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
Bernie should have started 3rd party when they cheated him out of the presidential nomination. He played it safe and achieved nothing.
Third party won't work in a FPTP system.
We can pass RCV in local elections across the country, but progressive Dems need to work within the party lines to get shit done.
And he is a 3rd party: Democratic Socialist.
Having two parties also doesn't work in any meaningful way. Democrats lost presidential elections to a convicted criminal and are unable to effectively use the tiny amount of power they still have. Yes, splitting Democratic vote would hand all the elections to Republicans but they ended up controlling everything anyway and people still don't have any real alternative. Destroying and rebuilding the Democratic party from scratch would get you closer to a functioning system than trying to work withing party lines.
Bernie lost almost a decade ago. The political scene would look completely different by now (maybe some sort of joined primaries between Dems and Bernie's party). He had a once in a lifetime chance to really change the system but chose not do do it.
Republicans have been completely aligned since Trump came into office. Democrats instead have had spoiler candidates that have almost completely ruined their plans in the Biden Admin.
We should be focused on primary-ing out the moderates and establishment candidates in the party. Yes the DNC always has the ability to shut shit down as they did in 2016 with Bernie, but if the movement is strong enough, I wager that won't matter.
Bernie got snubbed by the DNC in 2016??? Hello?
And Biden capitulated to Bernie in 2020 by adopting his policies, only later abandoning them like an asshole.
Bernie has rarely chosen at any point NOT to change the system.
I obviously meant that Bernie chose not to start a 3rd party, not that he chose not to be president.
That the Dems in general and Biden specifically had no intention of implementing any of Bernie's policies was obvious to anyone who was paying attention. Democrats are simply a part of GOP with better PR. Their main function is to fight candidates like Bernie with "don't split the vote" argument. It worked perfectly and now democracy in US is nearly dead.
3rd party crushes the other two in FPTP with enough votes. Also, I believe Bernie is technically an “independent”
How did the Greens work out?
I agree that FPTP is shit and we need something different. Most Americans are too loyal, stupid, or apathetic to care about a random 3rd party on the ballot.
We need name brand recognition with people, and you do that will the Democrats. What we also need is a coalition of progressives in the Dems that actively politick about working class issues like Bernie Sanders to counter the moderates.
My point is we’ve needed this for decades, and Dems consistently side with the donors against the working class.
We’re at a moment where both progressives and maga folk are interested in real populism. It could be enough to siphon the necessary voters for a plurality win, and I think we have a far better chance for progress with this strategy as opposed to trying to reform the corporate Dem establishment. They’re too addicted to the money, and will spend millions to crush any challenge from the left. They fight the left far harder than they fight Republican.
Why is it you think that the Dems can be successfully reformed from within , given their history?
Because there are currently Democrats that haven't caved to donor pressure?
And it is irrelevant given that the party by and large is utterly against challenging the status quo and sees these democrats as literally more of a threat than very nearly open fascists.
The DNC needs to die.
You and I agree on that!
Imagine a DSA-NC
Americans are too stupid to vote for a 3rd party and they're too stupid to implement any kind of ranked choice voting.
We all suffer because of our collective stupidity, and rich people continue to profit off of it.
Oh no, we aren't too stupid to implement ranked choice voting, we live in a country run by people who have a vested interest in not implementing it
Por que no los dos?
MA lost the ballot initiative for ranked choice voting by lobbyists who made enough people believe it's too complicated.
Too complicated? Motherfucker you've been ranking favorite things longer than you've been shitting on a toilet.
ooh now im thinking lets just do tier list of canidates.
That's almost literally exactly what RCV is.
almost. the problem with tier lists is maga folks would put trump as S tier and someone like me would not rank anyone above B and more likely C.
W/e it lays the groundwork for having a system which aligns more with what you are voting for rather than against.
Also, oompa-loompa isn't likely to live much longer in actuarial terms, especially that diet considered.
just to be clear im not arguing against any type of alternative to first past the post but more musing about people making tier list videos and trying to joke a bit.
