this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
975 points (96.5% liked)

politics

19135 readers
3139 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
 

A gay doctor who is one of Louisiana’s only specialist paediatric cardiologists has left the state after the introduction of a Don’t Say Gay copycat bill and a ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth.

Jake Kleinmahon, who was one of just three doctors specialising in heart transplants for children in Louisiana, chose to leave the state with his family, as they no longer felt safe.

Kleinmahon met and fell in love with his husband Tom in New Orleans, and the couple expected remain in Louisiana, even after retirement. However, he told CNN that the state’s anti-LGBTQ+ legislation made him and his family feel unwelcome and that he ultimately “didn’t have a choice”.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago (13 children)

In a perfect world, there would be no reason for this to happen, but in a less perfect would- ALL LGBTQ+ people would leave all the red state dictatorships they currently live in- and go to where they’re welcomed with open arms.

[–] [email protected] 60 points 1 year ago (12 children)

In a perfect world, there would be no red states.

[–] Vuraniute 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

In a perfect world, there would be more than two parties.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (5 children)

That's not necessarily a solution. Look at the UK- three major parties, but being run by the right-wing Tories. Or Israel, with a bunch of parties and it's a mess.

I'm not happy with either party in the U.S., but it could actually be worse, not better, because often it either splits the vote or requires building coalitions with extremists.

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

Canada has many parties but is about to become a right-wing nightmare.

This isn't a party problem, it is a comms problem. The right feels like it must stop progress for human rights in any way possible. Lying, cheating, whatever. And in many places, the right is funded by rich people who want less taxes and regulations.

In Canada, it is tar sands oil. Since tax cuts and let's screw up the planet are not popular, you need a wedge issue. Here's Trump marveling at how a wedge issue is spread:

"It's amazing how strongly people feel about that. You see, I'm talking about cutting taxes, people go like that," Donald Trump said while making a muted applause gesture. "I talk about transgender, everyone goes crazy. Who would have thought? Five years ago, you didn't know what the hell it was."

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And lets be honest, those coalitions almost always end up being mostly a 2 party system with more steps. The elect a bunch of different parties, then those parties all group together in 2 sides mostly. Possibly leaving a few that aren't included and then their votes mean nothing. It's like gerrymandering in a different way. You don't need to change voting districts, you just have to get another party that agrees with you on the important things to also win some elections. You could even argue that, while technically under the same name, the Tea party was kinda of that. A whole different kind of politician was voted in, with the understanding that they would just be agreeing with the Republicans on legislation. It's obviously not quite the same, but it's not far off.

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

There's literally 13 different coalitions in Germany for 17 (states and federal) governments involving five parties (not counting FW and CSU==CDU).

What you don't see is Left (demsocs) and either Union (conservative) or FDP (neoliberal pretending to be ordoliberal), but those pairings exist on the municipal level. Usually by the Left managing to remind CDU folks what the "C" stands for or chancing upon a left-liberal FDP guy (who exist, rare as they are).

What you do see a lot, and I mean a lot a lot, is the Greens being in coalition with either CDU or SPD.


Also, one important distinction: In a proportional system, there being two big parties is a reflection of the electorate's position. In a FPTP system, it is due to the system itself, the electorate doesn't get a choice.

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

The need for more parties goes hand in hand with the need for STAR voting

[–] Vuraniute 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

something is better than nothing, also I'm not American and this is how stuff works here, with more than two parties, arguably more democratic but whatever ¯_(ツ)_/¯

ps: not looking to get into a political debate.

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

What are we referring to as "nothing"? Because what Louisiana currently has is not "nothing".

And don't comment on politics if you don't want to "debate" (why everything a debate i hate the internet) or leave that little "tag" out of the comment because nobody actually gives a shit if you actually respond or not? You're not that special, kid.

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

The UK doesn't really have three major parties either, it has two major parties and a runner-up. UK has many of the same problems with its political system as the US (not that strange, since a lot of the US political system has roots in the UK system), so it is a really bad example to cite as a different political system, because it really isn't.

Or Israel, with a bunch of parties and it’s a mess.

Israel is also a very unique example with a unique set of problems literally no other country in the world has, so again, bad example.

How about instead mentioning the many many countries with proportional representation which doesn't have these problems?

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

In a perfect world, there would be no need for parties or governments.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)