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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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
He stepped down because he saw that America took his gaffes at the debate more seriously than he thought they should, not because he feels he's not up to the job. Honestly, our way of selecting Presidents sucks. An objective look at this admin versus the last admin would make that decision easy -- Biden has set himself up for success by hiring competent underlings rather than yes-men, and he managed to reverse killer inflation and handle a global pandemic, while fighting against one tyrant. He's not perfect. Nobody is. He is open to criticism over his handling of Palestine and Israel and we sure can criticise his unwillingness to hold Netanyahu as accountable as he wants to handle Putin. But the other guy set up Biden for the last 4 years of bullshit with his utter mismanagement of the country, and plans on making things ten times worse. Biden looked at the polling, at the bullshit settling down on his administration and on him personally, and said he'd step back so Harris could run.
As for why Harris got the nod? There was less than a month until the General Election, virtually all of the Primaries had already been had, and despite all the bullshit being peddled about him, he won the Primary. Harris was on his ticket. They wanted to transition easily into the General without a bajillion crazy little questions about the Biden/Harris campaign, its warchest, and avoid a bloodbath between various Democratic Party factions all screaming for their guy/gal just in time for Trump to trounce the weakened candidate in the general, they leveraged the same process that would have happened had that nutbar that shot at Trump taken a shot at Biden and didn't miss -- the VP becomes POTUS. And this allows Harris to not have to jump through hoops for ballot access nor start from scratch with campaign finances, which unfortunately are STILL important for getting into the White House.
Sadly, the bullshit shifted to Harris and we're back where we were before. Does the hard-left WANT Trump in office, because it sure fucking looks like they do.
Maybe he also realized he was too close to it. All his speeches were in contrast to the other party’s candidate, and I still support that he’s much fitter to lead than the other party’s candidate. But if you step back from just the one on one contest, it’s a completely different story …..
Got proof of this? I mean, only once in my lifetime has a third party cracked 10% of the vote share. Easily 90% of the votes given have gone to a guy or gal with an -R or -D after their name for President.
I didn’t say anything about third party, but you’re right that maybe my attempt at not degenerating into political name calling made it unclear.
To be more blunt:
This makes Biden a clear choice …. But all the noise about his age did make me sit back and reconsider whether that was true in general or in the context of this competition. If there was not so much on the line and not so much recent toxic history, I would agree that I prefer someone else, someone younger and more energetic. I thought Biden was perfect in the centrist position attempt to bring this country back together, and he did as much as anyone could.
But Harris came out swinging, showing energy, youth, life, and even strayed toward progressive (I don’t know if that’s still true). If I can step back from the competition between two old men, take a larger picture, ignore all the toxic blather, I can see that she is indeed a candidate I would prefer.
The guy’s not dumb, maybe he sees it too. It must have been the toughest part of his term, always battling for reality over toxic stunts, blatant lies so it’s all too easy staying in the trenches, focusing on slugging it out, when he’s the only sane person in the room. Maybe Biden stepped back and said, yeah, I’m tired of this and there actually are other choices.
Fair point. I did misread 'one on one' to mean Democrat vs Republican with 'stepping back' to mean viewing Third Parties.
I totally agree with your reasoning, as it was my reasoning. The guy is old, not a debate. He's a gaffe machine, too. Some people pushed the meme he was losing a step, but while I saw him as old, I didn't see him as washed up or senile. The guy just doesn't know how to NOT put his foot in his mouth (I share a lot in common with him on that regard!!!), and there were an awful lot of bad-faith actors saying that he wasn't just old, but senile as well. They're still around, saying he's too old and senile to run the show now, and he should resign.
I think how Harris is being treated by various people on and offline should be a key indicator that Biden's resignation wasn't the end of the bullshit factories. They each have their own desires for their choice of President, and they can't even agree with each other who that choice is. Some will scream for Sanders. Others will scream for Stein. Some particularly pigeon-holed ones will argue for Fruit, despite her being mathematically eliminated from 270 before the first vote is cast. And lets get real. There are all to many of them who will tell you "IMMA FOR JILL" or some other tiny Third Party candidate while actually wanting Trump. Some think that a Trump presidency will lead them to the Progressive Promised Land. Others...are here to ensure we're so busy infighting that we can't put a unified resistance up, so they can get the Handmaiden's Tale they desparately want.
