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.
- 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.
- 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
Someone mentioned it in the thread about Elizabeth Warren supporting Biden. It isn't odd that smart, anti-wealthy, and anti-Trump at all costs progressives are backing Biden, and wealthy Democrat donors and centrist Democrats are demanding change.
These people see the risk a new candidate would bring. The wealthy just want someone who reflects their image. Either candidate doesn't really hurt their lifestyle.
Part of it has been that Biden has been implementing a lot of progressive policies. He may not be the perfect progressive candidate, but he is a lot better than other options.
She didn't though, she dodged the question and the Boston Globe called it support. If she wanted to support him staying in, she would have said that.
The wealthy centrist Dems believe they're in an excellent position to foist an even bigger turd on the party (I've seen Joe Manchin and Michael Bloomberg and - of fucking course - Hillary Clinton floated as "moderate" replacements to Far-Left Super Radical Joe Biden).
The younger and less influential (although hardly anti-wealthy - AOC is a prodigious fundraiser who represents one of the richest districts in the nation) politicians who have already stacked up political favors with the incumbent don't want to see him casually replaced by an even more obnoxious neoliberal.
That doesn't make Biden a strong choice. It doesn't even make him an "anti-wealthy" choice (Biden was fully on board with the Wall Street bailouts under Bush and the Silicon Valley bailouts during his own term). It just makes him the "safe" choice for the AOC-aligned caucus, relative to an even more nakedly corporate convention insider pick.