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
He's not actually doing anything, and less than six months ago he was sucking up to Alex Jones and Charlie Kirk and telling them he agrees with them and the Dems need to move to the right on "social issues" like the existence of LGBT and racism.
Newsom is who the billionaires want, he'd be the worst possible pick for anyone else.
God I’ve hated watching the way that this shitshow has turned Newsom into the Dem’s new darling rising star. He’s just more of the same neoliberal shit that got us here in the first place.
Still, though, I’ll acknowledge that he’s at least publicly fighting back, and the more voices that we have screaming “this isn’t normal, this isn’t okay,” the better imo. I think he’d be a shit president, but in comparison to the situation we have going on now? He’d be a fucking dream.
He's not....
He's making a lot of noise and saying he's fighting back. But he got the Texas Dems to return to Texas so their redistricting can happen.
But Cali isn't redistricting. Right now it might be something that people can vote if they want it to happen, and even if that vote passes it might not happen.
We're losing actual battles because of his lies and misrepresentations about what he is doing in Cali.
My guy, you know that it's in the state constitution via the Prop 11 ballot measure in 2008 that redistricting cannot happen outside an independent commission. Voters need to approve side stepping that. Newsom is doing something by quickly putting it to a special vote, but he can't just overrule the constitution. He's not the president...
I don't like Newsom any more than anyone else here, but when the progressive leaders you imagine are now running the Democratic Party step up publicly and take concrete steps to stop this creeping coup, then we can talk.
So...
It's not guaranteed to happen...
But because Newsom kept saying it would happen, Texas Dems already returned, and it will happen in Texas...
But you don't understand why this is a bad thing?
You don't understand that Texas Dems should have never returned?
You can down vote me every time I point out something you don't like, but it won't make you right. The people of California are pissed. LA just had mass protests and Trump called in the US military to silence them. They've drawn up a new map and it's going to a vote. The odds are very good it'll pass.
People aren't going to decamp for over a year away from their families because you demand it. What are you doing?
Decamp?
If they don't have what it takes to fight fascism, why the fuck are they in office?
People (including their constituents) are being kidnapped and sent to motherfucking concentration camps, but staying in a hotel is too much to ask of them?
With standards this low, no wonder you like Newsom
If you think you would be a better legislator, then go ahead and run for office.
If you can't be bothered to run, then you know why they are in office.
What political seat do you hold? I mean according to you, one has to run to have a political view.
If you aren't willing to make sacrifices, don't expect others to do so. That's not a political view.
That ain't what ya said.
Someone asked why they were in office. The reason is that they put in the effort to run, when most people wouldn't bother. Not to make sacrifices in the name of fighting fascism, when most people wouldn't.
And his comment being unpopular doesn't make him wrong
Newsome is bought by oil
You have a well groomed, better spoken, shady as fuck fake democrat on newsome.
He didn't care that people were taken, he cared he looked bad.
Fair. My intention was more to say ‘giving the appearance of fighting back’. My thinking on it was that it is, on net, better to have even an ineffectual example to serve as a reminder that dissent is a choice which both has been and remains available to us all. Your concern about the potentially performative nature of the situation doing damage by muddying the decision making of how that dissent should be handled, however, is extremely valid. Hell, a misunderstanding of what was happening in California even skewed my analysis of the situation until I just looked into it more.
Either way, though, I still fucking hate the guy. I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised, either; talking a big game and then doing exactly nothing while shit falls apart around you is a textbook Democrat move.
And people are actually doing things. They're just not neoliberals so billionaire owned media won't talk about it.
That's my whole point...
Too bad cathartic gestures win elections, not logic.
We’re so short sighted and bad at making long term beneficial decisions. Idk how humanity is gonna survive
Newsom sounds like a typical Democrat then
He's not a Dem, he's a neoliberal.
It's way past the time to stop pretending there isn't a distinction. We can't just let them keep lying about what they are, because they're trashing the image of the entire Democratic party.
They don't have the same goals, strategy, or process.
Neoliberals are fundementally different than Democrats. And now that neoliberals no longer control the democratic party, it's time to differentiate the two camps.
Um what?
Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Kamala Harris, Andrew Cuomo, and Gavin Newsom are some of the major leaders of the democratic party. They're still running the party as they have been for the past few decades. Maybe accept that and stop supporting the party.
Who is in a leadership position in the DNC that isn't a neolib?
Because the neo liberals controlled the DNC for decades, and if reps didn't vote for who the DNC wanted in those positions, the DNC would fuck with them and withhold the money that was stolen from their state via Victory Fund out of spite.
They'd fuck over any incumbent that went against them, even if that meant a republican kept the seat.
But the voting members of the DNC finally kicked the neoliberals out of power at the DNC.
The people you are talking about are still coasting off the last leadership elections in the House/Senate when the neoliberals were in charge. They won't win the next ones without the threats from the DNC.
Does it make sense now?
This is important to understand and billionaire owned media sure as shit aren't going to explain it, so if you have more questions I'll try to answer them.
The chair, who unilaterally controls everything for the next 3 years...
If you think he's going to fight against progressives, look at the decade he ran Minnesota, it went from a purple state to deep blue and home to some of our most progressive House reps.
If Martin is a neo liberal who wants to keep progressives out of office, he's so bad at it he might as well not be trying.
Logically that means the reason he was picked is the voting members of the DNC want to listen to voters again instead of screeching at them.
Quick edit:
But it seems you're conflating House/Senate leadership with DNC leadership...
They should be separate things, but decades of neoliberalism has intertwined the two.
It's going to take another House/Senate leadership election cycle to fix that, because the last vote happened with the old DNC.
The DNC/Democratic Party is funded by billionaires and corporations. They do the bidding of billionaires and corporations. They want to please billionaires and corporations. They engage in systematic lawfare to restrict parties and individuals to the left of them from having ballot access, way harder and with more cohesion than they ever have fought Trump or conservatives. The influential think tank Third Way wants Democrats to move away from progressive policies and small donors.
The DNC even elevated Trump and other far-right individuals in 2015 as part of Hillary's presidential campaign. This is the same party that colluded against Bernie, with Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigning as a result of the scandal and courts finding that it's legal to rig primaries.
The DNC and the Democratic leadership are both center-right. Why can't we have a left party instead of making the Democratic party something it isn't?
Ken Martin is hostile to progressives and individuals who want to change the party like David Hogg, by the way. Here is some leaked audio that sheds light on the situation.
And an excerpt from Wikipedia:
They just crushed a person pushing progressive primary challengers on grounds of gender diversity and tangentially on Hogg's impacted neutrality in future primaries, from my understanding. Under Ken Martin's leadership. This is the same party that favored Hillary in 2016, but now suddenly when there are progressives challenging the status quo, Ken Martin proposed this rule:
This is like blaming Biden for things trump did 2016-2020...
And when someone tries to explain that it was literally two different people who just share the same title...
You start yelling that "a president is a president and it doesn't matter".
I'm sure you think you made some great points, but it's literally as ridiculous as not understanding "president" is just a title.
The only thing relevant to current DNC, is that they redid an internal election because the old DNC didn't follow DNC election rules...
Which you're apparently very upset with, you would prefer to keep the results of a fraudulent election?
Just saw your edit. Voiding the results of an election on grounds of "gender diversity" after several months was the current leadership's decision. They voted on it in June, unless I am misunderstanding something. The election wasn't "fraudulent", it violated their rules and was called into question a month after Hogg started making waves. David Hogg was one of the key people attempting to reform the Democratic Party/DNC and he would've been well positioned to do that as Vice Chair.
I want progress. Hogg was crushed because he wanted progress, you can't rewrite history. It's undeniable that it all unfolded the way it did because leadership wasn't pleased with him.
It was the fault of their idiotic diversity rules. And although I like Hogg's preferred candidates, it is also true that DNC members should not be pushing primary candidates.
There will continue to be strong pushes towards preferred candidates. The Super PACs will do most of the heavy lifting.
The DNC can brand themselves as neutral, but they aren't.
I don't know of one single Super PAC that is under the control of the DNC. Can you (A) name one, and (B) show that it spend money in primary campaigns? The DNC is not a person nor is it the most powerful organization of the Democratic Party. The SDC and HDC are both way more powerful than the DNC is.
