this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

politics

29266 readers
2286 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 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.
  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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 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

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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Fox@pawb.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Another $14 billion to Israel

Another $60 billion to Ukraine

This bill was shit and we should be glad it's dead

War hawks cope and seethe

[–] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Russia needs to learn the hard way not to start ground wars in europe

[–] Fox@pawb.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I'd argue they already did and yeah fuck Putin but we should be questioning whether it is morally right to support a stalemate that is killing a whole generation of Ukrainian men. We should absolutely be questioning how it is the American's responsibility to support that indefinitely with taxes when we are so insanely in debt. How are any of these carve-outs appropriate in an "Immigration" bill?

[–] HungryJerboa@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Ukraine is a bulwark against Russian aggression. If it falls, Russia will be emboldened to bully other countries with impunity. That isn't being a war hawk - it's defending the status quo and its benefits.

[–] Fox@pawb.social -1 points 2 years ago

How is the status quo benefiting anyone? The lines aren't moving, soldiers and civilians are dying daily.

And yes, you are still a war hawk if you support the status quo of war to continue.

IMO Ukraine should be admitted to NATO after negotiating a peace treaty.

[–] CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If you’re ever arguing with a relative, remember that this is the most unproductive House of Representatives that we’ve ever had. Ever. They’re barely even working in there. Why? Because republicans are sitting on their hands for everything

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If talking to a relative remind them that the border patrol themselves supported this bill despite normally criticizing Biden.

That's what will fluster them the most.

[–] lobut@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Voters are dumb as fuck or lazy. It should be a complete wipe out so many times over but the fact that it's even remotely close is crazy.

You'll have some person come in and say the usual: "the Dems can't work or get stuff done".

This type of thing should ensure none of them should work in public office again but the voters ain't gonna do shit.

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

Voters are dumb as fuck or lazy.

You've got a pair of parties, one of which refuses to do anything particularly popular while they're in office because that wouldn't be bipartisan and another of which only does the most vulgar populist shit imaginable as soon as they get the reins. Who are voters supposed to support?

You’ll have some person come in and say the usual: “the Dems can’t work or get stuff done”.

Give me one reason why Democrats couldn't pass DC Statehood. They had three big golden opportunities - in '93 and '09 and '21 - to pick up a full sized state complete with 2 Senators and 6 House Reps that would be the most reliably Dem state in the union from now until the next major party alignment, and they refused to do it every fucking time.

There is no downside to DC statehood for Democrats.

This is just the tip of the iceberg on "Things Democrats could easily do if they actually wanted to". But we consistently see legislators, executives, and party leaders alike drag their feet and pass out unpopular compromises, rather than pushing through reforms that are both wildly popular and obviously beneficial to their partisan interests.

This isn't a voter problem. It is entirely a problem within the party leadership - much of which is totally opaque and intractable to the voting public.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Give me one reason why Democrats couldn’t pass DC Statehood.

They need either 60 votes in the Senate, which they don't have, or 50 votes in the Senate to get rid of the filibuster, which they don't have.

Fact of the matter is they don't have the votes. I suspect you'll call it controlled opposition and "there'll always be someone because Democrats don't actually want it", but that's baseless theory. Especially since the last time Dems did have those votes, for a scant 2 months, they put together Obamacare. It even had single payer, but the 60th vote they needed refused to support it unless they took it out.

You could get 49 ideal leftist socialists elected, but as long as there's 1 detractor, the party can't do anything. And it's silly idealism to think that some mean words will make that single detractor come to your side.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

They need either 60 votes in the Senate

Democrats can get rid of that number at the start of any Congressional session. They have deliberately chosen not to do so, because they cling to the idea of bipartisan reforms passing through the upper chamber.

You could get 49 ideal leftist socialists elected, but as long as there’s 1 detractor

You offer the detractor the carrot or the stick. Very easy to wipe the vote of a Senator when the next Defense Authorization bill is up for a vote and everyone is talking about which bases to close.

Bush did not need 60 votes. Trump did not need 60 votes. Reagan sure as hell did not need 60 votes.

Democrats are lying to themselves if they think 60 is a magic number. They're lying even harder if they think 49 Socialist Party Senators would not be able to whip support for their policies, given how ably the GOP has skated by with a meager 40.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Do you have any examples of a carrot or stick actually convincing a politician to change their mind? If that worked, you could just shame Republicans into getting 100-0 votes for everything.

