this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
1754 points (98.7% liked)

politics

19246 readers
3365 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Coach@lemmy.world 307 points 5 months ago (5 children)
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 215 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Imagine having a candidate that got more popular after speaking in public...

We literally haven't even passed that low of a bar in over a decade. I don't understand what's happened to people.

People as a whole are more politically aware than I've ever seen, but we're just wasting it.

[–] blackbelt352@lemmy.world 61 points 5 months ago (3 children)

We have to undo decades of policy enacted the much longer politically aware and active owner class. They've had a head start on us, so it's going to take tome to dismantle the political machinery they've created while minimizing harm done to the rest of us.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 46 points 5 months ago (2 children)

We actually don't.

A single progressive president means they get to name the DNC chair and a bunch of voting positions.

It's literally that easy to take over the party.

Obama just didn't do it because he didn't need the party after they turned on him for opposing Hillary.

If he'd have rebuilt it, we'd have a functional progressive party planning decades ahead already. And trump would still just be that guy from the Mac Miller song. The SC would be a progressive majority. The situation and Gaza wouldn't have turned into an open genocide, COVID would have been handled appropriately.

It's not some insurmountable task, but it gets harder and harder every cycle.

By all rights we should have had protests in the streets calling for Biden and the DNC leadership to step down for stealing NH's delagets. But not enough people had crossed their personal lines by then.

If we'd have had the fight then, we'd have had a full primary almost to figure shit out.

But we didn't.

Until we finally do, shit won't change.

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 30 points 5 months ago (1 children)

We should have been in streets for Gore.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

We should have learned that confidence is the one thing you can't fake. A candidate can be confident for illogical reasons, but that's still more convincing than being right but not being confident. It creates this weird effect where once people get too smart, they become less decisive and people perceive that as less confident.

The stereotypical nerd.

Gore probably would have been a top 10 president. But he couldn't sell himself to voters just a little more. And if memory recalls, he technically didn't even have to concede. Like, if he had waited I believe the recounts were actively happening. He didn't even let it run down to the final vote.

But I think its important to note not a single Dem Senator challenged it either which would have been even better than Gore challenging it

Bernie would have most likely, but he wasn't in yet. Biden could have done it, but he didn't, same with most of the current Dem leadership.

So Gore should have planted his feet, and voters should have gotten behind, probably would have. But the party didn't have Gore's back either. And Gore wasn't confident enough to try it without the party.

It's crazy how shit comes so close and has such widespread consequences. Just one Dem senator back then dragging it out till a final count would have done it.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 5 months ago

Gore probably would have been a top 10 president. But he couldn’t sell himself to voters just a little more. And if memory recalls, he technically didn’t even have to concede. Like, if he had waited I believe the recounts were actively happening. He didn’t even let it run down to the final vote.

He pushed right up to the deadline. Like, Bush v Gore was decided literally hours before the state deadline to certify the vote.

[–] blackbelt352@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

We've had this sort of situation before, FDR was radically progressive on a lot of policy decisions, he made great strides ad pulling us out of the Great Depression, leading us through world war 2, dramatically reduced the wealth disparity and was so popular with the voting public he was elected 4 times. Then the politically connected wanted to make sure that kind of presidency never happened again, so they paid to get the political machinery altered to suit their needs, term limits were introduced, influential think tanks were created to push favorable public policy and install favorable political assets, launched propaganda campaigns to sway public perception and consolidated economic power.

I agree that a single properly progressive president can do a lot to make things better, and a president who actually wields power can make some very important structural changes within the political party but it doesn't disassemble the political machinery that led us to our current situation in the first place. It doesn't disassemble the vast propaganda networks and think tanks, it doesn't stop the flow of dark money into politician pockets. All these positive changes can be undone if the next guy that comes in is a shitbag.

[–] Psycoder@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

During the Hillary vs Bernie times, I was talking with a Bernie supporter in a bar. He told me that the establishment Dems/DNC would promote Hitler himself before they promote an anti-establishment candidate.

Back then I thought he was a case of mentally sick person making it to the bar and having too much drink. As time passes I agree with him more and more.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee -3 points 5 months ago

Do you think the ownership class was upset when AOC voted to stop the rail union from striking?

[–] Psycoder@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

During the Hillary vs Bernie times, I was talking with a Bernie supporter in a bar. He told me that the establishment Dems/DNC would promote Hitler himself before they promote an anti-establishment candidate.

Back then I thought he was a case of mentally sick person making it to the bar and having too much drink. As time passes I agree with him more and more.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

We have a party entirely dedicated to the ownership class with literally 0 internal conflict, and we have a party almost entirely dedicated to the ownership class with some internal conflict (the squad.)

What we don't have is a party that gives one solitary fuck about the labor class and actively fights those that get too close to real power. The squad is a useful token to point to and say "see we aren't all corpo fascists! We allowed them to exist!" (Because there's only like 5 of them so they have no power whatsoever)

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago

Imagine having a candidate that got more popular after speaking in public…

We literally haven’t even passed that low of a bar in over a decade. I don’t understand what’s happened to people.

I'd be happy if we just had an administration where no one in the DOJ, State Department or Cabinet quits in disgust. The last time that happened was what, Bush Sr.?

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 78 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I want AOC with vice president Bernie.

That man may be in his final years of politics, and perhaps too old to be at the helm, but dammit, he deserves it.

[–] BubbleMonkey@slrpnk.net 35 points 5 months ago

I saw him speak the other day and he was totally with it. Like that super old person who lives to be 120 and is sharp as fuck right until their body gives up, but until then they are firy and physically fit.

[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 54 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Literally has had one minor mis-step with the railroad union strike, telling them to go back to work, and they still got the deal they wanted in the end. She hasn't just earned my vote for POTUS should she choose to run, but she's got my full support. Heck, I might start throwing campaign contributions her way if she makes a POTUS try.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 22 points 5 months ago

If we're having elections in 28 and she isn't a candidate. Something is wrong.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

AOC will not survive after Trump wins.

"Haven't you heard it's a battle of words?"
The poster bearer cried
"Listen, son," said the man with the gun
"There's room for you inside"