With all due respect. Because we probably agree on a lot of things. However, the "Americans are too stupid/lazy" take is the excuse used by stupid/lazy Americans to avoid making effort for change. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.
Extremely ignorant take. The majority of people want ranked choice, the government is just setup in such a way that it is exceedingly difficult to achieve, though there are people trying. Plus a 3rd party has literally zero chance until that happens so you even bringing that up demonstrates how fucking stupid your plan actually is
But why bother using your brain when you can just whine about Ameridumbs ehhahhehahehhhahahehhahehahahahhehahah
It is frustrating to watch. Each party chooses a candidate that party members want and neither candidate represents what the majority of voters want but they're forced to pick one or the other. There is surely enough voters who want something different to elect a third candidate but people are afraid that splitting the vote will lead to the worst candidate winning and so vote for one of the two parties, feeling like there is no other option.
Canada has the same problem. A lot of us wanted to vote NDP in April, but were afraid splitting the vote would lead to a conservative win and so we voted liberal.
The primaries are the equiivalent of ranked choice voting. The idea is that each party, so each side of the political spectrum, brings out their "best" candidates and the populace votes on who best represents them. The winners of that move on to the general.
It isn't quite the same but it also isn't THAT far off the reality of how the votes turn out when the counting is done. And, theoretically, it encourages party platforms that incorporate the more popular parts of each popular candidate's platforms. And that... sometimes happens.
You have absolutely no idea how ranked choice or primaries work.
Let's suppose the Democrat primary has two progressives and one neolib. The progressives get 28% and 32% of the vote...a total of 60% of the vote. The one neolib gets 40%.
Progressive policies are more popular, but neolib won.
This is the curse of FPTP.
Ranked choice would say that those 60% prefer one or the other progressive with the neolib being last. The result is theore popular progressive won, and more importantly, a progressive won.
One thing I will point out as an Aussie who knows the system well…here, the preference choice is given to the voter, not the party unless the voter is happy with that. We can choose to vote the whole ticket or just vote 1 and let that party delegate our preferences.
I always mark the whole ticket. Typically, for me it’s #1 Green, then a raft of independents dependent on their standing, Labor usually third last then One Nation and the Coalition last. Parties do negotiate here about who they’ll preference and that can come down to electorate as well. Generally however, Greens will preference Labor and ON et al will preference the Liberals. Where a preference goes however is at the discretion of the voter unless they just vote 1 for their preferred party.
It sounds like the progressives just need to coalesce around one candidate in the primary then, like the neolibs have done, and then they would win.
Which is what we see happen under parliamentary systems when the shit hits the fan.
The key is to explore that space while there is time rather than wait until it is a zero sum game with a REAL mediocre candidate
It sounds like you're opposed to having more choice in who represents you.
As opposed to ranked choice where no candidate gets a plurality, both progressives get eliminated, and the second choice "neolib" votes win? Because "the neolib" is also getting a fair amount of moderate and even conservative votes.
At which point "the neolib" flips everyone off and wins? As opposed to needs to convince the two progressives to support them in exchange for platform concessions?
Or we can just simplify your post to "under this system, people will vote the way I want them to" and leave it at that?
Oh, yeah. Bernie Sanders achieved nothing. What a wonderfully well grounded take. Not delusional at all. 🙄
Achieved nothing? He inspired an entire generation, who were previously apathetic regarding politics, to begin engaging in the political system.
Where’d they go? Lol
What do you mean, they are running for or serving in local positions. Some are serving as state and federal legislators. Others are simply voting. My point is that a whole generation of folks who never brothered voting are now politically interested.
You forgot the "/s".
The Mike from PA take finally getting the respect it deserves.
You couldn’t be more wrong.
And then went on to say Israel has the "absolute right to defend itself" (against resistance from those they genocide)
Don’t take it out of context and make shit up.
