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
Because the Dem leadership is obsessed with appealing to an increasingly tiny portion of the electorate, alienating everyone to the left of Reagan who isn't in the "Blue No Matter Who" cult of settling for second worst.
Which are both extremely watered down versions of what they initially promised. This due to the efforts of the very right wing Democrats the leadership keeps pushing over more progressive candidates whose policy positions are more in line with those of the population in general rather than the rich people, corporations and management side industry groups who donate a shitload of money to both Republicans and conservative Democrats.
No, because land area determines the legislature and not population. The Republican Senate hasn't represented more than half the population in the US since 1996, but had control for most of that time. Every Democratic majority is a short-lived thing after massive uphill battle, because America leans hard to the right we value land area more than people.
In short: This is the best our government can do, because it's structurally deficient and Americans are pretty dumb.
That's a big part of the reason too, yes.
Fixed it for you. And guess who's had ample opportunity to do something, ANYTHING, about that throughout the decades and have hardly even tried beyond empty campaign ad sound bites? Starts with a D..
Ridiculous defeatism.
Which SOME people have the power to do something about but actively avoid addressing outside of fundraising appeals.
Some are, but NOWHERE near the majority. For example, the largest share of the population that ever voted for Trump was 20%.
I disagree with a lot in this post, but this is what I disagree with the most.
So if you can’t get what you want, you’d rather have the opposite than settle?
Nope. That's both a strawman and a false dichotomy.
I'm saying that the Dems aren't good enough.
"Slightly better than literal fascists" is not a high enough bar and demanding more isn't the same thing as endorsing the fascists.
If that's still too hard to understand, let me put it this way: in spite of having done nothing to deserve it, you're being given the choice between being kicked in the head or stabbed in the liver.
Objecting to the lesser assault is NOT a request to be stabbed.
That’s an imperfect analogy. It’s more like defending yourself. You may still get stabbed, but you have a better chance of stopping the attacker than doing nothing.
Of course it's imperfect. It was dumbed down for you to be able to understand it. Unsuccessfully, alas.
No it's not. Saying that everyone being kicked in the head should stop complaining about the assault and in stead thank the assailants for not being the other, worse, assailants is NOT defending anyone.
Yeah, that's the other thing I didn't cover: sometimes the kicking assailants will just straight up let you be stabbed anyway even if you elected enough of them.
They're being paid much more by the steel toe boot association and the combat knife manufacturers than anyone trying to make the assaults stop, after all..
Protesting inaction in the face of fascism isn't nothing.
Advocating for the rotten status quo that allowed the rise of fascism, though? THAT'S doing nothing.
Going so far as shaming dissenting opinions, lumping everyone who's not satisfied with negative peace (the absence of disorder) in with the fascists? That's WORSE than doing nothing.