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
You'd think that if you're gonna position yourself as a third party alternative, you'd drop the wild antivaxx shit since the crazy people already are going to vote republican.
It’d be interesting to see who is paying him to run.
Yeah. My eyes got WIDE open about the "function" of third-party candidates in the US after I saw in hindsight (because isn't hindsight always clearer?) Jill Stein's role in a prior election. They're basically there to shave off just enough votes from one of the major parties to tilt things one way or another. Easy for 3rd parties--no matter of they're crazies OR if they actually have legit policy stances that really should be considered, such as climate issues--to be turned into agents of chaos. People working the USA's political system from the outside work BOTH sides--the right and the left, pretending to be either one to sow discord as it suits their goals. The more division the better, for them.
I really want various ballot initiatives to succeed in changing how voting is done in the US, so you can safely vote for the candidate you actually want without handing the election to the worst candidate. Voting would be much invigorated if you could vote for someone with pride and enthusiasm instead of, "At least they're not XYZ" which is what has to happen now working within the rules our system has for us.
Here and there, a few states have implemented better systems with various flavors of ranked choice and such for their state elections, so they're not stuck in a two-party horror show for local elections at least, but there's a lot of hard work that has to be done before that gains enough momentum across many states and towns and smaller localities in the US that it might be feasible to change the way voting is done on a federal level.
Yeah if third party candidates were actually serious they would work to get ranked choice voting passed then run
That is exactly what the Forward party is doing. Their top political policy position is promoting ranked choice voting.
I have deep, intense skepticism of anything Andrew Yang touches or endorses
EDIT: Also look at the fucking wikipedia article for the "Forward Party". It's literally bankers and Republicans, if I wanted to ruin the country this sounds like a great idea
Okay, I have deep, intense skepticism of any current politician.
No, its not literally bankers and Republicans. All you have to do is look at the Notable member chart to see that. It does have some republicans who have joined which isn't exactly a surprise since they are 33% of the country. As far as bankers, there was no mention of the word banker in the article so not sure where you're getting that.
Why are you cursing about an wikipedia article? Is it because you are angry at it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_Party_(United_States)
"On July 27, 2022, the Forward Party announced that it had merged with the Serve America Movement and the Renew America Movement to further its effort to form a new third party named "Forward"."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serve_America_Movement
"The Serve America Movement (SAM) was a big tent political organization founded in 2017 by Morgan Stanley lawyer Eric Grossman."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renew_America_Movement
"The Renew America Movement (RAM) was an American political group founded in 2021 by former staffers from Republican Party administrations"
If you give them money you're just giving Republicans money, full stop. I support RCV but I wouldn't trust any of these fuckers for a second. Knew that website looked way too slick
Got it. You think anything republican is impure therefore bad. Essentially you think to be good you must not associate with bad people. It is for or against. There is no grey area. You have to meet my purity test of not being a bad person so I can support you.
Sorry, but the world is not black and white. There is a gray area. The reality is that politics to the average person is no different than a rooting for team sport. By advocating for ranked choice voting you seem to be willing to step out of that viewpoint a little, but you still think all republicans are bad.
PS: when you cuss it just lets me know you are dehumanizing the people you are referring to. So I try to somewhat ignore that as I do not support dehumanizing people.
If "purity test" is not supporting the people and party who overtly supported the overthrow of the United States government and continue to do so, then yeah I use purity tests. Also I can curse all I fucking want
The people and party are two different things. There are 50+ million republicans. It is a mistake to assume that they all support what happened on Jan 6.
Most of them are probably just uninformed or misinformed and therefore support their team. Just because some republicans did actively support Jan 6 doesn't mean they all support it. Mostly, they just chose to ignore headlines because they do not like the cognitive dissonance it causes.
Why? I am curious why you are skeptical of him. He is literally doing what you suggested. Why are you mistrustful of him?
He's a naive idiot who thinks business skill translates into political skill (always amusing to watch those types toss themselves into the wood chipper of primaries), and he did a vanity/brand run for President in 2020, then basically publicly admitted he got rolled by Biden's team with his endorsement. Any of these is disqualifying. He doesn't know what he's doing, and he's not serious about it.
So you are mistrustful of him because you don't think hes qualified to be president. That is a reasonable rationale for distrust.
No one always knows what they are doing, that is part of being an imperfect human. That he admits it to some degree just means he is being honest about his skills and abilities and is willing to learn.
Anyway you are entitled to think someone is not qualified for president if you want. However, that does not disqualify that he is at least trying to do exactly what you think should be done.
He's surrounding himself with people so fundamentally untrustworthy that it absolutely needs to be called out no matter what he says his goals are
So why should I trust you when you call someone untrustworthy? You keep calling people names and that doesn't exactly lead me to trust you. Trust is in the eye of the beholder and your cussing doesn't exactly lead me to trust your viewpoint.
Objectively Yang and everyone on the list of 20+ notable member are more trustable to the general public than you simply because they are important enough to be mentioned by a Wikipedia entry. There are 14 democrats and 13 republicans listed on the notable member chart.
You don't have to trust everyone in an organization to trust that organization. I would rather support an organization that might be lying over 2 organizations that I know are lying.
Anyway, I understand your viewpoint and can respect it even if I happen to see it differently. Thanks for explaining your view.
And the entities who encourage US 3rd parties as spoilers for the left are not limited to the GOP
The only third party I give any credence to is the Working Families Party. They'll run in local races while supporting candidates from other parties when they know they can't win.
I can certainly get that it feels like most third parties are there to siphon votes from major political parties and sow discord.
Funnily enough their is a third party for that. One of the Forward's main policy is Ranked Choice Voting.
They plan to start focusing on local and state elections as those positions make the election laws.
Indeed, there is lots of work to be done. You can volunteer with your state's local group if you think it is important. They have groups organized in 43/50 states.
Not sure if the article is paywalled, but it's not really interesting who is paying him. What would be interesting is if normal people were supporting him, but only the kooks are looking for RFK Jr to make any waves.
The reason I disagree is that he claims to be a dem but seems to be courting some of the dumber aspects of "centrists." He doesn’t have shot. He knows that.
So, why is he running? I believe the answer will be found if we follow the money.
I suppose I wasn't clear. I agree that I think he is being paid just to be a spoiler. The only difference between RFK Jr and Kanye running is that RFK knows he's being used and reaping huge personal benefits from a renewed interest in his brand.
The money is obviously from nefarious super PACs and mega donors, NOT any kind of grass roots movement of people who think he's a viable alternative candidate. The article I posted is just one that shows that we already know where his backing is coming from
Archive link: https://archive.ph/WLmcQ
He probably pulls more votes from older voters based on the name recognition of his father, and unfortunately with how closely associated his father was with the Democratic party I’d imagine that pulls votes from Biden. Could be wrong though, maybe he’ll corner the market on crazy street.
You would think, but it’s ok as he’ll divide the ant-science vote.
The danger is if he pulls some D votes because he's a Kennedy. He's been working pretty closely together with roger stone and steve bannon if that tells you anything about the messaging he's been putting out.