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
Or maybe we don't vest so much power into a single psychotic ape. Maybe we have three presidents and they all have to agree before something happens, like the computers on the space shuttle
Or maybe zero presidents?
Or maybe like 200,000,000 presidents? Direct democracy go brrr.
I like it!
A triumvirate?
Just a speed bump on the way to a dictatorship.
Okay how about everyone votes on everything? That actually sounds awesome.
It sounds awesome until you remember that we can barely get half our population to vote for president most of the time and that the average voter is uninformed and poorly educated.
Not really. We have a lot of connectivity, the world has never been smaller.
I agree that you can't blindly give someone else control over such things, it would need to be run out of gov offices with people beholden to transparency for the public and not to which ever contractor they bid.
On the offline issue, I can see your point as valid, I just don't think it's impossible, CA still does paper voting through a scantron, millions of votes can be processed with paper, there's certainly ways of getting it done in my opinion.
If you look at polling you often find the majority of Americans don't actually agree with much of the actions of either party, I personally think direct democracy would lead to real progress and prosperity.
It would be fairly simple to pull off with modern technology
I'm fine with that, as long as a sanity test gets written into the Constitution. I believe it should apply to all reps. But then if they change the definition of sanity... I don't know what the best way forward is, but it's surely not regression.
Counterpoint: Fetterman.
Dude had a stroke and stuck his tongue up Trump's asshole. Even if they pass the sanity test they could have some kind of traumatic brain injury that makes them jerks.
Plus I consider all humans to be psychotic apes who I wouldn't trust as far as I can throw them. Including myself.
Fetterman was a plant. Someone posted an article about how he actually governed before he was a national level leader.
Fair point, and thanks for reminding me! The people who don't want it are probably the people most capable and worthy. I look forward to your filing as a candidate! 😀
Don't hurt me please. I'm only half serious, but it's exactly people with this attitude who should probably be on the ballot.
This comment made me realize I have a religious obligation to run for office. And then if I win to not do the job at all.
Made me laugh. +10 for Doug reference!
There seemed to be quite a few who were just there to sabotage the party from within, such as Manchin.
Controlled opposition within controlled opposition, maybe.
Manchin was the only Democrat who could win national office in West Virginia. He's the best my sad state could do.
Yeah he tanked some important votes but a Republican replacement would have voted that way anyway. At least he stuck with the Democrats most of the time.
I don't know what the excuse is for Kyrsten Sinema.
He always seemed like the Mitt Romney of the Democrats, Romney loves to take a moral stand against his party, after he'd checked with his party Whip who assures him the measure with pass without his vote.