this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2025
947 points (99.3% liked)

politics

22161 readers
3946 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Democratic lawmakers have faced eruptions of anger at town hall meetings across the country this week, as constituents have coupled their fury over President Donald Trump’s actions with deep frustration over what they see as a feckless Democratic response.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Current events are proof that your preconditions needed for compromise to work do not exist in the real world.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 days ago (2 children)

That’s because the democrats refuse to move left and don’t have a backbone.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

"my centrism isn't a problem, it's DEMOCRATS for not being left enough, because then my centrism would really be centered"

Sure bud, whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.

You aren't wrong about democrats being spineless, but Personally I could never try and compromise with someone who thinks my very existence and the existence of minorities gives them a reason to hate and persecute up to literal lynching and murder but that's just me.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You missed the part about ethics. The compromise between murdering and not murdering minorities is to not murder minorities.

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

That is the dictionary definition of ‘not a compromise’.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

If they provide anything resembling reasonable, we find middle ground.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The Democrats can't have a backbone. They are owned by oligarch interests. Asking the Democrats to save you is asking a shark to stop another shark from eating you. They are rotten to the core.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If the democrats won’t do it, then a leftist party is required

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

Exactly. The Democrats are incapable of being the change we need.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

To be fair, they kind of did exist for like... at least ~60 years. Many of us are old enough to remember what life in the 90s was like.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

I would say the last time they existed was the 1970s when Nixon agreed to create an EPA he really didn't want to that had fewer powers than its supporters really wanted. The 90s only seemed smooth because scumbag Clinton gave Republicans everything they wanted on welfare reform, criminal justice, telecom deregulation, intellectual property laws, and international trade.

And we still got Gingrich and the contract with America and Ken Starr and Sore Loserman for being so conciliatory

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

It's never been perfect, and far from ideal, but it worked. Compare that to whatever the fuck it is we're experiencing now, and it looks like a goddamn utopia.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

And erased the deficit. Plus the first real attempt at national healthcare.

I mean, there's good and bad. We could have that or we could have all bad.

Until some of you start running and finding out what it means to win an election we default to whoever they've got queued up.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago

Dude, no. The 90s were better than now because the ball was closer to the top of the hill and hadn't been rolling back down as long. The strong worker protections, economic regulations, and tax policy that built the middle class during the 50s and 60s started to be dismantled in the 70s because of compromising with economic extremists. They started blaming everything that made a strong middle class possible for high inflation and have been doing it for every economic woe since.

On the other end, the only reason many of those laws were able to be passed in the first place is because FDR and company dragged us there over the objections of the same group.

The best times this country has had economically were never because the neoliberals and their predecessors back through the robber barons were less extreme and more reasonable, but because we had politicians who were up to the task of kicking the shit out of them and overcoming their influence.

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

Replace "the real world" with "America" and you're right. There is plenty of real world out here where there is no need to be tied to one party. In my parliamentary elections I've had 3 parties that I'll choose from depending on what they've been doing recently. It all comes back to that stopid FPTP system forcing two parties on you.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

A parliamentary system may be more resilient against fascist takeovers but this discussion is about the inherent foolishness of the centrist fallacy.

It’s a fallacy under any circumstances: do not compromise with people who are operating in bad faith.