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
Nope, didn't say that. I said the perfect voters they are courting instead of progressive voters are imaginary.
Oh, well that's still pretty stupid. Centrist voters are by definition less loyal, since they have to be courted in the first place. Democrats don't expect centrist voters to be unquestioningly loyal, or else they wouldn't even advertise to them.
No, I'd say they're pretty loyal to republicans (else you'd be correct, Democrats wouldn't be courting them with republican policy) and they don't question the status quo or capitalism, which gives Democrats plenty of room to maintain loyalty to their donors.
That makes no sense at all. If they're loyal to Republicans, why would Democrats court them at all?
The entire POINT is that they're NOT loyal, to anyone. They're low-information, easily-swayed voters. They're the "I hate politics" type. They're the "oh he seems like a decent guy" type.
I don't know, you tell me why democrats are cedeing ground to the republicans on immigration, climate, and foreign policy instead of making the smallest effort to defend very popular progressive stances.
Edit: Also, yes. That is why they are imaginary. If they're voting for Trump in 2024 and can't be simply bought via campaign advertising then they aren't going to be convinced and they are not marginal voters. But man would democrats like to have that same kind of loyalty.
Maybe, rather than Democrats doing some shit that you admit makes no sense whatsoever, they're actually not doing that? You're just building up this weird idea of Democrats predicated on the idea that they want loyal soldiers. It doesn't make any sense. They don't. They never have.
So… you’re saying the DNC has not been actively ignoring progressives in favor of republicans since after Obama got elected? The “nothing will fundamentally change” party? The tough on immigration party isn’t actively courting republicans? Then who are they courting with that shit? The actively racist democrats in Texas and Florida? Why pretend suddenly immigration is a problem when it’s not? The country was built on immigration. We don’t need to deport more and split up more families. We need more immigration courts and better processes to help transition those families into legal immigration. Not give them court dates 5 months out and 300 miles away. Make batch hiring shit they do at meat packing plants illegal so we stop ending up with dead 16 year old kids they swear they thought were 32 year olds. Hell, crack down on wage theft and increase national minimum wage to a liveable wage (national+urban cost of living instead of single catch all) while we are at it instead of complaining about immigrants taking our jobs when we have to have two to live. Be plenty of jobs when everyone only needs one. And make Medicare for all so businesses don’t have to compete over expensive medical benefits.
But nah, be tough on crime and immigration instead cuz that’s what republicans want.
Also fuck man can be please stop giving almost as much as we spend on the entire countries education to supporting active genocide?
I love this new trend of taking all the evil shit Republicans do and just claiming that Democrats do it. Much simpler and more straightforward propaganda.
Thinking democrats couldn’t possibly do it cuz republicans are is wild.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/10/01/project-2025-explained-what-to-know-about-the-right-wing-policy-map-ahead-of-tonights-vp-debate/?
If you seriously need an article on us supporting Israel’s genocide on Gaza I can as well.
Yea, republicans may be worse on these but the literal point of many voting third party is it’s absolutely fucked to just blindly accept the party of “slightly less excited for genocide but still definitely excited for genocide.” One party being worse should not be a pass.
Republicans do this horrible thing all the time and in really bad ways.
A Democrat once suggested thinking about possibly doing a part of it, might have been a joke I dunno.
Clearly, both sides are the same.
Fucking lol ok. Well, tried to be sane and reasonable but clearly you're not here for that. My bad. Sorry for treating you like a person.
That "but" is irrelevant if you understand at all how the American electoral system works. You choose the lesser or the greater of two evils. Always. You want to change the party itself, vote in the primaries.
yes, yes, sell your soul to Genocide and maybe you can buy it back if you vote hard enough! Or at least they'll only increase the state sponsored genocide by a little bit more each year! That is.... uhhh. good? Yes thats what I want to call that. Good!
Wild you can say a but about still murdering tons of small children is irrelevant.
Doesn't change the calculation. Murder more children, or less children?
If all the children are dead either way then you haven't actually murdered less children.
Ok, but only one side is calling for murdering literally all of the children, and that's the Republicans. Democrats are at least attempting to work towards peace and provide humanitarian aid.
It's fine if you say that's not enough. I agree. But it's not "kill em all".
That's what they say and what they'd like us to think but that's not what Biden's policy reflects, nor Kamala's language and conduct in her campaign.
A Palestinian-American voice, a rather reasonable and balanced one, wasn't even allowed to speak at the DNC. Plenty of time for the families of hostages and a pandering cop from Genesee County, Michigan, though.
We are long past "self defense" and deep into genocide territory, yet Kamala keeps droning on about Israel's "right to defend themselves" even as Israel sabotages peace talks and opens a new front in Lebanon. When does self defense end and genocide begin if not at any point before now? Why is it unprovoked terrorism when the brown people do it but defensive war when the west does it? When are they going to stop "urging" and start threatening aid?
This is a clear bias and they've given us absolutely no sign that their pit of generosity towards Israel has any bottom to it, yet because the republicans are more open about their hatred you've given a pass to policy that will end in the exact same outcome. Total destruction of Palestine and a continuing violent apartheid with zero consequences for Israel.
This is the cornerstone of all you "genocide joe" fucksticks and it makes no sense. Only one party is calling for a total extermination of Palestinians - the Republican Party.
Read my full reply and I promise it will make sense.
Policy/actions and talking points are two different things. The democrat's walk does not match their talk. You're falling for talking points and feel-good finger wagging while the policy and action is effectively the same.
