this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2024
64 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19223 readers
3442 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
top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 13 points 3 hours ago

No, they need to be an opposition party for the first fucking time in decades.

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

Pass laws to limit election spending/fund raising so that the playing field is about as even as we can manage. After those are set in stone and strong, dismantle the national committees and open the actual gates to allow whoever to run for office.

Even doing this wouldn't change much though. The popularity contest not at all based on policy would still reign supreme and American voters are still American voters.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 3 points 2 hours ago

we are passed the ballot box.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 13 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

What I've learned from the last two presidential elections is that right now, the incumbent party loses if people are unhappy with the current state of the country. A clever, but evil opposition party would try to make things worse.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago

This is why "doing what republiQans do" isn't a useful tactic for Democrats. Never has been, though the party leaders have never learned it.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 29 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

And they won’t.

The Democratic Party is frankly played out at this point. It’s pretty obviously a zombie party. We need a new one that isn’t beholden to neoliberalism.

[–] MataVatnik@lemmy.world -3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Although i was already leaning this way but Geriatric Nancy Pelosi pushing the vote against AOC from the hospital from her broken hip made me decide I won't be voting Democrat in the national elections any time soon.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

No - that’s the wrong response. You’ve got to be tactical. You can’t ignore the constraints of the system if you’re going to participate in the system. Doing so is a recipe for failure.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 7 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Exactly. I'll vote for the kind of politician I want in the primary, and vote tactically for the one who is closest to my views, but who stands something of a chance of winning in the general.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

It's a good thing that primaries are fair and exist consistently.

[–] MataVatnik@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

I kinda stopped caring, been voting tactically the last three elections and still got orange mussolini and an our incumbent senator got beat by an out of state republican. And the democratic party is not adjusting, instead its doubling down. Why should I reward this kind of behavior. Local elections and state elections I'll still keep supporting who I think is best

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

Why should I reward this kind of behavior.

That's not how it works -you "reward" the behavior of candidates who vote the way you want and if there are none, you vote for the least damaging while encouraging those who do vote the way you want to run.

It's not a boycott. If the party (any party, not just DNC) is broken - fix the party. The DNC has been broken for longer than not, but if you can think of anything good that's happened in government, it's almost always because of Democrats. That doesn't happen by non-involvement, that's not the fix.

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

That’s not how it works -you “reward” the behavior of candidates who vote the way you want

Easy for you to say. You have candidates who vote the way you want.

If the party (any party, not just DNC) is broken - fix the party.

By what mechanism? If the party loses nothing when it ignores its constituents, there's no leverage.

That doesn’t happen by non-involvement, that’s not the fix.

Involvement hasn't worked either. But now you get to blame the party acting like you want it to on people who are upset that it doesn't work for them. It's simple, if the party doesn't work for you, it's because you're not involved enough! So really it's your fault that the party is run by corrupt pro-genocide geriatrics who render primaries meaningless. Lazy millennials.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

FWIW, I too share that deep sense of ennui. It’s genuinely hard not to feel that way at this point.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago

As opposed to the resounding success that we just saw.

[–] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 16 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

both sides are bought and paid for with the same checks

only thing that could be done is to start over

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 5 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Both sides do raise money to operate, but the people funding the two parties are, to a very large extent, different.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Michael Fucking Bloomberg is the top individual Democrat contributor in 2024.

A billionaire is a billionaire is a billionaire. When people say they are funded by the same people, we mean they're funded by the same class interests. Individual small donations from the working class are a literal drop in the bucket compared to what the wealthy contribute.

The Democrats are still funded by the same set of class interests as the Republicans: the wealthy.

If the majority of your funding comes from people who like low taxes for the rich, don't like programs to help the poor, and who generally just want to benefit the already-wealthy, then you're going to really fucking struggle to represent interests of the working class, because the people funding you will stop funding you when you stop focusing on their problems.

Michael Bloomberg in my eyes is not materially different from Elon Musk. But sure, somehow the people funding the party are "different." We didn't just watch Pelosi squash AOCs committee for her wealthy donors, who don't like AOC or what she's selling. Give me a break.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 18 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

I'll acknowledge that this chart is a little old

Corporate America:

[–] officermike@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Google/Alphabet didn't make that list?

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

Probably not then. Maybe now.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago

Seriously. If you haven't switched your party affiliation to Independent, how's the time to do it. It'll take a pretty big hit to their register to actually get the lames in D.C. to care about us again

[–] itsgroundhogdayagain@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

They'll come up with a nifty hashtag like #resist or #democracy

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

And send out even more fundraising emails.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

The key work here is "act'' like an actor.