Wrong quote bud. This was an email I personally got in the days after Oct. 7
full quote
There have been five wars fought between Israel and its neighbors in the last fifteen years. Over that time, and before, there have been thousands of diplomats from around the world working on a variety of plans to bring peace and stability to the region, and hundreds of conferences. They have all failed.
Today, the situation in the area is more horrific, more brutal, more inhumane, and more dangerous than ever before. I wish I could tell you that I had some magic solution, or five-point plan to resolve this never-ending crisis. I don’t. But this I do know.
The barbarous terrorist act committed by Hamas against innocent men, women, and children in Israel was a horrific act that must be strongly condemned by the entire world. There is absolutely no justification for shooting down hundreds of young people at a music festival, killing babies in cold blood and taking hostages. In my view, the state of Israel has the absolute right to defend itself against Hamas' terrorism.
It is also clear that this attack will only embolden the extremists on both sides who see violence as the only answer. It also creates the immediate possibility of a wider war in the area with unforeseen and dangerous consequences.
But in the midst of the terrorism, the missiles and bombs being exploded daily, and a hospital in Gaza being destroyed, there is another humanitarian disaster that is unfolding. Today, as a result of an Israeli evacuation order, hundreds of thousands of innocent and desperate people in Gaza are facing inhumane and life-threatening conditions. These are people who have been driven from their homes, who have no food, water, or fuel, who don’t know where they are going or who will accept them or if they will ever again return to their homes. And I would remind you that half of those people are children.
Last night, on the floor of the Senate, I blocked an effort on the part of some Republicans to prevent desperately needed humanitarian aid from the United Nations and other relief agencies from getting to these Palestinians.
In these very difficult times, we cannot turn our backs on these innocent men, women and children who are desperately trying to survive. That is not what this country must ever be about.
I hope you'll watch and share it today:
https://x.com/sensanders/status/1714806126863143292?amp%3Bt=VjJ-cjQEBBD1s8bwm18Jyw
In solidarity,
Bernie Sanders
And in any case I still disagree with the statement that they "have the right to defend themselves" from Palestinian resistance. Any tragedy that happened during Oct 7 is 100% the fault of the Israeli regime and they should be held responsible.
You don't get to illegally occupy, settle, and genocide a country for decades until they are in an extreme power imbalance then cry foul when they are forced to fight back in any way they can.
Ah, so you’re saying that between the initial attack but before Israel’s genocide you get to infer today Bernie supported genocide before the genocide occurred, yet ignore the context where he clearly denounced it after it was occurring? You’re full of crap, dude.
It's impressive how deeply ingrained Zionist propaganda is, that even people against genocide repeat their talking points.
Do.... do you really think the genocide started after Oct. 7??? It's been going for decades. What are you talking about???
Yeah I'll say his tone shifted after somewhat, but the fact that it took the genocide escalating and becoming an important news topic to do it really soured my opinion of him.
Yeah, I do. An institutionalized and systemic prejudicial harassment of a population is not genocide. I suggest you stop using that word seeing as you clearly don’t know what it means.
That's up for debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusation
But sure rules-lawyer and break out the calipers to call it genocide or not. It doesn't matter - the systematic oppression that the Israeli regime inflicted upon Palestine since the 40's negates any right Israel has to "self-defense" regardless of if you so deem it "genocide" or no.
So after Hamas murdered and kidnapped hundreds and before people could know what Israel was about to do?
It... Doesn't matter? I called the email out publicly even on the same day I received it. They did not have the "right" to defend themselves before, during, or after Oct. 7. You don't get to "fight fair" with those you brutally oppress.
I always know I'm on Lemmy.world when comments like yours are mass-downvoted. It's strangely comforting knowing Lemmy has its own r/politics.
https://lemmy.world/comment/20434634
That's not even the right qoute
Sorry there were two direct and damning quotes on the phrase, take it up with the speaker