this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
354 points (95.4% liked)

politics

18850 readers
5165 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Xariphon@kbin.social 108 points 9 months ago (5 children)

How about both of you go the fuck home and let an actual progressive do some actual good for once?

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 69 points 9 months ago (7 children)

That would require getting elected, which would require them being broadly popular.

[–] Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world 39 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Barack Obama pulled off a surprise victory over the established Democratic candidates by campaigning on a message of hope and change. Of course his administration ended up only slightly more progressive than a standard Democrat's, but the fact remains that a non-mainstream candidate can run and win on the promise of progressive reform.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 30 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I think Biden has been more progressive then Obama. Yeah, Obama was a minority and he was a damn good orator and importantly he wasn't Hillary. He represented progress. But his actual policies? Nah. There is something aspirational about having someone who isn't another old white man, and I think Obama was a decent President, just not particularly progressive.

[–] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

In 20 years he’ll be viewed as the ragen of the dems for encouraging privacy to get steamrolled. He was in a position to act to protect Americans after bush and all he did was add fuel to the fire

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 33 points 9 months ago (3 children)

More specifically, progressives would have to actually turn the fuck out for those progressives at the primaries.

Bernie can tell you counting on that is counting on pigs flying.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Goferking0@ttrpg.network 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The issue is they'd rather have another republican than an actual progressive

[–] Poggervania@kbin.social 28 points 9 months ago (2 children)

See: Al Gore vs Bush

Also, still miffed about Bernie not being a “good candidate” for the DNC in 2016.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 21 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (6 children)

Gore won. He just fucked up by playing by the rules back when people thought that mattered. The brooks brother rioters knew better, and the right wing court put the fix in.

Also, not to be a pill, but nader took a small percentage of the votes in Florida in that election as a progressive. Most of those probally would have gone to Gore, making the bullshit soft coup the GOP pulled off impossible if he wasn't in the race.

First past the post means vote for the lesser evil and pressure the fuck out of them to get the system changed. Thats it. The system doesn't let anything else work.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Nader didn't just take a small percentage, he deliberately targeted swing states to sabotage Gore for stepping on the Green Party's turf by running on climate issues.

Literally the green party exists today because they refused to let the usual process 3rd parties swear is the actual reason they exist play out, and let the major party that is closest to them adopt their policies.

And you can see that "fuck you this is my shit!" mentality to a certain degree among modern NoVote "progressives", it isn't enough if Biden literally delivers on everything Bernie said he would and more, because he's "the DNC" and he's not Bernie so it's obviously not good enough and you should still refuse to vote for him.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 104 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (10 children)

Doesn’t fucking matter, I’m voting D because it’s a fucking binary system and the other choice is a dystopian totalitarian shithole and abstaining from voting is voting for said shithole.

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 23 points 9 months ago (8 children)

it’s a fucking binary system

That can change but it requires people to get involved at ground level politics like school boards, city councils, county supervisors and township offices. It takes about ten years for these officials to reach congressional levels. The teabaggers did this successfully but they had a lot of financial support from wealthy conservatives.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] ME5SENGER_24@lemm.ee 59 points 9 months ago (4 children)

How about no President over the age of 60? I want young politicians. I also want term limits.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Please no. An age cap is fine. But term limits will just add gas to the fire of corruption.

[–] Starkstruck@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

How? Wouldn't that do the opposite?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 32 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (16 children)

Term limits in Congress mean we lose experience. So we're forced, right away, to rely on outside experts for everything from technical knowledge on fracking to getting a bill passed correctly. This is the first axis on which lobbyists and parties gain more control over representatives.

The second axis is campaigns themselves. A lot of time in office is actually spent campaigning and fundraising. Especially in the house where you're up every two years. This means your name and reputation is your brand. However, with term limits people will not have time to build those brands. So anyone looking to move up to the Senate, Governorship, Presidency, or wherever else will likely have to depend on "outside" money far more. They simply will not have had time to build up their own funds. This money, of course, comes with strings.

Even staying in place would require abiding by those strings in the long run. Once fundraising is no longer expected of the representatives they become vulnerable to a primary by their party. The party simply shifts funds to another candidate and that's the end of a problem for them.

The third axis is the predetermined length of a politician's public political career. Only senators and representatives that toed the line get cushy jobs provided by the party or lobbyists. While that's already true to some extent, many politicians end their career when they don't have the popularity to get elected anymore. This also means they don't have much political capital to spend getting cushy jobs unless a personal connection grabs them. With politicians being forced into retirement at young ages, with plenty of popularity and capital, they're going to get offers they can't refuse. As long as they're a "team player."

Another way to think about term limits is making the politicians employees of their party. And while that's not a bad thing in systems with a lot of parties (like ranked choice voting and proportional representation); it's catastrophic in a two party system. Because the oligarchs will waste no time literally buying the legislature.

Age Caps are great. Age Caps simply require you to retire at retirement age. And for that side step much of the tomfoolery I've described above. Long serving politicians are more accountable to their constituents and it's harder for lobbyists and party die hards to influence Congress.

[–] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Everything you wrote already happens

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (3 children)

So how about we think of something that won’t make it worse

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

What exactly would term limits accomplish? Bernie Sanders would be prevented from running, but people like Kyrsten Sinema would be fine.

The solution to bad candidates is to vote them out in the primary or work towards ranked choice voting so that people have a legitimate 3rd option in the general.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Awesome357@lemmy.world 41 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Not surprising, this is pretty much why he ran 4 years ago. He never wanted to be president, but his party had literally nobody (whom they would allow) that could step up and be a real contender.

[–] Xanis@lemmy.world 30 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That "allow" part being a rather substantial issue for those not really paying attention back in 2016.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jayemar@lemm.ee 28 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I'm not sure you can say he never wanted to be president. He ran in 1988 and 2008 before running in 2020. It sounds more like he always wanted to be president, but I could believe he'd prefer to not feel like he has to run for another term.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world 29 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Getting 2016 vibes this time around...

Or it is just the vocal few that are more openly speaking out...

Polling and all, it will be in the history books come 2024.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago (9 children)

If the history books aren’t burned.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Playingwithethenew@kbin.social 10 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Honestly, this reminds me of 1968. Old president supports war unpopular with youth, people protest, the GOP choose a failed candidate from the previous election, y'know?

[–] chaogomu@kbin.social 17 points 9 months ago

Trump also seems the type to actively sabotage any sort of peace process to boost his own campaign.

And he has that Southern Strategy down pat.

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Reminds me of 1933: A right wing guy briefly in jail for a coup attempt got out early and became German chancellor.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] books@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago (1 children)

God. Trump keeps on fucking us.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] notannpc@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (9 children)

And yet, most people don’t want to vote for Biden. He won because people voted against Trump. I’m not convinced it will work again.

[–] specseaweed@lemmy.world 26 points 9 months ago (4 children)

I do. I’m an old progressive and he’s been the most progressive president in my lifetime outside of Carter, and honestly he’s probably been more progressive than Carter.

I don’t get the ambivalence about Biden at all from anyone who’s not a hard core Republican.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›