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 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
the party is hopelesslty corrupted and wont even acknowledge why they lost. Its time to dump the dems and build up a progressive party.
That would be after FPTP voting is replaced with RCV or STAR in all 50 states. Trying a third party before those steps will hand the federal government to the GOP for the remainder of my life.
I don't think RCV or STAR is either enough to disrupt the status quo with a third party nor feasible enough to get in place.
Then we're stuck with semi permanent GOP control, then.
I doubt it, the DNC will likely run a faux-progressive campaign next election and perhaps win. However, the answer has always been revolution.
I'm talking less about the executive branch than I am the legislative branch. Congress has been firmly in conservative control for over 30 years (I'm old enough to remember third way Democrats, Reagan Democrats and the moral majority), and without a change to FPTP voting, we're going to be stuck with it veering further to the right.
Even with a change, the US will continue to rocket rightward until it collapses.
If we ever get that, there will be a new "that would be after" to replace it. If Democrats want to stop Republicans and are so worried about splitting the vote, maybe Democrats should abstain from running.
They're clearly not up to the task and would rather appease fascists here and abroad.
Not really. What you're asking for is for some unknown third party (like the Pacific Greens 😂😂😂) to pop up into place and immediately take the national reigns like a boss. That ain't happening, bruv, otherwise it already would have. Ditching FPTP at least gives the average voter the opportunity to vote for different people (like Sanders not having to caucus with Democrats, or Working Families Party not having to caucus with Democrats, etc).
Or you can sit back and vote third party in a defacto two party system. It's worked well so far. 🤷🤷♀️🤷♂️
And it only requires having people who are willing to pass it in office. Which isn't ever going to happen. Which means it's a great prerequisite that needs to be met before something you don't want to happen.
Perhaps in your state, but in Oregon, we can bring initiatives to the ballot through voter signatures. It's how we got RCV in Multnomah county, and it's how the (failed) Measure 117 landed on our ballot this year. Sadly, it was badly written and Oregon voters are gunshy after the (also horribly written and implemented) Measure 110 (narcotics decriminalization) got onto the ballot.
Yeah. No real referendums in my state. So naturally we'll need it in all 50 before we consider changing the sweetheart deal centrist Democrats and their Republican buddies have.
Absolutely this.
How many times are we gonna be Charlie Brown trying to kick the football before Lucy pulls the ball away?
This party isn't here for us. They do not represent our best interests. They simply care about the ruling class/ultra wealthy.
They have purposely not followed through on their campaign promises so many times. Time to dump them.
DNC isn't getting my vote anymore. Time for a new party.
That's all well and good, if you want to lose elections for the foreseeable future.
Because it takes a long, long time to build up a new party and have it actually win federal elections.
By then we won't have elections anymore.
https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo
This video shows why that may well likely have to be done within the democratic party itself. The information in that video is of central importance to a plan like to get progressivism on its feet.
The Party for Socialism and Liberation exists. If you want something less Socialist, more Social Democrat, the Greens already exist.
I love how splitting the vote cost them a few seats, and your plan is to split the vote.
That’s not necessarily the way to “build a progressive party”.
On the right-wing side think of how MAGA has overshadowed “Republican”, eating it from the inside.
Hating people is easy. Caring about them is (apparently) hard. Quicker, easier, more seductive is MAGA compared to being progressive.
Totally, but MAGA took decades to sprout from a Tea Party seed, or further back even.
I still call them teabaggers, or more appropriately, TeaBirchers, since what is now branded "MAGA" (eyeroll), and for a brief period of time called "teabaggers" [1], is the same warmed-over shit from the Birchers, basically.
[1] Though they scream and lie about it now, they called themselves teabaggers. Some of them did not know about the sexual term, but I'm sure some did, and hoped to use it as a way they were going to be sexually dominating others and then laughing about it later. Once Maddow and others started openly mocking them for it, they figured it might not work out like they thought and then pretended the MEAN LIBERALS are the ones that called them this. I kept getting banned from Denver Post forums for calling them by their original name, because they had teabagging moderators.