I am arguing that the DNC and its candidates are still at the behest of billionaires and corporations even with Ken's proposed primary finance reforms.
The Democrats can make themselves seem squeaky clean, but they aren't and it is obvious.
The DNC is not a totally different organization. Citation needed. Billionaires and corporations really didn't want Bernie back then, and they won't want progressives getting in office in the future.
Until the DNC only accepts money from small donors, and there is campaign finance reform (looking at Citizens United being overturned), it's naive to believe progressives will ever have a shot.
Their cash flow depends on pleasing their masters, they won't jeopardize that.
So what you are saying is that Citizen's United is the reason progressives "don't have a shot". Do you know understand the chain of events that led us here? In 2000 (A) progressives voted for Ralph Nader, who (B) threw the election to George Bush, who (C.) appointed several archconservative Supreme Court justices, who (D) established Citizen's United.
So you rexample of Citizens United as being the thing that fucked us over is AN EXAMPLE OF PROGRESSIVES SHOOTING THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT.
The whole system is broken. If spoiling has been an issue for decades, perhaps we needed election reform a long time ago.
No, instead we only pass blame to people who want progress. Enough.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the DNC is and how it works...
If you weren't also insisting that you know how it works at the same time, I probably would have stuck around to explain it.
You're also ignorant of what their fundraising has been like and where it's coming from since the new chair.
Billionaire large money donations are virtually non-existent, and small donors has skyrocketed.
But again, if you were genuinely asking questions, I'd stick around to answer. Instead you're just insisting untrue things are reality and demanding I argue with you about it.
Very few people are going to invest the time required for you to understand this, when this is the way you go about it.
If the DNC's fundraising situation has changed, it's not due to any policy forbidding billionaires and large donors. The DNC has lost the confidence of their major donors, according to Politico two days ago. They have raised very, very little in comparison to the GOP.
Talking down to me is not evidence that the DNC has changed significantly. When it comes down to it, they need their large donors because they refuse to shift left to compel small donors to fund them.
Even if the DNC is branding itself as friendly to progressives, those progressives will be absolutely crushed when a primary or election occurs. We need campaign finance reform to move forward as a society and to have a semblance of representation and democracy.
Again, I could give less than a fuck about the DNC's complexity as an organization. It is not nurturing progressives. Evidence is needed to support that assertion. The DNC will be back to taking primarily large donations before long, and so will the candidates that win the primaries (if there is any challenge posed by progressives at all).
....
No, you're literally and completely wrong.
Because that is actively happening right now....
And:
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/18/dnc-fundraising-donor-problems-midterms-00512473
The large donors stopped giving because the DNC pivoted left with Ken Martin.
And small donors are increasing because they approve of the party moving left
You literally don't know what you're talking about.
Everything youve said has been out of date, and yet you still keep blindly insisting you know what reality is, when you clearly aren't aware of what's happening.
If you don't want people to "talk down" to you, stop repeating misinformation and listen to the people who actually know what's happening.
We've raised more money that at this point in 2017, without billionaires.
What is so hard to understand here?
Why do you keep consistently insisting that we should ignore reality in favor of your opinions?
They have raised nothing truly significant by their own merit and the billionaires/etc. will be back - they will need their money to win. There is no visible shift left or to socialist policies. Support your assertions, Ken Martin and the DNC have already been arguably very hostile to a leading progressive in the DNC, no matter how you spin it. I provided receipts - the time for the DNC to enforce neutrality would've been during the court case where they were called out for rigging the primary against Bernie, not after Hogg got elected as Vice Chair with publicly visible positive intentions and goals. If literally everything has changed in 2 months, enlighten me.
Just because the DNC and Ken Martin are seen as hopeless by large donors now doesn't represent a significant shift. Americans also don't see the DNC/Democratic Party very favorably, according to recent polls. If small donors are flocking to the DNC more than they have in the past, it's because of Trump and what is left of democracy at stake.
Even on Ken's Wikipedia regarding his position as DNC chair put it this way:
Infighting against progressives is clearly what they are referring to.
You're asserting he's garnering more small donations because there is a shift left. I am arguing that it's because people are more politically active.
