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
Of course - and siphoning progressive voters from practical opposition to Trump is going to help the climate a great deal.
the Democrats don't own the votes. they need to earn the votes.
Someone doesn't understand game theory.
I do. I also know that it doesn't reflect either how people should or actually do make decisions.
Except it does. That is why a two part system is inevitable is a winner-take-all election system as we have. Politicians want as few competitors as possible, which is one (exceptions being a one party totalitarian government). The two parties reinforce their dominance by passing laws that limit the ability of third parties to get on the ballot. They also constrain funding to their own parties, so third parties can't even begin to match their resources. Third parties CAN NOT win in the current political system. A third party vote is only ever taking a vote away from one of the two major party candidates.
if what you say about the inevitability of the two parties prevailing is true, then the fact that human behavior is not dictated by game theory is very easy to prove: people still vote third party despite this. I don't actually believe what you said is provable, nor do I believe people always act in rational self interest.
That people don't act in rational self interest is exactly what game theory is about. The Prisoner's Dilemma speaks precisely to this. The fact that there has been no president elected from a third party since the fall of the Whig party is proof enough that it just can't happen.
I guarantee there will not be an america, a democrat party, or a republican party in 2000 years. 500 years is likely. 5 years is possible. none of this requires game theory.
the prisoners dilemma does not speak at all about the longevity of political parties or the possibility of getting any of them elected. it also doesn't actually describe a real situation that's ever happened or will happen. it's a thought experiment that pols I majors think justifies voting for genocide.
In what way does not tolerating fascism equal genocide?
the modern GOP is a death cult. the modern democrats are a corporate theocracy
choose between psuedo-religious fascism or fascism that lets you wear a little rainbow pin on your shirt
we’re headed towards fascism either way. look at europe, already censoring protests. look at our American websites like reddit and twitter, banning and silencing pro-palestinian accounts. they’re using the techniques they learned during COVID to “fight misinformation”. You cannot stray far from The Narrative
the scope of the information you will receive will continue to get smaller and smaller and more and more people are getting filtered into echo chambers
we need to wake up before it’s too late, the noose is tightening. a modern fascist state with the surveillance technology that we have (we can even read minds now) is not going to be pretty. add in an economic crisis, another world war… it’s the 1930s all over again baby.
both parties are fascist. both parties are genocidal. the only way not to support fascism and genocide is to not support democrats and republicans.
Modern democrats do not fit the definition of fascism. You are factually incorrect in this claim.
I think they would allow genocide to preserve the interests of the state. maybe you don't know what fascism is.
The Wikipedia definition is probably the most concise
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
As you can see, the Democrats do not qualify. I don't disagree that they wouldn't allow a genocide to preserve the interests of the state, but that is literally every government.
i flatly disagree. the fact that the democrats threw out their own primary votes in favor of a coronation indicates a centralized autocracy, tehy support militarism, they've arrested political opponents, certianly subordinated individual interests for the percieved good of the nation (usa patriot act and all its progeny), and promoted a strong regimentation of society and the economy.
you can't disagree with the facts, only the interpretation. just because you don't consider it fascism, doesn't mean a reasonable person can't disagree.
The Democrats are not a far right party even by the most expensive definition:
The Democrats are not authoritarian in that they promote democracy, protect human rights, and promote political plurality.
Neither Biden nor his cabinet have absolute power so he does not qualify as a dictator and the government does not qualify as an autocracy.
Democrats do not forcibly suppress the opposition.
Democrats do not believe in a natural social hierarchy.
Democrats do not believe in the subordination of personal interest for the perceived good of the nation or race. You could maybe say that some environmental policies count as subordination of personal interest, but that is for the benefit of all humanity, not one race or nation.
Democrats do not believe in a strong regimentation of society.
One could argue that many Democrats believe in strong regimentation of the economy, but that quality alone is common in various types of governments other than fascism.
As you say, you can't disagree with facts and the fact is that US Democrats are not fascist.
sure they do: look at how they endorse the capitalist system of haves-and-have-nots.
That is a developed social hierarchy, not a natural one. An example of a natural social hierarchy is the belief that whites are naturally a superior race of that women are inherently subordinate to men.
i don't think you know anything about theories of hierarchy or even the natural world. what you've written here is incoherent.
Let me simplify. You used the example of Democrats believing in haves and have nots. Observing that some people are more wealthy than others is reality, not belief in a hierarchy. Believing that rich people are rich because they are innately better and poor people are poor because they are innately worse is a belief in a natural social hierarchy.
they don't simply observe the disparity, they actively enforce it.
That's not the same thing as believe by it is an inmate quality.
regardless of belief, enforcing the unjust hierarchy is what is wrong
tehy literally arrest political opponents.
Like who?
jill stein, 2012.
They arrested her because she was trespassing and causing a disturbance, not because she was a political opponent. It's not like she posed any threat to their power. She had 0% chance of becoming president. It's completely absurd to think they needed to arrest her to beat her. She didn't get enough votes to participate and she threw a Karen fit.
the voters were disenfranchised by being denied a legitimate voice. she was systematically excluded from every media platform. the debate was just one example in a long series of disenfranchisement. her arrest there was clearly to prevent her from challenging them.
Candidates must have a requisite amount of supporters to participate in a debate. This prevents candidates who have zero mathematical chance of winning from wasting everyone's time. Stein did not meet the requirements. Her supporters were not disenfranchised. Their candidate just lost. She had already lost when she was arrested, so it had no impact on enfranchisement.
that's a lie: "vote blue no matter who" and accusations against the green party highlight this. tehy also arrested jill stein at the debate in 2012.
Vote blue no matter who is a political slogan, not an order with any weight. It's not like people are prevented from voting Republican in any way.
Stein was arrested because she didn't meet the polling threshold to be eligible to be considered as a candidate and then tried to force her way on stage. It's no different than you or I going to hear a band play and trying to force our way on stage because we thought we could play guitar better.
again, it's a matter of interpretation. you making excuses for it would look bad if the prevailing opinion matched mine.
Facts are facts. She was not a political opponent because she did not get enough support to even participate in the debate. She was arrested for breaking the law, not for being a political opponent
she was a political opponent. she opposed them politically and challenged them for election.
oh? seems to me the curtailing of gun rights is a major part of their platform, as well as constant incursions into my right to digital privacy.
Those are not examples of subordination of personal interest. Those are balancing the rights and personal interests of one group of citizens vs another. One group has right to guns, another has a right not to get shot to death. The same goes for digital rights. Your right to privacy has to be balanced with others right now to be the victim of crime/terrorism.
as i said, this is a matter of interpreting the facts, but the facts are indisputable.
The prime indisputable fact is that Democrats do not meet the definition of fascist.
that's not a fact. it's a matter of interpretation.
but the democrats would have it if they could. their philosophy is autocratic even if they still lack the means of effecting that policy.
I don't think your claim can be proven
i don't want to test it.
Claims made without evidence can be discarded without evidence.
surely.
this is some gymnastic bullshit. you are ignoring facts and then claiming they support your interpretation of them.
It's the definition, not my interpretation. Words have meanings.
the facts must be interpreted to determine whether they fit the definition. words do have meanings, and i'm willing to believe that you honestly don't think the facts point to fascism, but i would say that's a failure in your ability to interpret the facts, where i recognize you probably feel the same about my interpretation.
And yet only one of our interpretations fits reality. The other is completely wrong no matter how much you believe it.
surely you can recognize that we both feel that way.
Stein needs to earn them too. I see no reason why I should give my vote to someone who boosts pseudoscience. She's welcome to start trying at any time.