If Biden gave up because America is dumb, I don't blame him. In 2016, I tried hard to get out and get to Canada or New Zealand. But now Canada and New Zealand are overrun or about to be overrun by dumb people too. :|
Biden is the Incumbent, and we took a huge risk, that may well not pay off, swapping him out in mid-race.
Harris is the Vice President. She is the logical successor, by way of our own constitution, to take over if Biden is incapacitated.
Democrats have a long history of tearing each other down when they don't get what they want. Hard-Leftists screamed bloody murder for getting Biden removed. He thought he was up for it (and still does, he did an interview on that recently!), but bowed to increasing calls when it became clear he didn't have the backing of the Dems after the debate performance.
What the fuck is wrong with you. Regardless, I'm reporting this violation of Rule 3. @[email protected] , is this acceptable to you?
Ironic right after the whole discussion from Tee9000 about hatred. Goes to show that that hatred isn't exclusive to Team Pepe.
Nope, or to the other mod who removed it.
Are you planning on removing the intentional misgendering posts from them or do you only draw the line at poop jokes?
Oh, it got removed too when I saw the report.
tyty
One comment about how you're throwing blame about without introspecting and you pitch a fit about civility. Sorry I didn't tone police myself to your satisfaction.
I just want to point out that you didn't need to tone police yourself for my satisfaction. You needed to tone police yourself to the mods satisfaction. And you failed. I have no power here. My constant bitching about how the mods show you lot too much difference should make that abundantly clear. I called you out to the mods. They found you lacking. Maybe leave off accusations about shitting peoples pants in the future and you won't get modded? That said, I'm done with you.
Oi, I agree with you, but don't go weaponizing the overly-strict rules. That's the type of underhanded shit they do.
Hey lookee there! We actually agree on something! :)
Hey I said that if it happens they would blame leftists. I was purely dealing in hypotheticals.
No, the hard left doesn't want Trump. Drag is hard left and wants Kamala in office. lemmy.ml users aren't hard left, they're leninists, which is moderate left. About the same amount of left as social democrats.
Calling Leninism "moderate left" is like calling Project 2025 "moderate right".
Drag apologises. Drag will follow your advice and call Leninism far right.
Leninists are not hard left wing. And fascist / project 2025 are not hard right wing. The thing to understand with authoritarians. Is that they are only hard authoritarian. Nothing more nothing less. Anything outside of that can be changed at a snap of the fingers.
Need proof? Look at any government based around the concepts of marxist Leninism. Brutally socially oppressive. Creating heavily stratified classes and an inescapable Nation. Things pretty much counter to every actual left-wing ideology. Or look at any Western capitalist nation. Every single one currently fending off populist fascists. Who want to oppress minority groups and use the government to rigidly stratify Society under the boot of an inescapable nation. Pretty much counter to all the talk of Liberty and freedom of right wing ideologies . All because their actual hard right liberal governments refuse to compromise and Budge left in any fashion to address the needs of the people.
Fascism is the dictionary definition of far-right politics. You'd be hard pressed to name a similarly prominent political ideology that is even father to the right than fascism. Likewise, Leninism's revolutionary ideals place the ideology in the far left, despite its implementations not achieving those ideals. An ideology being authoritarian doesn't make it moderate on the left-right scale. Instead, the more authoritarian governments tend to be hard left/right instead of moderate left/right.
I have to disagree about right-wing ideology being about "liberty and freedom". That's the realm of libertarianism, not right-wing politics. Libertarians in the U.S. tend to be right-wing, but libertarianism and right-wing politics are distinct ideologies. Right-wing politics emphasize traditional values, nationalism, and hierarchial social structures.
And? Wikipedia isn't a source. Even the Nazis implemented the sorts of policies many socialists. Myself included support. They just excluded everyone that wasn't part of their ubermensch. Which leftist/socialists wouldn't. The sorts of things plenty of far right economic-liberals are actively trying to dismantle completely in the US.
