this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
1206 points (96.2% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2333 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) went after former President Trump for his legal woes in an interview on MSNBC Saturday.

“I’ll take the individual who’s 81 over the guy who has 91 felony counts,” Swalwell said, making a reference to President Biden’s age in an interview on MSNBC’s “The Katie Phang Show” on Saturday.

“It’s not about two individuals,” Swalwell continued, speaking about the 2024 election. “It’s about the idea of competence versus chaos, or even greater, freedom versus fascism. If we make it about those ideas, and what they mean in our daily lives, we’re gonna win.”

Swalwell’s comments come after Trump was ordered to pay almost $355 million in penalties in a civil fraud case and amid increased scrutiny faced by the president on his age and memory in the wake of a special counsel report on Biden’s handling of classified documents. The report noted that Biden had problems with memory and recall.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] doctorcrimson 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

A good first step would be to pass HR 1 For The People Act and then from there elect members of the party of progressive reform. Even just Independents who caucus alongside the party of reform.

A realistic way to never get out is to elect conservatives who by definition do not want reform, at least 34 or enough to stop any supermajority votes so they can filibuster nonstop for days, but for good measure enough for them to elect a majority leader who never calls things to vote such as Mitch "The Legislature Reaper" McConnell who let countless bills die on the senate floor having never been called to vote.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

So, the best way to get third parties is by voting for one of the two main parties?

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

As long as one of them is committed to electoral reform. But no, if not, you're trying to vote for the least destructive person. Biden is the least destructive person. Best not let Trump have America just because you can't get electoral reform this election cycle.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

As long as one of them is committed to electoral reform.

They'd have to be more committed to electoral reform than to their survival as a party. I don't know of any cases where that has actually happened.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Women's suffrage. Men voted to reduce their own power by giving women the right to vote.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

Ok, that was a group that gave up power, but it wasn't a political party that gave up power. IMO it's going to be much harder to get a political party to give up power.

[–] doctorcrimson 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Or Independents who caucus with one of the two main parties to pass majority and supermajority reform, yes. However, in tough races then splitting the votes between progressive candidates is counterproductive.