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
Neither does ignoring their concerns and saying they should just vote for Biden because he's not trump.
It's true, and they should.
But we have literal decades of evidence showing that "what are you going to do, vote Republican ?" Is a bad strategy and if we want engagement we need to actually do things or at least try
Think of it this way
By the next election one choice isn't eligible anymore, and the second will likely be so buried under court cases he won't be able to.
So it's more of a "finish what was started" and hopefully by the next election we'll finally have some new people to worry about.
4 years is a long time...
And we literally just used that excuse 4 years ago and are going to have the exact two candidates...
And history shows we'll likely still have to pick between two elderly out of touch white men in another four years.
One will probably be actually evil again, and the other will likely think changing anything is too rash of a decision and things are changing to fast already.
The entire point of running for office is getting people to vote for you, that's why the party places so much importance on large corporate donations.
But when a moderate candidate can't get voters energized because they're too pro business and won't help Americans, suddenly it's the Americans fault.
Maybe we should re-evalute if "bringing millions from corporations and billionaires" is really more important in a candidate than "people like this person and want to vote for them".
We keep running historically unpopular candidates in the general and then getting mad they're not popular with voters.
Why keep doing it over and over again?
Because these corrupt politicians deliver big time for their donors. For recent examples, just look at the massive $2 trillion in tax cuts for the rich and corporations Trump passed. That was pretty much his only legislative accomplishment. And then Biden made those cuts permanent. (Ok, not exactly, he raised them back up a small amount by closing a couple loopholes but not close to what they were pre-trump).
If the established power structure won’t allow outsiders to run, and the donors always get what they want, I ask this question instead:
Why would things ever change from here?
kinda hoping for buried in more than just court cases...
The problem is there's too many people hoping for the perfect candidate, who will champion their progressive vision, who will guide us into a utopian future. People want their vote to feel good.
But that's a pipe dream. That person only exists in fiction. Real politics is messy, because it's a group endeavor, and you will inevitably have to get your hands dirty if you want your voice heard, or else lose your voice to people who are glad you stayed silent.
That's a weird way to complain that voters want higher standards than:
Telling them they're wrong clearly isn't working, so again:
Why not run a candidate voters like and/or identify with?
Why run geriatrics with decades of political experience if once elected they say that experience is worthless and they won't try to change congress's minds on any topic?
Why not elect a young progressive that will at least try and highlight the people fighting against helping the American people?
I honestly don't understand why the current DNC makes any sense....
Hey, I feel you. But I don't see what alternative we have. We can wish for something better, but like I once heard an author say, we will often lose on the way to progress, but that doesn't mean the progress isn't worth those losses.
Yeah, sure.
But in that quote they're still trying for progress...
Which is my point. We'd get more votes if we ran people that tried and failed than running people who say they can accomplish things during a campaign, then call voters uneducated in our political process when we complain they haven't even tried yet.
All we need to do is make realistic promises in what a candidate can do, and try for things even though we don't think it'll work.
Voters hate not trying, but we understand failure.
Nobody's gonna vote for a guy who says "I'm not going to be able to accomplish anything because we have an undemocratic system owned by big business." Because that's what Democratic candidates would have to say if they told the truth.
The party and a lot of politicians are...
But not the system as some abstract concept.
They'd just have to be willing to hold everyone accountable regardless of party.
If a Dem keeps voting against the platform or even worse preventing a vote behind the scenes, put em.on fucking blast.
Let the whole country know, shit isn't being accomplished by these people.
It's not an abstract concept. It's a system built by superstitious, drug-addled racists to maintain control in the hands of a select cadre of people. And it's done that very well for almost 250 years. It's broken and won't ever allow them to actually get shit done. Because it's designed to prevent that.
Exactly. Politics sucks. It always has and always will. Our system of government sucks and can't be changed. The only thing we get to choose from in the voting booth is "Bad" or "Worse."
The sooner kids realize this the more they'll be willing to participate in the fucked up system we're stuck with.
To be fair the specific US system of democracy is a lot shittier than most other Western systems of democracy. There is a lot of reform that can and should be done on it.