this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
487 points (92.8% liked)

politics

18863 readers
3890 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
 

The Pennsylvania Democrat recalled his time serving as a Hillary Clinton surrogate in 2016, even after he supported Bernie Sanders in the primary.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Speculater@lemmy.world 52 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I think he's talking about the people who would rather let Trump win than support anyone right of Bernie.

[–] Manifish_Destiny@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We need ranked choice voting.

[–] Pectin8747@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

We need a voting system that eliminates the spoiler effect and allows for showing intensity of preference.

RCV does neither but STAR voting does both

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

He specifically said "get behind the policies of Joe Biden". If it's just voting I'm with Fetterman, but you don't need to recalibrate your policy supports because anything less than full agreement is treason.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We don't vote on policies though, we vote on people (at the federal level)

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Sure, and if it's just voting and saying "voting for Biden is important", then great, we're good. Biden is obviously better than any Republican and Republicans not having power is important. But what that doesn't mean is tabling advocacy for progressive stuff because it's not what he's doing or pretending bad policies just didn't happen.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Sure, as long as it's put in context. Too many young people are emphasizing the second part of what you said over the first part.

[–] Astroturfed@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I like Fetterman, but I don't think he's the sharpest tool in the shed. Nuance is likely not his strong suit.

[–] Astroturfed@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I feel like this is the new boogie man for the DNC. My close circle of friends all don't like Joe Biden, all voted for Bernie in the primary against Hilary. Still showed up to vote for both her and Biden.

There's plenty of people who didn't show up for Biden and Hilary that have similar views and I don't think it's as much malicious as it is apathetic. They don't do enough to give them a reason to show up. They don't "energize the base" well enough. The Democrats need to get people excited for their policies somehow.

[–] ALostInquirer@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Democrats need to get people excited for their policies somehow.

Wouldn't a good way to do that be to have compelling policies? Off the top of my head I'd think putting abortion protections/rights into explicit law would be a start. Frankly anything that is currently only legal on the basis of supreme court decisions also seems ripe for putting into legislative policy pushes to make into explicit legal protections, rather than relying on some decision that may be overturned by an arguably compromised court.

In that vein, expanding protections to the LGBT+ community would be another good piece to their policies. Also, on a larger note, more explicit and enthusiastic support of active unionization efforts that have been happening across different business sectors.

However, even beyond these, some that would apply more broadly might be policies to address housing and rent costs, as these affect basically everyone and anyone. Policies seeking to address housing/rent, education, and healthcare costs would altogether, I think, speak to a wider swath of the public than strictly focusing on the aforementioned concerns, but would also include them, e.g. combating redlining, undermining of public education, denial of medical services to pregnant women & trans people, etc.

I'll admit, maybe they have been pushing for some different parts of these (I'm aware of the Biden administration sort of trying to address college debt and getting screwed by the courts), but by and large I don't think I've seen a clear set of policies by the Democratic party of the United States to be excited for. Far more of it has appeared rather watered down and more along the lines of, "Well, we're not the Republicans at least!" instead of enthusiastically standing for something more constructive.

[–] Astroturfed@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm not against any of those policy points you listed. But none of them would get me nearly as excited as them actually following through on raising taxes on the wealthy. They haven't even really attempted that in decades. It's been all cuts by the Republicans with no action from the Democrats. Making priority one rolling back the tax bill passed under Trump which lowered taxes on the wealthy and raised them on the middle class would of made me excited to vote for Biden again.

To me, this is supposed to be the main difference between the two parties and how they run the country. Social issues are important, but I'm sick of the media and politicians ignoring fiscal/tax policy. Biden throws out a soundbite about taxing the rich and being pro labor every once and a while, but makes zero action that way.

[–] ALostInquirer@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Social issues are important, but I’m sick of the media and politicians ignoring fiscal/tax policy. Biden throws out a soundbite about taxing the rich and being pro labor every once and a while, but makes zero action that way.

Fwiw that's why I included the parts regarding policies addressing various costs (housing/rent, education, healthcare).

Ideally taxing the rich would lead to actions addressing those, but if we're realistic, the odds are just as likely for those tax revenues to go to subsidizing some other businesses, and the military, with a depressingly low amount allocated towards public domestic concerns like helping provide shelter, education, and healthcare. At least, the odds are likely they'll go that way if not coupled with policies of using the tax revenues towards domestic efforts.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It has nothing to do with energizing the base when we can see they lure voters to the polls then never deliver. The issues the poor and middle class are facing now are the same issues we've been facing for decades, and they never get addressed.

Like James Baldwin said, 'I can't believe what you say, because I see what you do.'

[–] Astroturfed@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They could energize the base, by actually doing something they want pretty easily. Legalize pot, raise taxes on the wealthy, codify abortion/roe vs Wade into law.... like anything people actually care about.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah who cares about infrastructure spending or lowering the price of prescription drugs

[–] Astroturfed@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Things the Republicans might also do and isn't a good thing to run on for 1,000 Pat. Didn't Bush pass some decent prescription drug bill....

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Astroturfed@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, assume I'm a Russian plant because I don't worship Bidens every move. It's almost like I expect this. I vote for Trump for sure.

[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I would say "Then why would they be considered progressive?" but then I remember Tankies exist.