this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
341 points (97.0% liked)

politics

19088 readers
4141 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 4 points 9 minutes ago* (last edited 8 minutes ago)

Going further right didn't help, now we need to go as left as possible

Radical ideas like Universal healthcare, paid maternity leave, free child care, taxing the rich.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 1 points 1 minute ago

What?

They are the establishment.

[–] LunarVoyager@lemmy.world 19 points 1 hour ago

Wow, if only there had been an anti establishment candidate running for president as a democrat in 2016... too bad...

[–] DiagnosedADHD@lemmy.world 6 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I fear it's too late. Unless the party can be taken by force it won't be enough and we only have 4 years. If dems didn't snub Bernie this all probably wouldn't have happened. Our choices used to be two flavors of corporate fascism, now it's far right vs corporate. Dems are better on social issues, but it's not enough.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 2 points 47 minutes ago

Dems are clearly better on economic issues as well. Not nearly good enough, but better. The problem is that they will only go so far, and they won't talk about it, out of fear of angering their wealthy patrons.

[–] IzzyScissor@lemmy.world 16 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Or maybe they should just leave the Democratic party and start a new progressive party? We have less than 4 years, but that's also the most time we'll ever have.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The problem with that strategy is that our democracy uses a first-past-the-post voting system which trends towards a two-party system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&t=31s

[–] IzzyScissor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Oh, I'm all for ranked choice voting, but in order for it to have any meaning we also need a plurality of parties. They also need time to build and I'm sure these two would start a good one if allowed.

Although the likelihood of political parties having any weight at all past January is anyone's guess..

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Without rank choice voting any progressive party would act as a spoiler for the Democratic Party. Debilitating ourselves in this way isn't particularly useful for leveraging power to create better outcomes for the environment and minorities.

[–] IzzyScissor@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

A few weeks ago, I'd have agreed with you, but now? The Democratic party that just lost 10 million votes.. We'll spoil that party? The one that just lost a fair election to a convicted felon? You want to protect them from being spoiled?

We have 4 years, which is, again, the most time we'll ever get to try something like this because that's how 4 year election cycles work. What is it exactly that they're doing successfully you don't want to spoil?

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

We’ll spoil that party?

Yes, running third party candidates in a FPTP voting system is how the spoiler effect works.

You want to protect them from being spoiled?

Because of the FPTP voting system our democracy will always trend towards a two-party system. Until we enact systemic change, we will be stuck with the Democrats and the Republicans. As long as the Democrats are further to the left of fascism we should vote for them and avoid limiting our power with third party candidates.

We the people and our interests are what avoiding the spoiler effect protects.

What is it exactly that they’re doing successfully you don’t want to spoil?

The Democrats are neoliberals. They are easier to push on social issues and the environment. The Democratic Party is the party progressives and socialists are going to want to co-opt with a populist candidate. Like Bernie tried to do and Trump did to the Republicans. But more to the point, they do not want to kill minorities and destroy the environment.

Rather than seeking a moral victory over Democrats we should look for ways to leverage power for the people Republicans want to hurt. Doing otherwise makes the harm done to minorities the cost of doing business.

[–] Cataphract@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 minutes ago

I mean yes, that's been the playbook for 8 years. More like 16 if you count what people actually thought Obama was going to be (and had record turn out). Try, try again?

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 21 points 4 hours ago

They cannot and they will not. Please do not fall for them yanking the football away from you again. AOC and Bernie exist to give you hope and thereby capture your vote for a party that has no intention of ever fighting for the working class in a meaningful way. We need a real alternative but we've given away so much of our collective power (unions) that it's hard to see a hopeful path forward. Organize with your neighbors and start building trusted communities that will fight together when needed.

[–] Vailliant@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago

They have, they were just as beholden to money interests as the Republicans...

[–] BMTea@lemmy.world 8 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

So long as the Democratic Party leadership are reliant on corporate funding, obsessed with American power projection, smitten with Israel, pensive about worker rights and in lock-step with security and intelligence establishment, there is no hope. You will have on one hand a conservative party that shows antipathy and disdain for real liberal norms (Democratic establishment) and a rabid, evil party intent on reshaping America and the world to reflect white Christian nationalist fanaticism (Republicans.)

10 years ago I would have told you that the Dems are playing a dangerous game with their interventionism. Today they consigned 1 million children to starve, be blown to smithereens and die in order to enable the revenge of a leader who is as corrupt as Trump and far more bloodthirsty. Kamala calls Trump a "fascist" and gives Netanyahu a UN veto and 2000lb bounds to drop near hospitals. This is indiciative of a party that is morally rotten and cannot be relied upon to safeguard anyone's rights.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Unfortunately our democracy uses a first-past-the-post voting system which trends toward a two-party system. This makes the Republicans and Democrats the only game in town.

