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
Blaming Nader for the Supreme Court handing the election to the Bush Dynasty is the kind of thinking that paralyzed American politics on the “left.” Nader spent his career working to help the people.
Bush having the governor of the deciding state be his brother and having the Supreme Court in his pocket sealed that election.
Democrats should win every election by massive landslides. Instead, they spent the last several decades bowing to billionaires and providing controlled opposition that suppressed any actual reform.
The illusion of choice between neoliberals morphed into fascism, and it’s now difficult to discern neoliberals from fascists. They have the same interests: Big number goes up for billionaires; nothing else matters.
As a reminder, Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett all worked the hanging chads case on the side of Bush.
The fact that people still blame Nader instead of the fucks who literally owe their positions to being on the case is such a joke. Like, why does anyone think these pricks ended up Justices? Because they helped steal an election in 2000.
Multiple people can be to blame. And 3rd party candidates whose only purpose is to split the vote are always to blame. Corrupt courts and politicians are also always to blame.
I looked at the totals for the 2000 election and found that, had every Nader voter instead voted for Gore, there would have been only two states that would have flipped:
Now, it's entirely possible we still get the ratfucking from SCOTUS and they still throw the state to Bush. But New Hampshire had 4 electoral votes, and had they gone for Gore then it would have been 267 Bush - 270 President Gore.
Bush won because 22,198 people in NH didn't understand that voting for a third-party only hurts the major party that most closely aligns with your ideals.
Having only two major parties and "winner takes it all" elections is a shit system and it was doomed to fail. You can't force people to vote for "the lesser of two evils" forever. That's not how a democracy is supposed to work. Especially if neither of the major parties allign with your ideals. Of course the consequences of this non-compliance are dire but it was inevitable.
You have to vote for the lesser of two evils in order to get a chance at changing the election system.
The GOP are trying to take away voting rights. Not the Dems.
I realize this sounds like false equivalence, but at this point, I do think it needs to be said:
When the lesser of two evils sleepwalks us into the greater of two evils, there’s no material difference between the lesser and greater of two evils.
I agree. And yet, it's what we have (well...)
That right there is the crux of the issue. It is mathematically certain that the US electoral system, as it is now, will result in two parties. And it is equally certain because of that fact that voting for anyone other than one of those two party candidates will result in helping the other candidate. Knowing this, a responsible voter should decide to support whichever party most closely aligns with their values, because otherwise they're helping the major party they lease align with win instead.
If you agree with the Dems on one issue, and agree with the GOP on zero issues, you should still vote for the Dems in the general election.
The fact that you're more angry at those 22.198 people than the fact that our election system has been a broken joke since long before the year 2000 and continues to be a broken joke because of the undemocratic Electoral College is kind of pathetic.
Why aren't you mad about that? Instead you're mad at a group of citizens whose only power is their vote, while Senators and House Representatives who could have done something to change us to a better system have done fuck-all in decades.
Further, why aren't you mad that the Supreme Court stole the election? And then rewarded the people who worked the case with their own Supreme Court seats? Or are you just fine with open corruption and prefer to blame people with no power?
EDIT: Oh, also a reminder, Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes. But keep sucking up to this broken dead worthless system that ignores the popular will of the people. Stay mad at hose 22,000 people I guess, because that totally makes fucking sense.
EDIT II: Damn I really triggered a bunch of bitches who don't want to wish for a better world but want to instead make excuses for why this one should keep sucking.
It's possible to be mad at both of those things... over and over... every fucking election cycle.
Source: me.
Seriously, I fucking hate arguments like this. "Why are you mad about x and not y?" Bitch, I'm angry about both!
Why all the whataboutism?
Every election cycle there is a non zero number of people that get tricked into voting against their own best interest. That’s a valid thing to call out and be angry about.
Just because that commenter pointed that out doesn’t mean he doesn’t also get angry about all the other things you’re “whatabouting” about.
Holy shit my dude, calm the fuck down. I neither expressed any agreement nor disagreement with the facts, and you're just making baseless assumptions about how I feel about them.
No, I am not "more angry" at the Green voters than I am at insert whatever reason you think was the most important contributor to Gore's loss you want here. But it is ridiculous to assume they (you?) share no part of the blame for Gore's loss, when it's demonstrable that in fact they bear some amount. Also I find it amusing you're telling me who I should be mad at and you never once mentioned the Republicans who voted for Bush.
Did SCOTUS make a bad ruling? Abso-fucking-lutely they did. But you know what? If NH had gone to Gore SCOTUS wouldn't have even mattered.
Does our system suck? Abso-fucking-lutely it does. You can rant and rave all day about how unfair and undemocratic it is, and how much it needs to change and I'll spend all day agreeing with you. But the difference between us is, I recognize that voting is a tactical decision, not an emotional one. I don't particularly like the Democrats, probably for many of the same reasons you would list. I vote for them in the general election, however, because I understand that not doing so helps Republicans win. Again, this is literal demonstrable fact. And I agree with the Dems on a hell of a lot more than I do with the GOP.
edit: also the popular vote literally doesn't matter. Source: non-Presidents Gore and Clinton.
This is the only "argument" these people have.
I'm not even exaggerating when I say that every single discussion that I've had on this site about this topic has ended the same exact way: with a straw man and/or whataboutism. It's all they have.
Your usage of the word tactical is appropriate.
Liberals always try to justify voting for literal genocidaires, over the left demanding something for their ever increasingly important vote, by couching their arguments in the vestments of logic and game theory.
You know, without a mathematical background.
And then they fucking butcher it because the argument they put fourth is from week one of a 101 entry level game theory class.
To put it another way:
You're tactically voting and losing the war when you need to be voting strategically.
That involves the left demanding things for their view, and the right that has stayed in power in the DNC, through cheating, giving some up.
Meanwhile, dumb people that like to feel smart justify demanding the left give up power for free while holding those in power to absolutely no accountability.
Always punching down.
lol yeah, only Florida.
And now I no longer hear "vote blue, no matter who" slogan since Chuck Schumer helped the Republicans pass on the budget bill.
I mean, vote blue, but primary the fuck out of people like that.
The neoliberals use the slogan to condition people to accept the false dichotomy of having to always choose the "lesser evil", and make voters complacent from pressuring their representatives.
You talk about the splintered left and GOP corruption and then you unashamedly defame Democrats in a single breath, wow.
Truly nothing has changed in 20 years, huh? Still have morons who don't understand first past the post and why we only have two parties.
There’s the targeted message of the month
🎭 Original Claim:
🔍 Step 1: Emotional Noise Filter
This claim is loaded with emotional intensity:
🛑 Distortion Detected → Emotional Persuasion: The tone demands rejection of a person based on an emotionally charged version of a historical what-if. 📌 Let’s neutralize the distortion using the [[Framing Neutralizer (FN)]]:
Notice how that removes emotional judgment and loaded blame, but preserves the subject. 🔎 Step 2: Relevance Check
Is this still a meaningful claim today?
So we ask: is this a political analysis or a grudge statement? 🧩 Step 3: Clarity & Precision Test
Let’s try a mini Precision Breakdown (PB):
🧭 Bottom Line via Clarity Compass (CC): Direction Assessment Truth Check Partially grounded in historical fact Evidence Check Lacks full context or causal certainty Context Check Oversimplifies election outcome factors Impact Check High emotional impact, blame-focused framing 🪞 Reframed for Clarity: