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
Ah the part where you pretend screaming GeNoCiDe for a year and pretended Trump being worse was irrelevant had no effect on elections. I'm sure that of the record number who stayed home, none did it because of the GeNoCiDe frauds.
Yeah, because being at all critical about active complicity in the worst crimes against humanity possible is the same as advocating for fascism! 🤦
Yet another strawman. I did no such thing at any point.
And I'm equally sure that nobody stayed home because even the lesser evil refused to listen to the vast majority of the people they're supposed to represent. That's not at ALL something that could suppress voter participation! 🙄
You got what you wanted. Democrats lost.
No, that's the exact opposite of what I wanted, which I have made clear from the start.
Please either at least TRY to argue in good faith or stop arguing at all.
Says the moral "GeNoCiDe" warrior
It's called marketing. There's a time and a place for criticism, a close race between bad and worse is not that time, online leftist spaces are not that place. Every leftist voter who chooses to abstain contributes to the fascists' margin.
The difference is that you don't control the DNC's strategy, you do control your actions.
The only reason why the two overlapped at all was because the ones aiding and abetting genocide have been refusing to even acknowledge any wrongdoing for over a year!
A blindingly obvious example of this "not listening to their base" problem I mentioned.
Where else would you suggest?
Far right places like Truth social where everyone will agree for the wrong reasons, wrongly thinking that it's about making sure that Trump wins?
"Centrist" places where everyone will automatically disagree, wrongly thinking that it's about making sure that Trump wins?
Just admit that there's no time and no place where you would actually take constructive criticism from the left seriously and pretending that there is is a pretense for making people sit down and shut up.
Again with the classics bootlicker role reversal.
It's the job of politicians to earn the confidence and thus the votes of the people.
It's NOT the job of the people to meekly go along with politicians with ethically and morally compromised politicians with bad ideas unquestioningly, even IF they're still the least bad option.
The politicians failed the people, not the other way around.
The irony of telling the that I'm only allowed to voice dissent at specific times and places where it would be ignored and then saying I'm in control 🤦
Newsflash: the people is SUPPOSED to control the DNC's strategy! They're public servants paid through public means to enact the will of the people FFS! That's literally what they're there for!
What's supposed to happen and what happens are two extremely different things. Only fools make plans based on what's supposed to happen. The rest of us plan our actions based on the flawed reality we live in.
You're "allowed" to do whatever you want. I'm just telling you it's counterproductive. You are allowed to be counterproductive, it's just a stupid thing to do.
Such as insisting on doing a bunch of reprehensible things that your base hates while you're running for public office?
It's amazing how you keep holding the meaningful actions of the most powerful people in the most powerful country in the world to a much lower standard of responsibility than me, a regular poor person, expressing a reasonable opinion.
Do you REALLY not see how ass-backwards that is??
Yes, exactly! That is a counterproductive action. And I levy my criticisms regarding that action to the actors themselves, in my direct communication to them.
Two things can be true: it is in the best interest of the DNC to more effectively court their base, and it is in the best interest of leftists for the lesser evil of the duopoly to win until we can break the duopoly.
That's why my correspondence with my representatives is focused entirely on their failings, and my correspondence with other voters is focused entirely on their virtues.
I hold them responsible for their actions, and I hold you responsible for yours. It's not that my standard for them is lower, my standard for them is irrelevant to the actions of others.
You have a direct line of communication with the president and vice president of the United States? That's impressive, but I don't. Hence the need to express my critiques to peers in stead.
Yes, but I have at no point argued that the lesser evil shouldn't win.
That's what you keep refusing to understand: I want them to change their actions both because the actions are themselves atrocious AND because I wanted them to win and those actions were causing them to lose.
First of all, I still don't have a direct line of communications to the white house. Second of all, I guarantee that, if I had, my complaints and warnings would not be heeded. Like those you pretend to have made were.
Well that's just obsequious serf bullshit. Pretending in public that "your team" is always perfect and can do no wrong doesn't convince anyone. It just makes you a bootlicker whose perspective only fellow bootlickers will relate to.
No you fucking don't! You claim that you have a private line where you get to discuss all your concerns with the White House, but we both know that that's bullshit.
You may leave a message for your congressperson and/or senator to ignore, but that's it. That's the extent of your options for expressing dissent ay we both know that won't stop the support for genocide any more than me voicing my displeasure in a public forum. If anything, it's LESS effective, as public dissent is much harder to ignore.
My actions of checks notes making my opinion on committing the most heinous crimes against humanity and (correctly, it unfortunately turned out) warning that continuing to ignore the people could cost the election and lead to the fascists taking over
Ooh, such transgression! Ever heard of the first amendment to the US constitution? It has a few sentences specifically about this kind of thing.
That would normally make sense, but in the specific case of arguing that it's wrong to ever criticize the Biden administration in public, that's absolute counterfactual nonsense.
Be better and demand better from the people supposed to represent you, please.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
That doesn't make any sense. "I didn't have a wrench so I used a hammer instead". Those aren't interchangeable, they don't do the same thing. You can't accomplish the task you're attempting with the tool you're using.
You can't scream genocide and begrudgingly whisper lesser evil and expect that outcome.
Again, yes you do. And if you don't think expressing your grievances directly to them will help, how exactly does telling everyone else your grievances do anything? If those voters aren't directly expressing their grievances en masse, how do the people you're trying to convince hear your message?
When I contact my representative directly, they are informed of my complaints, and what to do to improve. Voicing your displeasure in a public forum gives them no information, unless the users of that public forum contact their representatives directly. If you don't actually organize your dissent, it is extremely easy to ignore.
Again, you have the freedom to be counterproductive. It's not forbidden, it's just stupid.
I do that. Be better at directing your actions to accomplish your goal. Stop banging on bolts with a hammer.
Communicating your displeasure on, say, Israeli policy, does nothing unless you can also replace the millions and millions of AIPAC campaign contributions.
A fair assessment, nonetheless it is still more effective than communicating displeasure to the wrong audience. Not much more effective, but definitively so.
This is true. I used it as an answer to fundraising calls and texts. :) "No, as long as you're taking AIPAC dollars, you don't need mine."
Direct communication to people associated with DNC strategy, a noble and effective action.