this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
89 points (74.1% liked)

politics

18147 readers
4079 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Activists from around the country told The Intercept that they will advocate for an anti-war agenda at the convention in August and withhold their vote in November unless an adequate candidate steps up, listing policy priorities such as support for a permanent ceasefire and standing up to the pro-Israel lobby as it intervenes in Democratic primaries. Even as the Biden campaign insists that he will not step aside, many Democrats appear to be lining up behind Vice President Kamala Harris as an alternative candidate, with some Democratic governors being floated as well.

“My number one criteria for any candidate is opposing the genocide in Gaza,” said Saad Farooq, an uncommitted voter in Massachusetts. Farooq said it was unlikely that the Democratic National Committee would select any candidate who took a stance against Israel’s ongoing war, and that he would support Green Party candidate Jill Stein if she were to appear on the ballot in Massachusetts.

Will Dawson, an uncommitted voter in Washington, D.C., named several factors that could get him to switch his vote from the Green Party’s Stein to another politician. First on his list is a promise to call for an immediate ceasefire and fighting the influence of the pro-Israel lobby and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Congress.

“This candidate would also ideally work toward pulling further away from the Israeli colonial project over time, with the goal being repealing our absurd financial support, ending the foreign interest agency of AIPAC, and pushing for a nation-wide boycott a la [South Africa] during their apartheid,” Dawson wrote.

The candidate would also have to push to reform the Supreme Court, he added. “The candidate would have to promise to both push for justice impeachment, and expand the courts,” Dawson said.“If a replacement candidate met both of these requirements, I would absolutely consider switching my vote from Jill Stein. Hell, I might even knock doors/canvass for them!”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] newnton@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Tell that to my friends who’s parents weren’t allowed to get married until our lifetimes or who’s great grandparents were classified as 3/5ths of a person

[–] knightly@pawb.social 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I recall Democrats not getting on board with gay marriage equality until after polling showed it to be more popular than banning gay marriage.

[–] meowMix2525@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

You mean they got elected by gasp giving voters what they wanted???

[–] knightly@pawb.social 2 points 1 week ago

I.E.; not actually leading the charge for human rights, following along only when not doing so would have hurt their standing, and taking credit for reluctant half-measures implemented through the courts (and overturned just as easily by current courts) rather than having put in the effort to amend the bill of rights or at least to pass a federal law while they had the chance.

[–] newnton@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

And we didn’t abolish slavery for 89 years after declaring independence. We can absolutely agree change is usually painfully, unnecessarily, terribly slow but it does happen, requiring time, work, and sacrifice

our lives are worse than four, eight, twelve, sixteen, or however many four years you want to go back our lives get worse every election no matter who wins

Is what I was replying to and it’s objectively false.

An important caveat is that positive societal change is absolutely not inevitable, generations have fought to improve the injustices of their times and we must carry on their legacy lest we allow their sacrifices to be in vain

[–] knightly@pawb.social 3 points 1 week ago

I getcha.

Yeah, the necessity of our current times seems to be following that 80-year generational cycle..

What's sad to me is how all of this has seemed inevitable since at least as far back as the DNC boosting Trump and conspiring against Bernie in 2016. I couldn't have guessed the form it'd take, but I knew that our Von Hindenburg Moment was on the way since the '08 crash got followed up by the astroturfed Tea Party pulling Republicans to the right while Occupy Wall Street went nowhere at all.

What's scary is that I still can't see even a vague outline of the future past 2025. I wouldn't even bet we're having elections in 2028, much less what Trump will do with the new criminal immunity for presidential acts and a supreme court majority in his back pocket.

Nobody's coming to save us, so it's up to us to save each other.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 2 points 1 week ago

I getcha.

Yeah, the necessity of our current times seems to be following that 80-year generational cycle..

What's sad to me is how all of this has seemed inevitable since at least as far back as the DNC boosting Trump and conspiring against Bernie in 2016. I couldn't have guessed the form it'd take, but I knew that our Von Hindenburg Moment was on the way since the '08 crash got followed up by the astroturfed Tea Party pulling Republicans to the right while Occupy Wall Street went nowhere at all.

What's scary is that I still can't see even a vague outline of the future past 2025. I wouldn't even bet we're having elections in 2028, much less what Trump will do with the new criminal immunity for presidential acts and a supreme court majority in his back pocket.

Nobody's coming to save us, so it's up to us to save each other.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

They weren't fully on board until after Obergefell, when they started taking credit for the courts doing what they were too timid to do via legislation.