I guess time will tell. Though I'd still rather go for real socialism than progressivism
Martin ran Minnesota up till the day he became DNC chair...
He's not some random unknown person, there is zero indication to show he's going to run the DNC differently than he did Minnesota.
If he does start fucking around, believe me I'll be the first to call him out on it. But right now there is zero logical reason to expect any difference.
That's the great part about Martin.
It's not that he has a view of what voters want, and is going to try and make that work.
He runs fair, unbiased primaries, and whoever wins he'll put the full weight of the party behind them in a general.
It's why billionaires are trying to convince people they shouldn't vote in the next dem presidential primary, and why it's essential we counter that
Please define Neoliberal for the class.
Then review the list you have.
From what I've seen, he's further to the right than even many of the utterly useless center-right Democrats.
Out of curiosity, why did you reply to a comment about the importance of differentiating neoliberals from Dems, by conflating the two?
Because they haven't left the Democratic Party yet, and though the party may be starting to move away from neoliberalism, most of its most prominent voices today are still neoliberals. Running Newsom as a presidential candidate would seal the deal.
Right on, just making sure there wasn't a good reason. Thanks for confirming
I believe we’re at least a decade out from progressives being the main front runners for the party. The baby boomers are still in power because they vote the most, followed by Gen X who is even more conservative than the Baby Boomers based on the 2024 voter data.
When Millennials finally start getting into power and make up more of the voter share I could see progressives being the majority.
Alternatively, if we change the voting system in more states, like Alaska and Maine did, then we could have more candidates winning elections that are closer politically to Mamdani, AOC, and Bernie. It would enable third party candidates to have a much greater chance of winning elections as well.
No bgen xers are not. Absolutely no.
Millenials and zoomers are just as conservative.
In fact zoomers and millenials, the largest voting block now, went trump
Please enough with the age thing
For Christ sakes yes some older people, including me are more conservative, gen exers are cranky and want to be left alone. We are Not more conservative
It is a MONEY thing. Not a generation thing
Youbwongvsee progressives running the country until that is removed. EOS.
Fight the class war. That's what the real issue is. Not our ages. . Edited. I am more conservative in things like fiscal repsonsibilty, not human rights, Nazi tolerance or any of that shit.
What's funny is I find racist war mongers on both sides, screaming how had the other side is.
Pew Research data shows that Xers voted much more conservatively than the other demographics. Even more so than Baby Boomers.
The data shows how they voted; Zoomers and Millennials were both majorities for Harris.
I bring this up because there is data to back this. Gen Xers were more conservative, and since they vote at a larger scale than Millennials and Zoomers we’re much more likely to be pulled into more conservative politics for another decade or two at the least.
I believe it is a cultural thing and a money thing. Exposure to things like unleaded gasoline, microplastics, and misinformation/propaganda at a grand scale likely hasn’t helped.
Culturally more people have been raised to be progressive than they have been in the past.
Money doesn’t leave politics unless we vote in enough ethical leaders to change the laws. That can be more likely under a different voting system throughout the country.
The class struggle requires new generations being pulled into the cause, but if older generations vote more conservatively and have a higher percentage share of the votes then we won’t be able to vote in anything to address or tackle the class struggle for possibly another decade. The more we fail to pass positive change, the more burned out some people get from the process as well.
Organizing, unionizing, and trying to change the voting system to use an alternative voting system are our best bets at the moment I feel.
The war mongers are the neo-liberals on both sides, since they usually have some huge benefits from their districts and from arms sales.
Thank God this is the top comment here. I keep seeing these posts about him and I'm just worried all the liberals are falling for his bullshit pandering.
time to vote for jill stein and give the election to trump again
damn, if only there was another option
How much have you done to replace First-past-the-post voting in your state? Surely someone who is this concerned with the spoiler effect is working night and day to address the root cause of the issue!
Electoral Reform Videos
First Past The Post voting (What most states use now)
Videos on alternative electoral systems
STAR voting
Alternative vote
Ranked Choice voting
Range Voting
Single Transferable Vote
Mixed Member Proportional representation
So who instead? Bernie? Jesus. You people don't want anything.