This is what's ridiculous to me. You're cynical and conspiratorial that there will always be controlled opposition, but you also think a bully pulpit and the right words will convince that opposition to support you.

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

Do you have any examples of a carrot or stick actually convincing a politician to change their mind?

The Civil Rights Act was a big one.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Could you elaborate? I'm genuinely interested in knowing more.

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

I mean, I don't want to be snide but... there's an ample backlog of historical material that gets into the details. Just pick up a book. Nick Kotz's "Judgement Days" offers a deep dive. Chapter 17 of Howard Zinn's "People's HIstory" gives you the abbreviated version. There are plenty of others.

From Johnson's acerbic legislative style to the economic leverage applied by MLK's boycotts and the militant organizing of Malcolm X's radicals, historically intractable politicians were swayed with both the carrot of an enormous new activist constituency and the stick of strikes, shut-downs, and the President literally grabbing and twisting your ballsack because you failed to deliver him the votes.

[–] alliswell33@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 2 years ago

Why am I not surprised everyone in this thread thinks that conservative border bill was good.

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

The year is 2006 and Republicans are killing a compromise deal that they all admitted they actually liked.

The year is 2014 and Republicans are killing a compromise deal that they all admitted they actually liked.

The year is 2024 and the GOP is about to win in a landslide on the "Democrats never get anything done" platform, so I guess you can't argue with their results.

[–] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

It’s VERY obvious now that they can’t do ANYTHING in the house.

But it is equally obvious that guys like Abbot and DeSantis have an open hand to act as they please on the border. That's where this gets dangerous.

By bogging down the legislative process and allowing Biden to twiddle his thumbs in the White House, we have transferred enormous amounts of power to the border states with the most horrific people in charge. The GOP decision to kill the bill was calculated, as it accrued authority to their allies in the Southwest.

Also, they got clowned hard.

They got laughed at by the same group of jokers who were going to point and laugh at them regardless. Meanwhile, right-wing talk radio is spinning this as a victory for the Immigration Absolutists and a rallying cry for the Trump Presidential campaign.

Democrats have shown their hand on what they will concede. Republicans are in a strong position to advance their majorities in House and Senate into the next cycle. That puts the ball in their court, even if Mike Johnson personally looks like a weak Speaker. Republicans don't care if he's weak, because they've put all their chips on Trump anyway.

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

The year is 2024 and the GOP is about to win in a landslide on the "Democrats never get anything done" platform, so I guess you can't argue with their results.

~~2018 is going to be a red wave~~

~~2020 is going to be a red wave~~

~~2022 is going to be a red wave~~

Surely 2024 will be a red wave!

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

You left out 2016, 2014, 2010, 2002, and 1994.

Surely 2024 will be a red wave!

The gains Dems have made in the Midwest are heavily predicated on minority voters (particularly Arab Americans) sticking with the party. And it looks like Biden's getting ready to piss all that away.

[–] Veneroso@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Idk if I believe that.

We're about to see a lot of "unlikely voters" turning out....

And to think, running the same guy who tried to cling to power with a self coup after losing the last election in a landslide to the guy you lost to 4 years ago who's supreme court justices "Roe is settled law" brought about headlines of suffering and skyrocketing teen pregnancy.....

Anyway remember that foreign policy is about power, not morality. And if "both sides are the same" no, one side is corporate shills and the other are fascist sycophants.

Not voting for Biden or Not Voting is a vote for the Christian Caliphate where white is right but only if you're a straight male. Everyone else can stay in the kitchen or go to the camps. History doesn't repeat but it rhymes

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

We’re about to see a lot of “unlikely voters” turning out…

If the primary and the off-cycle elections are any indication, we're going to see a big downturn in participation - particularly among Biden's left wing base - as enthusiasm for another four years of Republican Lite administration tanks out.

Anyway remember that foreign policy is about power, not morality.

Hitler Particles Detected

Not voting for Biden or Not Voting is a vote for the Christian Caliphate

Its not the votes that count, but who counts the votes. And in my home state of Texas, the Governor has already made moves to consolidate election authority in the governor's mansion.