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
I want to point out how this (and I'm not doing this to single it you out, but you offer an example example of how a) lack of imagination about what is possible, is the precise kind of lack of vision that brought people to the conclusion that we "had" to support Biden in the primary, because you "can't challenge an incumbent": they were wrong. His brain was melting out of his ears and the establishment was telling you to not believe your lying eyes and ears. Authority takes advantage of this cynicisim and abuses you with it.
Its the kind of mindset that results in "Kamala has to be the nominee", because she's the only viable option; turns out, she wasn't viable. We were told she had to turn to the right, to "get centrists"; turns out, there were no centrists. We were told her campaigning with Liz Cheney was 8d chess because she'll get "never Trump Republicans". How'd that work out.
We've been conditioned into a cynical fatalism, one that is truly not borne out by reality: it does not predict the future. I can not make that point any more emphatically. This toxic fatalism is in-opposition to the results we have on hand. New ways are possible, constantly. I have no problem with either cynicism or fatalism. However, I do have a problem with a world view being expressed which doesn't predict future states of the world. BNMW, Blue Maga, the cynical fatalists who had elevated themselves into moderators of the Democratic process this election cycle: their cynical reductive fatalism is why Democrats can't do better. Not because it isn't possible, but because they refuse to ask for it, and for MONTHS they refused to allow the kinds of conversations necessary to carve and change a candidate like Harris into one who could get elected.
If anyone, here there or elsewhere, was suppressing speech challenging the narratives or strategies of the Harris campaign or Democratic party, challenges that would have led to a more viable candidate had they addressed them: these are the true enemies of democracy. There is a reason why Free Speech is the first amendment. It goes beyond what the government is allowed to do or not do: its about what we're allowed to say or not allowed to say. Its about who has power, and who is allowed to challenge existing narratives. We can absolutely change this world, but first, we have to work on ourselves, and the communities we are a part of. This cynicism is a cancer we need to stamp out.
You have all the power you need to already to make the changes. If you need inspiration: Actions speak louder than words. You have to decide if you are part of the resistance or part of a costume party. Which is what some people, recently in the news, have decided.
The future is undefined. Pretending it isn't is giving in.
What primary?
Exactly.
Honestly the party sounds like more fun.
Unless the resistance has guns.
That's an awful lot of words to say absolutely nothing. What's your suggested alternative that will get the 70+ million votes you need to stand a chance at the presidential level? Because encouraging people not to vote obviously didn't work it this time. Unless a Trump win was your goal all along.
Only if your goal is to (as Blue Maga does) continue to ignore the functional reason why Democrats lost this election.
Why are you focusing on the presidency? Oust the dems in Congress in even a few blue states and you'll be able to do a lot. Hell, start local and gain legitimacy before going after federal office. There a lot of options other than voting democrats for everything all the time.
Because other than the libertarians in Grafton, they aren't trying to build up any kind of legitimacy. The greens show up every four years as a spoiler but don't do anything in the off years. Their list iof elected officials has ~150 people nation wide and half of those are things like "parks committee member". If they were actually building legitimacy from the ground up like you suggest there would be far less criticism.
This is a problem with the greens, but it doesn't mean the only option is to vote Democrat. If you don't like the existent third parties, the answer should be to make or participate or one, not keep doing the same thing and hope the corporate stooges don't drive the country into the ground.
It's a problem for the greens who are a distant fourth place in numbers behind the libertarians who are trying to go the wrong direction. I'm not sure further splintering of third parties is going to help anything.
The far right has spent several decades dragging the Republican party to the right. Progressives can do the same to the Democrats if they actually show up.
There was no more viable candidate out there in the wings. Dems lost this race before it even started, we just didn't know it yet, because the vote is decided by how folks in swing states feel about the sitting President's economic performance—a performance, by the way, which was stellar when compared to other countries. Everything besides the economy is theater.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about one thing, though. Vote for change in local elections. Not necessarily other parties, but the most progressive candidates within the Democratic Party. Change the organization from the bottom up. Reshape it into a more progressive institution.