this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
327 points (97.1% liked)

politics

31463 readers
2132 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world 63 points 2 years ago (2 children)

As much as I hate to admit it, Newsom has the right plan here. Democrats in power need to erect as many institutional barriers to Trump implementing his own policy, and doing it at the State level disrupts their route of attack significantly. The danger is that shielding blue state Republicans from the worst effects of Trump's economic policy might erode their potential support base, but they have to either take the risk, or carve out exceptions to their own policy that disproportionatly allow blue state Republicans to feel the sting (maybe, for instance, avoiding protections for small businesses). I doubt Democrats have the stomach for the latter option, so Newsom is making the correct play, and others should follow suit.

[–] b161@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think you’re right. Everyone is bowing down and kissing the ring.

If Democrats want any respect they need to act bravely in unison now and erect every possible barrier possible.

One of the problem with liberals is they believe we live in a somewhat fair and just world where laws work, justice takes time, and if you play by the rules everything will work out fine.

Fascists will nod along with liberals while thinking they’re a bunch of idiots and will use their naivety against them until they gain power, then turn to violence.

Trump has a lot of plans to put into place effect so there will be a lot of balls in the air and actors on the field.

Everyone needs to block them, disrupt them, distract them in any way possible.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think part of the problem is that liberals don’t actually think we live in an inherently just and fair world. But that they think that capitalism, corporatism, and “stability” at any cost (even if that stability is a downward slope to fascism/oligopoly and ecocide) can still be “just” and “fair.”

Look at—and I hate to use Bernie as the example, but it’s relevant—how Bernie’s kinda progressive policies were treated by the party. They refused to let him win. And then pseudo-“adopted” the outward appearance of those policies to win voters. If his policies aren’t harmful enough to refuse to endorse them…why would you not just let him be president? Why stop him and take facsimiles of his policies? Is it because they knew they would win them votes but they’d never in a million years enact those policies? What was scaring them about him winning with his (again, very moderate) policies?

This is just the most recent and telling example. And then…I mean, the genocide thing. Not supporting a genocide is a pretty goddamn easy ask. But they were probably bleeding voters because they just wouldn’t.

These are not big, crazy things to ask for. But stopping them and enacting helpful policies was unthinkable to them. Why is that. Because more than anything, they would protect the rotting corpse of capitalism and the global hegemony over anything that might help people. And that comes back to their fucking billionaire backers, I assume? They are the ones who stand to lose scraps of their money and power.

I mean, I have to assume that is the answer. But it can’t be denied, I don’t think.

[–] b161@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 years ago

Oh Bernie…. Bernie would have given us a chance with real solutions and hope for the working class and would have been able to push back on Israel without being smeared as an antisemite.

But no, the DNC would never let him.

[–] oyo@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Drag everything out in court for four years. SOP

[–] morphballganon@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

4 years won't be a significant interval after emperor Trump cancels future elections.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

stastically he has a 50% chance to die before his end of term if he's an average US human. The guy isn't exactly RFK Junior doing pushups everyday.

[–] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

He’s not the danger, he’s the patsy.

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Statistically, evil rich fucks live to a much older age than everyone else. 😠

[–] AngryRobot@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

100% chance. He's unpredictable and his owners have wrung just about all they can from him. They'll martyr him before the end of his first year and use that to annoint Vance. 🤮