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
Bullshit. I do not find this to be an insightful take.
You speak as if the Democrats are acting in good faith and not the controlled opposition of fascists which they are. The leadership is, whether they know it or not and they should know it.
Perhaps YOU don't, but if someone has never considered this idea, then it IS insightful, even if they don't like it. But that doesn't make it wrong, just unsavory. That's the way MAGA thinks: I don't like it, therefore it's wrong.
Not at all. I don't think either party exists in good faith. In fact, I think the point of political parties is to take "good faith" out of the equation, and make decisions based on cold political calculations, and money, of course. You can't allow nebulous concepts like good faith, morals, fairness, truth, etc. muddy the waters. Let's just boil it down to inhuman Math.
I'm a lifelong Independent, since I first registered to vote 50 years ago this year. I declined to declare a party then, and I haven't since, with the only exception being in 2016, when I switched my registration so I could vote for Bernie in the primary, and then changed my registration right back.
I was one of you people, angry that Bernie never got a fair shot, but then I started thinking about it, and realized that he suffered the biggest problem with a two party system - even though the Independents are a larger share than either the Dems or the MAGAs, they don't have ANY power in a 2 party system, because the two parties make sure to ice out any third party, as they should. Nominating a non-party member is a huge betrayal to party members who would have liked to have that nomination. Besides, the president is essentially the leader of the party. A party can't have a leader that isn't a member of their party, and has an agenda that is at odds with the party's agenda. Otherwise, why have parties at all?
Frankly, that's what happened to the Republicans. They allowed a really bad candidate to hijack their party, simply because he had popularity, and they were so desperate and pusillanimous, they made a deal with the Devil. I'm not saying that Bernie would have been as bad as Trump, but it shows how allowing an outsider to lead your party, can end in disaster. The Republicans let in the disease, while the Dems vaxxed themselves against the threat, and Bernie got caught in it.
Running as an Independent is a complex and dangerous calculation, and looking back, I wish he had. In a 3 way race between Bernie, Hillary, and Trump, Bernie might actually have won it, especially since a significant chunk of Trump's support were originally Bernie supporters who refused to vote for Hillary after the DNC edged him out. If he had gone Independent, he might have beaten Trump. That's on Bernie.
The president wasn't given the Republican party, he took it from the party.
You are a spousing a defeatism that is just not accurate. We can seize control of the Democratic Party, we came close to doing so without any real leadership, they're weak they're unpopular and they're doomed to fail.
It's not "Defeatism," it's the simple truth. The DNC was NEVER going to give an Independent candidate their nomination, and they never will. That is the NATURE of a political party. If any outsider can come along and claim a party's nomination, what's the point of a party?
What if a Republican decides that his primary is too crowded, so he declares as a Democrat, but still runs as a Republican, and Republicans vote for him in huge numbers? Is the DNC obligated to give that disengenuous candidate their nomination? If they can be forced to give it to a good candidate like Bernie, then they can be forced to give it to a terrible one like a MAGA.
The truth may hurt, but that doesn't make it wrong.
Parties have rules, and votes decide leadership. They barely held on to it the preceding two elections before the last one where they just anointed the most unpopular candidate they could find.
BOTH parties do that! The system seems to filter out the best candidates, and reward the worst. If there was ever proof that the system is broken, it's that.
That's not accurate at all, the Democrats were the only ones to force a new candidate without a primary. The current president won a crowded primary I would remind you.
The Democrats had four plus months to go and claimed it was not enough time to run a contest and indeed not a single Democrat through their head in the ring despite the anointed never breaching 30% approval all term before her anointment, not having one a single state in the primary she participated in, and being hated by both the actual left, which is not include the Democratic sheep obviously, and all across the right.
You can't use 2024 as an example, that was the sole outlier of an election, and did not represent anybody's best wishes.
You act like they did it out of pure contempt for the voters, without addressing the fact that the Democratic campaign became a 3 alarm fire after the debate. Biden was a mess, far more than we knew, and it was clear he was unfit to serve another term, even if it was due to the poor excuse of a cold and medication. I've lived with someone who passed from dementia, and there was no doubt in my mind what I was witnessing that night. It was shocking, and something had to be done.
