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
The party has you covered. They have spent the past half a century moving to the right to appeal to the centrists and try, Chamberlain-like, to appease Republicans. If the party ever does something that its pampered right flank dislikes in the slightest, then I'll start talking about how we need to keep their votes.
The last time that happened was when the voters overcame the party's attempt to coronate Clinton and nominated Obama instead. The Clinton wing of the party formed a PAC to try to elect McCain and Palin. Obama, always eager to capitulate to his right, actually tried to get their votes back by selecting a moderate as his VP pick. Clinton selected the anti-choice Tim Kaine as her VP pick as a "fuck you, you'll vote for me cause you gotta" to the left. Biden chose the war on drugs DA as his VP.
The party does what you want already. You have a party that represents you. The left has a party that opposes them and orders them to vote for them anyway.
I already told you, I sit between progressives and moderates because I have the same goals as progressives and the same methods as moderates (or at least what would be considered a slower and measured process).
You've also avoided my question, I'm not talking about who the party appeals to here. There's already plenty of discussion about what moderates do. I want to know what you think about how progressives should build coalitions. Believe it or not, I want to see progressives win. I'm asking how they should appeal to moderates and earn their votes for a general election once they win a primary -- without completely capitulating to the center.
Progressives and Democrat moderates/establishment need each other to win elections, and as you've aptly pointed out, they don't value that. There's going to come a time in the next few decades where the dynamics flip though, and progressives have more power. How should we act differently then -- if at all? It's perfectly valid to say they can reap what they sow and also be taken for granted. I just think there's a real opportunity in cooperation instead to have a strong electoral alliance.
If it isn't clear, I have no desire to be adversarial with you, just genuine discussion. I don't agree with everything you say necessarily, but there's enough I agree with on some level that my being a dick is getting in the way of learning your perspective. And along those lines -- sorry that I've been a dick to you, especially with how I ignored you saying you'll vote for Biden just so I could make witty arguments and quips. That was disrespectful and also utterly counterproductive.
The latter is designed to make sure the former never happens.
If Democrats do not alter course, they will alienate enough of the votes that they needed and Republicans will win before that happens. Maybe not this election, maybe not the next one. But our current messaging won't succeed forever, and it won't carry us to the future in which progressives have any power. And we know what Republicans' plans are. There won't be meaningful elections after that.
There won't be a then if the party maintains its current heading
It certainly is. They should sow other crops.
That opportunity exists today, and I fear it will not exist in the future. Centrists refuse to seize it, and progressives are not in a position to. If you want magnanimity, lead by example. Like this:
This shows a capacity for introspection and humility that centrists are often too proud or antagonistic to display. Apology accepted.
And we’re the problem for warning them about that. It’s hilarious. It’s only working because of how horrible trump is. If the pubies trotted any one less horrible, we’d loose.
They'd rather have Trump than appeal to the left.
If Republicans nominate someone other than Trump, he'll run as a third party candidate and split the "stupid bigot" vote. It's the best we could hope for, considering that Democrats' only message right now is "fuck you, you're voting for us." Any Democrat who doesn't have a compelling reason to vote in the Democratic Party primaries for lower offices than president should be voting in the Republican presidential primaries.
fair point. hypothetically, if trump didn't exist (lets say he's directly convicted of insurrection, or his second impeachment had seen him convicted; and directly barred from office ever again) Biden would loose to any other candidate
Yeah, probably.
I fear we haven't definitively avoided the point where infighting between Democrats and progressives makes us blind to a fascist threat. So it's more than fair for me to do my part when I've been a dick and perpetuated the problem.
My hope is that Republicans lose by so much in 2024 that it effectively destroys the party, and by the time we're sure they're gone, the Democrats can split into proper moderate and progressive parties. It's definitely wishful thinking, but we live in unusual times. Democrats should've lost badly in the midterms, but they actually came out ahead in the Senate and won some important state races.
It's also worth noting that we will need methodical planning grounded in reality and science to achieve the goals we want. We just need to do it genuinely and not to stifle progress. We can do what's already worked for other countries fairly instantly, but we should exercise caution in making further improvements. We can still put together a test plan however to confirm any additional improvements will be successful.
I have no faith that stifling progress isn't the party's only goal.
Let the party do what it wants. This sort of planning needs to done by progressives in any case.
No matter how thoroughly progressives prepare, it will be summarily dismissed as inadequate by the "baby steps to nowhere" crowd.
You know, that makes you a conservative right? Slowing progress and social change is the heart of conservatism. (In reality republican “conservatives” are in fact regressive- which is why they got rid of RvW, want to get rid of Obama care, and deregulate every regulation curtailing corporates.)
Just something for you to think about.
I should probably clarify what I mean. Healthcare for example -- I have no qualms about instantly moving to a Medicare for All system, or establishing a copy of say the UK or German system.
My caution would be on what comes after that. Currently pretty much every universal healthcare system has a form of supplemental private insurance for those who want it. I wouldn't immediately support abolishing all insurance, because that's untread ground. I would however immediately support commissioning studies to figure out what it would look like and if there's any unexpected issues that come up. Alternatively, if someone else tests it and things look good, then let's immediately jump to abolishing insurance.
For a lot of American issues actually there wouldn't be much difference. We have plenty to catch up on. We could adopt European systems without any concern.
I think my mentality probably applies more with climate change, where I don't want the government to start building large scale fusion reactors when we really haven't proved out the technology. Or, deploying a chemical additive in the atmosphere to absorb CO2, without extensive studies on the after effects. I don't want us to create an even bigger problem with the solution.
EDIT: And to be clear, when I say we shouldn't immediately ban all private insurance, that's not out of love for those companies. It's to figure out how we smoothly transition everyone currently working in that industry to a new job. I don't want a situation where all of those workers suddenly become unemployed or are thrown to the wolves.
I appreciate the clarification there. thank you.
Just a minor point, I don't think any progressives are actually pushing for fusion (it's only barely gotten past break-even in billions of dollars worth of global investment.) if we wanted to talk about fission... there's some new technologies there that don't have all of the draw backs of classic fusion; and their modularity could be a reasonable solution for places that wind or solar aren't. (they're being developed, for example, to power giant container ships).
same goes with any form of carbon capture. The feeling I have (and seems to be echoed by most) is that carbon capture is great and all, but it's basically an excuse for companies to just not change what they're doing; and it's siphoning funds from actual solutions. I would like to see some carbon capture happen, but not at the expense of actually solving the problem.
Oh modular reactors are a really good technology that we really need to deploy. SMRs are designed to be inherently safe too iirc. Nuclear and hydrogen also go together really, really well. And I completely agree on carbon capture. Actually removing it from the atmosphere is where I'd be very cautious, but it would be the most impactful carbon you could capture.
Also I was just using fusion as a quick example, I'm not sure I've heard anyone in the political sphere talk about it yet. The example I actually had in mind was healthcare and M4A, because I thought at first M4A was going to instantly abolish all insurance. I think I remember reading though that it still keeps supplemental private insurance like everywhere else, which is exactly where we need to start.
Honestly that's the only example I can really think of where I've been more cautious, and I'm mistaken there too. I might not be as different as I think.