Minority Rule: First Past the Post Voting

We need to leverage power to reduce the harm done to the minority groups fascists in the Republican party want to hurt. So rather than attempting to achieve a moral victory over Democrats, people on the left should do the most useful thing they can during elections for minorities and vote for Democrats.

The Alt-Right Playbook: The Cost of Doing Business

[–] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 1 points 39 minutes ago (1 children)

A big issue with this approach: The United States is not a law of nature; it doesn't have to exist. The system may only allow two options, but it does not guarantee that either one of those options will keep the system viable. Reduced harm is still harm, and at some point we needed to stop doing it.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 6 minutes ago* (last edited 4 minutes ago)

This rhetoric is what is known as accelerationism. It's the idea that things have to get worse in order for them to get better. The United States not existing would mean the collapse of a society that supports about 340 million people. Letting the US burn to the ground is not useful, because it doesn't help any of the people living here.

The truth is that things get better when people learn from their mistakes and the bad things that happen to them. They then use that knowledge to make things better. There's no bottom to how bad things can get. Things can always get worse. And they will get worse unless we work to make them better.

Anyone can be tempted by the idea that they can make things better by letting them burn. But letting everything burn is how to harm the most people possible. In order to help anyone, we need to start leveraging power for each other. That means giving up on moral victories and analyzing strategies using utility instead of moral reasoning. edit: typo

[–] Brodysseus@lemmy.world 7 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

They have 4 years to tighten up. I'm not optimistic. The only victory they have had since Obama was a fear victory.. nobody wanted Biden they were scared of trump. That is played out.

The right did a good job of parading him around as an anti-establishment, for the common people candidate. I don't think that's true, but a lot of people do.

I hope the D party reorganizes as a populist anti-establishment party and holds a ranked choice primary with some young actually left leaning candidates who can't be bought.

To be honest, if the D party don't reform and earn my vote, I'm not giving it to them out of fear anymore. Before trump I had a "no lesser of two evils" policy for voting. And I'm going back to it. They had 4 years to plan, hold a primary, do some prosecuting of rich criminals, understand why Trump's popular and strategize to beat it, literally fucking anything. Did they?

I'm over it, they can run a fair primary with some progressive candidates and let the people decide, and then I'll vote. Tired of whatever they're doing and it looks like a lot of others are as well. Hope they figure out the obvious issue they have and fix it. Since its a two party system they're hogging the only route that the left has to success and fucking it up remarkably bad. Like I could do a better job and I'm an idiot.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

While the plan you've outlined in your argument my feel good, it isn't particularly useful for shifting the Democrats to the left. Under this plan, the causalities of this and future Republican administrations will be the cost of doing business.

Consider leveraging power by voting for Democrats in elections to benefit the people who will otherwise be harmed by future Republican administrations. edit: typo

[–] Brodysseus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

I live in a really liberal state. So my vote doesn't actually matter.

I'll consider it, and I appreciate the kind response, but to be honest I think if people keep placating them with "lesser of two evils votes" nothing will change.

Hopefully the party can draw conclusions about the 10m people who sat this one out vs 2020, and figure out why.

Edit: do you have an article or transcript for the link? I'm not a video person I prefer to read

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Votes in high population states count less than votes in low population states, because of the electoral college, but they still count.

This isn't about placating the Democrats. It's about not using minorities as currency for a moral victory over the Democrats. The moral victory may feel good, but it isn't useful. A moral victory will not prevent key tipping points in the Earth's ecosystem that will cause catastrophic damage to the environment. Nor will it protect minorities from the fascists who want to kill them.

Hopefully the 10 million people will learn to leverage power by voting for the Democrats in elections even if they don't get anything out of it. Because we all have something to lose by Republicans taking power in the short term. Even if we won't all feel it until the long term.

The Democratic Party does need a populist narrative to appeal to a broader base, but the Democrats are unlikely to listen. The party needs to be hijacked the way Trump hijacked the Republican Party and the way Bernie tried to hijack the Democratic Party. Part of doing that is delaying fascism so that there are still elections and people to run against fascists. edit: typo

Edit: do you have an article or transcript for the link? I’m not a video person I prefer to read

  1. Go to the video.
  2. Go to the video description.
  3. Click ...more.
  4. Scroll to the Transcript section.
  5. Click Show transcript.
  6. Click on a line of the auto-generated transcript to bring up the scroll bar.
  7. Click and drag the scroll bar to read the transcript.

They will be the establishment no matter what they do lmfao. Can't claim to not be unless they choose to go the Republican route of lying their asses off

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 96 points 10 hours ago (13 children)

Kamala raised over $1 billion dollars for her campaign, most of which was from small donors.

If that doesn't tell the Dems they don't need oligarch money, nothing will.

[–] twistypencil@lemmy.world 20 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Then they spent it on high per hour political consultants who paid Beyonce to perform

Except Beyonce literally didn't perform for Harris?