With only a few months before the General Election, it would have been impossible to put together a nationwide primary with multiple candidates. Anyone who thinks that would have been possible, has no idea what goes into holding an election, especially a national Presidential election in 50 states. In the time frame you want candidates to decide, raise money, and campaign, while simultaneously the election teams that have been organizing the Presidential Election now have to split off valuable workers, to operate this emergency primary, mere months before the actual PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
How can anyone possibly think that would go well for anyone, and not be a monumental disaster of historical proportions?
OTOH, we have a Vice-President, next in line anyway, and if he steps down, she steps in, and we're doing a re-election campaign. The only problem was that nobody wanted to have the hard talk with him (and his family, they always said, because yeah, it's clear he can't handle this on his own), or to 25th Amendment the venerable old guy, even though his condition was EXACTLY what it was meant to handle.
And it wasn't like anyone could make a credible case that she wasn't a viable nominee anyway. She wasn't a Sarah Palin by any stretch of the imagination. There were all these comparisons to her past primary, as if she didn't just spent the last 4 years at the very top levels of power. In anyone else's job, how much stronger would they be if they spent four years working with the top people in their industry? Nobody would question it. In a primary, especially a chaotic emergency one, it's a pretty good bet that she would have won anyway.
So it was essentially a re-election campaign for the (v)P, with just that pesky resignation step missing, because they were either too polite to press the issue (so common for weak Dems), or he was too stubborn to quit, which would be a common trait for dementia, believe me.
Most people recognized that at the time, and that's why we accepted her with open arms. Lest you forget, she raised an enormous amount of money in the next 24 hours, and even more beyond that. I happened to go to a corporate event the next day, with a lot of lesbians in attendance, and they were practically giddy with joy.
The idea that people opposed this oppressive edict from the DNC is greatly overblown. It wasnt the ideal situation, but Harris was a reasonable choice under the extreme emergency circumstances.
There were a lot of other factors that came into play, like MAGA voter fraud, Biden's enthusiastic support of genocide, etc.
Yeah, it's funny how the truth and facts don't always fit into a single paragraph. When you make a wildly ridiculous sweeping allegation, and EVERY fact contradicts it, it takes time to properly tear it all down, only to have you double down with "Don't bother me with facts, my mind is made up, and you're a big poopy head." Nice.
We still do, when do you think it happens? It happens at the conventions, which happen at the end of the summer.
I know I'm really stupid, so let's review the time line:
June 27 - Biden tanks the debate in shocking fashion July 15 - Republican convention, where Trump is nominated for President. July 21 - Biden dropped out August 19-22 - Democratic Convention November 5 - Election Day
So, Biden blows the debate, and wastes 3 weeks before dropping out.That left a month to have a national primary in 50 states, in time for the convention. And before you suggest the convention can be postponed - it can't, especially a month out. Too many plans, reservations, tickets, deposits, arrangements, caterers, entertainment, etc.
And even if they could, when do they move it to? The election was only about 8 weeks beyond that, and the Republicans had already been running their candidate since a week before Biden dropped out. How much time were the Dems supposed to waste, so they could finally launch their candidate to go after Trump 2 weeks before the election, probably with Harris as the nominee anyway? Who had a chance of beating her, especially on such short notice, and after she's been essentially running for the last 4 years? Go ahead, I dare you to say Bernie.
Yeah, she lost anyway, due to several factors, none of which had anything to do with no primary, but to believe that the chaotic shitshow that you're suggesting would somehow have been better, is delusional.
Nope, I just explained how wrong you were, and how your fantasy was literally impossible. I'm not a fan of either, but none of it was Harris' fault, or even the DNC's for that matter. It's just one more way that Biden failed us when it was most important, by not dropping out. He did few good things, but on balance, his term was a disaster. He'll settle into the Bottom 15 of presidents.