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
Eat these fucks.
Fuck them all. We need to dismantle the system.
Nah, Trump and Co should be disposed of as the toxic waste they are.
If by 'and co' you include Democrats, you are correct. They all need to go. Trump is a cog in the machine, replacing the cog doesn't change how the machine operates
thats the demotivating and unactionable agitation we all look to .ml for!
The neoliberal approach isn't working
The revolutionary approach is outrageously disorganized and understaffed
It's not outrageously disorganized or understaffed. It's under constant attack by liberals.
If you can't weather liberal attacks, how do you expect to overthrow fascists? If it was organized and adequately staffed, the attacks from liberals would be ineffective.
Liberals are a segment of that fascism.
Even if that were true it wouldn't refute my point. If you can't handle attacks from a segment, how are you going to overthrow the whole thing?
And there you have it, it's like an alcoholic refusing to acknowledge they are an alcoholic. They cannot change until they realize that they are the problem
There you have it indeed, any excuse to deflect and ignore the actual point. Alright champ, assume words mean whatever you think they mean and anyone left of Lenin is a fascist. If you can't handle a segment, how on earth do you have the organization and numbers to overthrow the whole system?
That's not a deflection, that's fighting fascism, which includes liberals
Shifting focus to avoid answering a question is the exact definition of deflection. Answer the question.
We are handling that segment, their 18% approval rating didnt come out of nowhere
So to recap: the revolutionary approach isn't succeeding because it's under attack by liberals, except the liberal attacks are ineffective as evidenced by an 18% approval rating (nevermind that polling actually shows 34%). Not sure how low approval ratings for liberals is evidence for the efficacy of revolutionaries. Also lowering approval for liberals only empowers the more virulently fascist conservatives.
How, pray tell, does any of that demonstrate the strength of revolutionaries? None of that implies positive support for revolution, or organization necessary to implement that revolution, much less any likelihood of revolution securing the desired end goal.
This approach just seems like toothless reactionary bluster.
I didn't say it wasn't succeeding, I said it's been stymied by right wing liberals defending the oppression of the working class
This is succeeding? I'd hate to see what failure looks like.
People that keep making the same mistakes over and over and calling it progress while never taking responsibility for their failures are in no position to be talking about other people's failure or successes.
"Even if only a fairly large minority of the industrial workers, and not “millions” and “legions”, follow the lead of the Catholic clergy—and a similar minority of rural workers follow the landowners and kulaks (Grossbauern)—it undoubtedly signifies that parliamentarianism in Germany has not yet politically outlived itself, that participation in parliamentary elections and in the struggle on the parliamentary rostrum is obligatory on the party of the revolutionary proletariat specifically for the purpose of educating the backward strata of its own class, and for the purpose of awakening and enlightening the undeveloped, downtrodden and ignorant rural masses. Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags."
The mistakes of others do not magically make your alternative successful just because it's different. Success isn't a feeling of moral superiority, it's improvements in material conditions. I see no improvement in material conditions.
You can't claim horoscopes are successful because you think prayer doesn't work. You need actual measurable results.