this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
573 points (96.6% liked)

politics

19080 readers
4385 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Have you even heard of Nader or Perot

yes, and i also know that their candidacy had nothing to do with who won the two elections they are (erroneously) credited with spoiling.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They're (accurately) credited with spoiling said elections and it is yet another example of the complete toothless value of 3rd-parties.

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

any amount of research will show that, in fact, perot's candidacy decreased clinton's margin of victory, and gore won that election.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Any amount of research will, in fact, show that Perot did not win and 3rd-party groups routinely spoil elections without remotely advancing their own agenda they claim to care about.

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

perot's campaign had a significant impact on the politics of the 90s, transforming the democrats from a party (accused of) supporting welfare to a party of ... well... the fucking clintons.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Bernie had an effect on the party too, except he did it in a way that didn't backfire for progress.

Bernie understands it's far easier to take two steps back under Republicans versus maintaining what we've got, let alone making progress.

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

Bernie had an effect on the party too, except he did it in a way that didn’t backfire for progress.

if by that, you mean progressing the party to the right, you're correct. he hasn't reversed the course of the democrat party at all.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

He hasn't? I'm pretty sure universal healthcare is more popular than ever among Democrats; and things like tuition reimbursement would've been inconceivable merely 10-years-ago.

There is ambiguity in your argument of them creeping to the right.

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

I’m pretty sure universal healthcare is more popular than ever among Democrats; and things like tuition reimbursement would’ve been inconceivable merely 10-years-ago.

that's not leftist.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's never left enough; just like the overton-window of the right.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

leftists are communists and anarchists. communism is a stateless classless moneyless society. what you're calling leftists is actually fascist.

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

3rd-party groups routinely spoil elections

no, they don't. i reject the entire narrative of "spoiling" elections, as it presupposes that one party or another is owed (or owns outright) the votes. they do not. they must earn the votes, and if i so-called third party candidate earns the votes, tehy are not spoiling anything. they are doing what politicians are supposed to do: earn votes.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Historians, scholars, political-scientists all disagree. I won't argue with the proverbial-equivalent of flat-earthers, for that's just a denialism too far gone.

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

Historians, scholars, political-scientists all disagree

no, they don't

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

its the subject of serious debate in scholarly sources.

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

he proverbial-equivalent of flat-earthers,

this is pigeonholing. you are trying to group me in with a (n unrelated) group of people and dismiss my valid assertions. it's yet another mark of intellectual dishonesty

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's an apt comparison, reflective of the non-sequitur you're engaging in. Lacking any substantive rebuttal or sourced rebuttal, it's a reflection of what I see in flat-earthers.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

reflective of the non-sequitur you’re engaging in

i have done no such thing.