this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
530 points (93.3% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2829 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
 

“With membership at new lows and no electoral wins to their name, it’s time for the Greens to ditch the malignant narcissist who’s presided over its decline.”

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] StrandedInTimeFall@lemm.ee 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Counterpoint: The Green Party hasn't done much to keep people engaged. They killed themselves.

At least the Tea Party had a decent run and engaged with the people who would vote for them. Though, it let MAGA convert or overtake it, but the point still stands. The Tea Party did more in the 10ish years it existed than the Green Party has done in 20 years.

[–] Hamartia@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Counter-counterpoint: the Tea Party was an astroturf movement funded by big oil, big tobacco and the Koch brothers. Given massive amounts of support by media companies (lots and lots of oxygen). With the purpose of taking over the GOP and entrenching their toxic industries and power.

With the perspective we have now it is clear that their plan was to push Republican supporters over into fascism (not to say that it wasn't latent within many of them) and reduce the risks of democracy to the oligarchy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Strike1@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

"given that she herself has received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Google, Lockheed Martin, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, and McKinsey." I don't see this information on the FEC website. Can anybody actually find this information? I sort this page by Amount, and it doesn't list these companies. It lists people:

https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?data_type=processed&committee_id=C00505800&committee_id=C00581199&two_year_transaction_period=2016

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] arc@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago

I am by inclination Green, but I live in Europe where the Greens have been through their scandals and emerged somewhat presentable. I don't believe that is the case in the US, where the Greens and particularly Jill Stein are basically just useful idiots. They disrupt the candidates most aligned to their own cause. And in Stein's case, she's disrupts her own damned country.

[–] a9cx34udP4ZZ0@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Jill Stein doesn’t know how many members of the House there are in Congress. 600?!?!

There is a 100% chance that Trump couldn't name how many members there are in the house. I'd be shocked if he could list the branches of government without help.

note I'm not saying that's acceptable. But if that's your test for "is this a serious candidate" I hate to be the bearer of bad news...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›