Before we go any further, let's attempt to not talk past each other. If you are using a political spectrum with a single axis. I am not. Honestly, I'm not even sure 2 axis can accurately represented the political spectrum. But it is far better than kindergarten terms of left and right. But let's assume a basic two axis plot. That's very common all over the internet. Where left is socialism right as capitalism is authoritarian and down is libertarian. The more authoritarian you are. The less Concepts like left and right matter to you. You are focused only on power. Thus the further authoritarian you go live More Everything converges to a single point. Where policy is whatever it takes for you to hold power. Which is why I point out to you that they aren't significantly left or right. They are authoritarian.
I think the other issue is that you are taking people at their word. But not paying attention to what they do. The words of a politician are worthless. The words of a shyster grifter trying to push a dogmatic ideological framework on you are somehow worth less. If you take Trump at his word. He's the best guy you'll ever meet. A real stand-up guy. I think you and I both know you would be a fool to do that. Just like capitalism talks about all this Pie in the Sky bullshit that doesn't happen. Leninism does the exact same. To a worse extent even.
And finally everyone claims their ideology is about freedom and liberty. The catch is it's only for their in-group. For those on the right it's freedom and liberty for those with the resources to engage with the economy. On the left it's freedom and liberty for society. The catch is where they fall along the authoritarian libertarian Spectrum. Anarchists, libertarians, and communists being extremely left and explicitly including absolutely everyone. Big L Libertarians/economics liberals are extreme right wing crazy capitalist. Pushing capitalism into places it just doesn't even make sense. Because it's what they do. Liberal Democrats are much more libertarian than conservative republicans. Big L Libertarians are somewhere in between the two of them. But they are all far right. And have a much narrower inclusion for "society". If you dare criticize or insult the Vanguard party or fascist leadership. They will outright kill you or in prison you. Kicking you clear out of society.
Need I remind you this year China sentenced someone to a year imprisonment for wearing a mother fucking shirt. Not going to lie economic liberals like Republicans and Democrats are pretty fucked up. But you don't see people being jailed for wearing let's go Brandon t-shirts. And there's no equivalent on the Democrat side to even cite. Though I'm sure Republicans who Trend fascist would love to jail someone for wearing anything that insulted Republicans or Trump. Thank God they don't have the power to yet.
You're calling fascists "moderate right" and liberal democrats "far-right" because Nazis did some things that you agree with? What exactly did the Nazis do that makes you think fascism is more moderate on the left-right axis than liberal democracy? It looks like you're either completely ignoring the social policies of fascism, or your understanding of the terms "moderate right" and "far-right" is way out of line with how most people understand them.
I'll take Wikipedia over a Lemmy comment with no sources that is arguing that fascism is more moderate than it actually is. The Wikipedia articles I linked to are cited, and the citations look very credible to me.
(I'm fully aware of the two-axis political model you mentioned, which is why I distinguished libertarianism from right-wing politics even though libertarians in the U.S. tend to be right-wing.)
No. Ideologically authoritarians aren't left or right in any meaningful sense. Let alone moderate. it's got nothing to do with me. Everything to do with basic facts and their actions. You're thinking of someone else who implied they were "moderate"
Down votes from buthurt Leninists and politically naive westerners isn't anything to value. But anyhow I tried sincerely to engage with you and have an honest discussion. And you just weren't having it. So you have fun believing stuff just because it's popular or that it's what someone told you. Don't bother thinking for yourself it's too much trouble.
Obviously, I am thinking for myself by rejecting your argument that fascism is "not hard right wing". And you still haven't provided any sources for your argument. It's clear to me that fascism is both far-right and authoritarian, and being authoritarian doesn't prevent fascism from being far-right.
Relative to what, Maoists? Ultraleftists? Leftcoms?
Anarchists.
Is Anarchism when one supports the US government?
No. Anarchism is when you try to prevent the US government from getting even worse. Leninism is when you stick your head in the sand and pretend you can ignore the flaws in the electoral system and the sacrifices demanded of us.
I'm not sure drag knows what anarchy is...
By enthusiastically supporting neoliberal genocidaires in bourgeois elections.
Leninism does not ignore the flaws of bourgeois electoralism. Lenin wrote a whole book called "Left Communism: an Infantile Disorder" which is precisely about people refusing to participate in the existing political system.
Theory
Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?
