official inflation numbers and calculated real wage gains. (Ignoring figures like ratio of median housing cost to median wage.)

People are in pain right now. People are on the edge, driven to the brink by late-stage capitalism. Biden was a milquetoast centrist, but he was able to barely eek out a win by running on a lot of progressive promises in 2020. He walked away from a lot of those commitments and governed as the centrist he is. Harris offered just more of the same. Neither offered real meaningful solutions and proved completely incapable of handling the crises at hand.

Trump again, he actually offered solutions, or at least something that seems like a solution. Like it or not, he WAS the change candidate of 2020. And that is what won him the election.

[–] Montagge@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes, yes they did. Democrats introduced the Green New Deal for fuck sake

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And their centrist wing managed to completely kneecap it. The same centrist wing that ran Kamala's campaign.

How has US fossil fuel production been cut back AT ALL from any Biden or Harris policy?

Yes, I know you can blame it on Manchin. The problem is that there's always a Manchin. The Democrats take turns being the sacrificial lamb, and they can always find some conservative Dem to kneecap any serious Democratic proposal.

Voters don't give two shits about what your party introduces. Parties introduce all sorts of policies they have zero intention of passing for easy political points all the time.

[–] Montagge@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You can't cut back fuel production and win elections in this country

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And look where that type of thinking has got us. Democrats don't run on any meaningful bold policy positions, as there's always some needling centrist saying why this or that will never be politically viable.

Trump doesn't run this way. Deporting 20 million people has all sorts of practical, legal, fiscal, and political issues with it. No rational or sane professional political consultant would say that it's a winning strategy. Yet, time and time again, Trump proves that things that all the political consultants and experts would be political suicide, are in fact anything but.

Democrats give up before the fight even begins. They accept Republican framing and Republican ideas on what is politically possible. They run as Republican-lite, and they lose again and again because of this.

[–] Montagge@lemmy.zip -5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So you're saying Democrats should say stupid shit that appeals to the deep seated bigotry embedded in our national culture?

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's a clear bad-faith interpretation of what I posted. Try improving your reading comprehension skills.

[–] Montagge@lemmy.zip -2 points 1 month ago

If there's subtext to what you posted then maybe post that instead.

Claiming the Democrats don't have bold ideas and then bringing up one of Trump's stupid claims as an example of what Democrats should be doing doesn't leave much room for another interpretation.

Maybe work on your communication skills if you can't post what you mean

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well seems like he won twice on going back to the 1950s status quo.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That is NOT the status quo. You're talking about someone promising to make utterly massive changes to US foreign and domestic policy. People are hurting for change, and if they can't find that change on the left, they'll find it on the right.

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 1 points 1 month ago

it's "status quo" back then not modern version. He said 1950s is when america was great in 2016. So dismantling everything in last 70 years is just going back to roots to him I imagine.