[–] Ismay@programming.dev 44 points 10 hours ago

They know that. Problem is the WANT billionaires money too ^^

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 15 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

That's a mere pittance compared to what the wealthy actually spend on conservatives and messaging. That's 1 billion dollars every 4 years. Fox news, daily wire, OANN, and all the myriad of other propaganda outlets churn through more than that a year.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 28 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, but we're not talking about conservatives.

The Democratic party has a problem, and that problem is what Democratic voters want doesn't align with what Democratic donors want. The voters want progressive policies passed, while the donors want the same neoliberalism that keeps them rich. And trying to appease one of those groups obviously alienates the other.

If any Democratic politician truly wants to help the American population, the fact that Kamala raised so much money in such a short amount of time, and the fact that many states passed progressive policies even though they voted for Trump, should tell them that they don't need to kowtow to the wealthy because the voters will support them. Unfortunately, I don't think they're going to learn that lesson.

Republicans, of course, don't have this problem because their voters and their donors all want the same thing.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago

The whole point of this was asking why Democrats are catering to wealthy conservative donors instead of progressive or left leaning voters. I just stated the reason why. The 1 billion dollars collected from small donors every four years for a presidential run is nice. But it's nothing compared to what the wealthy dump into messaging and campaigning constantly. Until such time as small donors can even come close to remotely matching that. Sustaining entire media Outlet ecosystems to counter the propaganda from conservatives. Democrats aren't going to give up trying to get some of that wealthy conservative money

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 30 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

I've said this before, but I think it needs to be repeated:

The populist, anti-elitist lane on the left is wide open. I don't know that a mainstream "Democratic" party can take that lane, and I don't know if we should bother trying to drag them there. However, what I can say is that there is going to be some significant hay to make in that field.

I think Pramila Jayapal, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Delia Ramirez, Jamaal Bowman, Summer Lee, Cori Bush, Katie Porter, anyone who has been rat-fucked by Democrats should all abandon their identification with the Democratic party and become independents. And in the time that he has left, at their lead, should be Bernie Sanders, who never needed to be told about the consequences of running with milquetoast policies.

Even if they caucus with Democrats, true progressives need to show them that their votes aren't a given, and if they want them, they need to take a step towards their legislative priorities. Giving up our votes without leverage, giving in to the Washington groupthink: THIS LOSES ELECTIONS!

We shouldn't focus on redeeming the Democratic party. Let them sink. Focus on getting good quality, reliable progressive populists elected. The Democratic party is a fucking anchor and we're better off without it. Let those unwilling to let go of that Washington groupthink sink with it.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 hours ago

While this strategy may feel good, it makes the minorities Republicans want to hurt the cost of doing business. Even if Democrats can't deliver on anything substantial in the short term voting for them in elections is useful.

First, it reduces the harm done to minorities. Second, it demonstrates there is a progressive voter block the democrats could shift closer to. Third, assuming we get more elections and the Democrats aren't all in jail, it creates time for a progressive, like the Democrats your argument listed, to co-opt the Democratic Party. Like what Trump did to the Republicans and Bernie tried to do to the Democrats.

Rather than trying to achieve moral victory over Democrats, let's leverage power for the people Republicans want to hurt.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 6 points 7 hours ago

Split the non Republican vote so you leave the door wide open for them? That's the problem with first past the post...

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 42 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Like that'll ever happen.

The party is held by a group of political elites who are all about the establishment and power.

There needs to be a new party, a labor party, to represent the working class Americans.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 15 points 10 hours ago

I agree.
I voted for Harris because Dems are supposed to be the establishment. Supposed to be a return normal boring politics.

That's obviously not going to work. Now we need an actual working class, under a few million dollar a year takehome party.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

Bit late init

[–] MyDogLovesMe@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

There simply won’t be another election.

The whole point is a cow’s opinion. It doesn’t matter.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 hours ago

There simply won’t be another election.

That is a possibility. The US elected fascists who now control all three branches of the federal government. However they do not have a two-thirds majority in congress or control two-thirds of the states. So it will be difficult for the fascists if they choose a purely legal route. However, since they are fascists, they might use violence to get what they want. We won't know until they try.

In the event that we still have elections and Democrats can still participate we should leverage power and vote for Democrats in those elections. This will reduce the harm done to minorities by fascists who want to kill them.

I wanted to add to your point, because people in this comment section are attempting to write off future elections unless Democrats completely meet the demands of progressives. This isn't something Democrats are likely to do. But the people who will be harmed by hypothetical future Republican administrations would prefer if Democrats were clogging up the works and knocking fascists out of power at the very least.

[–] IzzyScissor@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

It's "moo".

[–] Gork@lemm.ee 36 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

I instead see them not learning a damn thing and putting up Nancy Pelosi as the Presidential candidate for 2028.

[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 22 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Will she achieve lichdom in time?

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 6 points 7 hours ago

Acting as if she hasn't already! There's a reason that dude went after her husband with a hammer and not her. He knew better than to mess with a lich.

load more comments
view more: next ›