It is with the utmost contempt—and the utmost levity—that the German “Left” Communists reply to this question in the negative. Their arguments? In the passage quoted above we read:
This is said with ridiculous pretentiousness, and is patently wrong. “Reversion” to parliamentarianism, forsooth! Perhaps there is already a Soviet republic in Germany? It does not look like it! How, then, can one speak of “reversion”? Is this not an empty phrase?
Parliamentarianism has become “historically obsolete”. That is true in the propaganda sense. However, everybody knows that this is still a far cry from overcoming it in practice. Capitalism could have been declared—and with full justice—to be “historically obsolete” many decades ago, but that does not at all remove the need for a very long and very persistent struggle on the basis of capitalism. Parliamentarianism is “historically obsolete” from the standpoint of world history, i.e., the era of bourgeois parliamentarianism is over, and the era of the proletarian dictatorship has begun. That is incontestable. But world history is counted in decades. Ten or twenty years earlier or later makes no difference when measured with the yardstick of world history; from the standpoint of world history it is a trifle that cannot be considered even approximately. But for that very reason, it is a glaring theoretical error to apply the yardstick of world history to practical politics.
However, what he argued for was not entryism into liberal parties, but rather using the elections to build a Marxist party that could control it's message and use the opportunity to organize and build power outside of the electoral structure.
Lenin didn't live in America. If you try to use Russian electoral tactics in America, you'll fail. It's like trying to send the fleet to broadside Houston. Adapt your strategies to the terrain. You can't just pretend that the USA is Russia.
Does drag think that Russia under the Tsar was more democratic than the US today?
In any case, my position on voting third party is not because of what Lenin wrote, I merely wanted to clarify that Lenin's stance was not consistent with how drag characterized Leninism. I'm voting third party based on my own assessment of the situation, and I was a third party voter before ever encountering Lenin.
Drag thinks the precise opposite. That the parties Lenin discussed weren't electoral parties. The meaning of the word party back then isn't the same as now. Nowadays parties compete in electoralism. Organisations like Extinction Rebellion or the Proud Boys, which operate outside the electoral system, are not what we would call parties today. And yet Lenin's "parties" are more similar to XR than to the Greens. Drag thinks you've been misled by a bad translation from the English of a century ago to the English of today.
Drag 100% agrees with the strategy of creating socialist organisations outside of the government. Creating socialist organisations inside the government is more complicated. It's good in most places, but not in America. And it isn't what Lenin told you to do.
I don't think drag read what I cited, so I will link it again. Literally the title says, "Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?" which he answers in the affirmative.
More
Does drag have any basis for what drag just claimed, that the parties Lenin discussed were not parties that participated in electoral processes? Or did drag just make it up, in direct contradiction to what Lenin actually said, which I already cited to drag?
Drag Googled "politics in tsarist Russia", went to Wikipedia and read it was a monarchy. Drag read about one of the socialist parties and saw no mention of votes or seats.
Drag didn't see any blue on your comment. You hid it inside a spoiler. Drag didn't notice the drop down and thought it was a heading. Don't hide things you want drag to read.
When I post paragraphs of theory, I put it behind a spoiler out of courtesy to people who might feel that it's spamming up the thread. That doesn't mean drag should ignore it when drag is uninformed about the subject matter and I'm providing drag information about it.
The fact that Russia was a monarchy does not preclude the existence of representative bodies. The Duma was first established in 1905, in response to a revolution that year. This is really basic stuff.
Drag just doesn't think Russian history is very important. Drag spends more time learning about new world indigenous politics, culture, and metaphysics. If you want to learn about communism, don't go to Russia. Go to Australia. Australians did it for 60,000 years, and Russians couldn't even manage to do it for 1. Drag is reading Kayanerenko;wa: The Great Law Of Peace, about the politics of the Haudenosaunee people.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/twinrabbit-stolen-anarchy Here is a transcript of a youtube video about how Marx, Engels, and the rest of those white men culturally appropriated communism from Turtle Islanders. Drag values the work they have done trying to bring about communism, but drag prefers firsthand wisdom over secondhand. Drag thinks reading Lenin is a waste of time when you could be reading the philosophy of people who have lived in actual communist societies.
Drag is free to say that reading Lenin is a waste of time, but don't then try to tell me I'm wrong about Lenin when drag doesn't know very basic things about Lenin's positions or conditions.
Drag didn't say you're wrong about Lenin. Drag said you're wrong about the US electoral system.