Netanyahu is already running the show, we're already helping him carry this out. It doesn't make a difference if the guy signing the checks has an (R) or (D) next to their name and feigns pride or concern in doing so, if either way there are zero consequences for escalating the situation to a full multi-front war.
Conspiracy theory crap. "Sure, the Dems say they want peace and sure they've actively worked towards negotiating a peace and sure they've sent humanitarian aid but I know what they really want, and it conveniently happens to be whatever will make me not vote for them."
Besides, "evil Jews are secretly controlling the US" has been done to death already.
Lol there it is, off comes the mask. Dishonestly suggesting that criticizing Israel's actions is antisemitism just because the democrats made a big show about facilitating negotiations and writing strongly worded letters and sending care packages while Netanyahu openly defies and sabotages the negotiations and continues bombing innocent civilians without recourse.
You can lead a horse to fresh water but you can't make them drink. This conversation is over. You don't give a fuck about Palestine.
This conversation never started because you only ever parrot Russian propaganda. It's always for the audience.
Netanyahu sabotaging negotiations is far better than there being no negotiations at all. Yes, Democrats need to stop providing aid. But do not pin every bullshit thing Netanyahu does on Democrats.
Oh yeah, we're getting all the classics now. "all criticism of Democrats is Russian propaganda, war is peace, and Democrats can't be blamed for actively funding genocide and letting the leader of a foreign nation very publicly walk all over them in an election year" and you still think you came up with all of that yourself. How quaint.
Cute, you think adding a reductio ad absurdum and a flat out falsehood equals a reasonable opinion.
You aren't spewing Russian propaganda? Who are you voting for in November then?
Lmao. You are not a serious person.
But muh bOtH sIdEz hurt
My point is that the Democrats seem to think they are winnable, or else they wouldn't be so afraid even just to stay the course on progressive policy, much less push it forward. We both agree that it's stupid, I'm saying it's not a winning strategy. Ignore the loyal soldiers part, that was hyperbole, they're still experiencing diminishing returns from courting the conservative vote.
They're running out of winnable votes in the middle, yet they seem to prefer to scrape the bottom of that barrel at all costs, including bleeding votes from the progressive side, which is what is happening when a third party spoils the vote. The democratic party knows this, they have billions of dollars to figure things like this out, and they know how to spin it as not to cast doubt on their own institutions.
People who point fingers at progressive voters (who they otherwise agree with) when a candidate loses, rather than demand for that candidate to win back those compatible but alienated voters, seem to think that the candidates are just innocent victims of circumstance. This is false. They are active players in a game of bets and wagers, running billion dollar campaigns with strategists and focus groups. They know what they need to do to get the winning number of votes, if they really want to.
Every time they ignore what's popular to voters or even tell a group of voters to pipe down, not even acting like they are hearing them out, is a wager that they can win without representing that view. The more voters that toe the party line and guilt each other into doing so, the more they can tell us to pipe down and choose not to represent us. At the most you could say that they have something to lose by inching left, but this is difficult to argue (other than a monetary incentive of course) because of how motivated non-republican voters are just to keep Trump out this cycle. They have plenty of room to motivate the wide open margins on the left
There's no silent majority of Leftists. This is one of the fundamental things you guys need to grasp. Just because all the people you interact with are like that, doesn't mean you're anywhere near a relevant fraction of voters.
Even if that negated anything that I said, you guys sure seem to think they're relevant when they vote third party or become disillusioned and don't vote at all. So they're only relevant when they're not doing what you want? Cause that seems to me like ignoring voters until it bites you in the ass.
There's clearly enough progressives, or voters who find Democrats' current platform objectionable, that you understand you can't win without them. The Democrats could offer them something material to vote for, and/or they can pressure them to vote against their better senses on threats that things will get worse if they lose. They are going exclusively with the latter.
For some reason you keep getting stuck on the semantics of single words that I've used. Missing the forest, so to say. Ignore the word progressive (which is not the same word as leftist but whatever). There are things that are popular to the majority of this country that will motivate people to turn out to vote other than keeping Trump out of office, and those things definitely aren't being tough on immigration or funding Israel's war on the middle east.
There's far fewer leftists in relevant battleground states than there are moderates who we would alienate by a hard turn to the left.
The problem with Leftist "don't vote" rhetoric is that these moderates in battleground states...well, let's be honest. They're idiots. They're easily swayed. They're low information voters. They "don't like politics".
We don't care if a million voters in California break off and vote 3rd party, as long as they do so fucking quietly. If they influence 30,000 voters in Pennsylvania, we're fucked. Not as a party, but as a nation. It's shit, but that's the calculus behind FPTP.
Likewise, earning 15 million votes in California instead of 11 million, by championing Leftist causes, does not help Democrats get elected at all. But alienating just a few thousand voters in Michigan matters a LOT. You don't win Michigan and Pennsylvania and Georgia by championing leftist causes.
So yeah. You guys are too small in number to help us win, but loud enough in voice to help us lose.
And no, I refuse to conflate progressives with leftists. I've seen a lot of leftists trying to co opt the progressive label lately. Fuck that. Y'all are leftists.
lol
Regardless
Ok troll
Oy, you're not doing too well in this argument are you? :/
Rofl obvious alt says what?
Obivous alt of who? I'm not sure what you are implying. So all these people disagreeing with you are just obvious alts?! What?!
Ok
People who engage with you don't do well. Talking to a wall is never a good time.