this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2024
33 points (60.9% liked)

politics

18651 readers
3611 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Oh please no. Not more establishment bullshit.

Find somebody young and energetic to bring some fresh ideas and new energy. A young Bernie Sanders type. They will mop the floor with Trump.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We're getting establishment bullshit no matter what. May as well have establishment bullshit that can beat Trump.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

But just passively accepting the establishment bullshit while not even voicing displeasure is a recipe for more and more severe establishment bullshit.

If the billionaire fucks are shoving turds into our throats while calling those smelly turds "brownies," at least they need to hear us moan. We don't gotta dignify this bullshit with polite smiles all around.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But just passively accepting the establishment bullshit while not even voicing displeasure

Check my comment history and tell me if that seems like an apt description of my behavior.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Comrade, I got nothing personal against you or your conduct. I just mean to say we need to encourage complaints and suggestions which may seem unrealistic but which still point us in the right spiritual direction so to speak.

Then if you can add some actionable refinement or sharpen the complaints to make them better articulated, so much the better.

On the other hand if you just discourage, even with "good intentions", you're blocking the energy.

The status quo candidates just won't do.

We need a candidate with an affirmative, POSITIVE VISION for America. "The status quo is fine, we'll just do little tweaks around the edges because we don't wanna upset our billionaire donors" is NOT a positive vision for America. It just WILL NOT DO.

Simply defeating Trump with just any warm body isn't good enough.

Our real task is not to defeat Trump, but to BUILD a positive future for us all. Our task is to foster a world we actually want to live in, as opposed to this craptacular capitalist hellscape.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Simply defeating Trump with just any warm body isn’t good enough.

Well, the party isn't willing to do better and I'd be happy if they put up someone who can beat him. That person isn't Biden. Of course, I would also like it if the party would stop enabling genocide and move to the fucking left for the first time in fifty goddamned years, but I'll take what I can get.

A good first step would be for the party to admit they made a mistake. If the party can't take that first step, they're never gonna stop interpreting all events as evidence that they need to move to the right.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Begging the party won't help.

It's our job to COERCE the party to do our bidding. The party must know if they displease their voters there are meaningful risks and downsides for them. It's our duty to engineer those meaningful risks and downsides or else the party has every reason to ignore us.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

At the moment, we're dealing with a party that would rather lose than listen. I want to get them to listen.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If you engineer meaningful risks and consequences for the party, they will HAVE to listen to you.

If you only plan to beg them politely, they could choose to ignore you. Whether or not they listened to you in this case would be completely at the pleasure of the party.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If they're not gonna listen now, they're never gonna listen.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oh yea, which risks and consequences have you engineered for your truant representatives that they continue ignoring you?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Anyone who represents me lower than VP is a Republican. Democrats made sure of that when they pulled the funding of the progressive who was running in my district.

At the moment, just getting the party to put forward someone other than Biden is a win. I'm not in a position to engineer shit and neither are you.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Find someone you can't name then.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I'll throw two names in:

Tim Walz, the governor of Minnesota.

Marianne Williamson.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Williamson is an absolute loon and Walz wants to stay governor.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Disagree on Williamson being a loon.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Is she willing to just abandon her palm-reading business to be president, though? Who will run her shop while she is in Washington?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

She doesn't read palms as far as I know.

I've never heard anyone cogently criticizing her on the issues.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

What about Jim McDonugal?

Or Frank T. Millerson?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

AOC, Michelle Obama, Elizabeth Warren, or Jill Stein.

Kamala Harris is unelectable. She is a black female cop. The left won't vote for a cop and the right won't vote for a black woman. Who do you think is in her corner other than DNC mouth pieces? She was a threefer for Biden and that's it.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago

Jill Stein????

Id argue the other 3 are optimal choices, but Stein is almost certainly a Russian stooge.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Aoc can't run until next election, Michelle Obama has zero interest in being president (didn't even want to be first lady), Elizabeth Warren isn't much younger than trump and Biden (and a lot of moderates still won't vote for a woman, see: Hillary Clinton), and Jill Stein is just as old too and part of the green party which isn't going to even have a chance at winning a presidential election until there is no climate left to change unfortunately

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Aoc can’t run until next election

Point of fact: she can run as long as she's old enough to take office before inauguration day, which she will be. But party leadership would rather nominate Trump to run against Trump than nominate a progressive.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

party leadership would rather nominate Trump to run against Trump than nominate a progressive.

Absolutely. I honestly think they would rather just not run a candidate (or pick somebody they know will lose and give them no money) than have an actual progressive win. There's a lot of establishment there. And a lot of desire to keep pounding the same stupid drums of social justice and abortion and gun control rather than deal with real problems like the bottom 99.9% getting fucked over by the top 0.1%, or the effective state of regulatory capture in many industries.

There is a divide and conquer strategy being used against the American people and it is working. We are at each other's throats over wedge issues that, while important and worthy of discussion, are not even close to the biggest problems facing our nation.
We now have two generations that gave up on having kids because wages are stagnant and housing prices are insane and rather than discuss the breakdown of the overall social contract and loss of upward mobility, we are at each other's throats over whether we should ban this gun or that gun or which bathroom we should be allowed to use. It's the modern-day version of the Arena in Rome- The population is distracted by gladiators while the nation is being run into the ground.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

At least you're paying as much attention. As to Hillary, that's personality not sex; at least now. She has antagonized a huge section of voters over the last 6 years. She probably couldn't get into local office.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Yeah there is zero chance for Hillary. She lost to Trump the first time, what would make anybody think she could beat him again? Besides even the left doesn't like her much. And the way she ran her campaign against Trump suggests she should be managing a hot dog cart not a country.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago

The mere suggestion of Jill Stein clearly demonstrates that you do not have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Holy crap.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Warren is a good suggestion. Not Bernie tier but a step in the right direction