this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
368 points (95.3% liked)

politics

19239 readers
2240 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
 

The move would extend her 36-year House career and continue to freeze her would-be California successors in a long-standing holding pattern.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] littlewonder 56 points 1 year ago (2 children)

VOTE IN THE PRIMARIES Such a small amount of people decide who ends up on the ballot. And an overwhelming majority of incumbents get reelected due to primaries.

Please please please vote! Even if you like the person in the lead, consider voting for someone who might not win but will send a message to the party that their policies need to be folded into the party platform, etc.

[–] TokenBoomer 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Voting can’t fix this, it’s systemic. The Democratic Party will not allow challengers source to their flow of money. A mass movement is required to clip their wings.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What you just said though contradicts itself. At the end of the day voting en masse for reform is "a mass movement". Things won't change when these politicians feel comfortable. Voting against them and being vocal about this as an issue will scare them. Voting absolutely works and all this rhetoric around "voting can't fix this" is exactly how we end up with this bullshit. Boomers learned decades ago how effective voting can be at changing everything and they have consistently turned out and shaped society around their needs as a result. If young people could get this through their heads then shit would actually change. Especially since millennials and gen z now make up the majority of the voting age population in the US.

[–] jeffw 13 points 1 year ago

People who say “just don’t vote” or advocate abstaining from elections as a method to end the Democrats are entitled and come from a place of privilege.

[–] TokenBoomer -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

History says otherwise. I admire the idealism, and wish you were right. But the capitalist will go fascist before they allow a threat to their power. Only a rev0luti0n will work.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

US history proves otherwise. Real change has been made in the labor sector without "revolution". And on that front I will even concede that it took more than just voting to change labor laws. It took a concerted effort against the capitalist class itself with strikes and other resistance efforts. But it worked and things changed and it didn't require overthrowing the government and destabilizing everything.

But voting would absolutely work too. At the end of the day, the people in charge are where they are because they were voted into their positions. Wealthy elites do not make up the majority of America. An angry populace would have the power to capsize their machine. "Voting doesn't matter" as a position will only lose you ground. The "revolution" you speak of is pointless if you don't have the majority of politically involved people behind you. At that point it's not a "revolution". It's an "unpopular coup". We see in the way people vote that the problem is that the voting populace has not been convinced by the stances of the left. Before any revolution would be an ethically sound idea, we should be seeing numbers that suggest that the majority of people are on board with radical change. And by the time that happens, those people would have the power to effect that change through voting. If the wealthy elites used underhanded tactics to suppress voting when the majority is clearly in favor of a certain change, then and only then does revolution become the ethical imperative.

In summary, don't bother suggesting revolution if the majority of people aren't behind you on it. Instead focus that energy on convincing people that radical change is necessary. Use the system to your advantage. Only when that fails through corrupt means does revolution become necessary.

The right wing understood this so much 3-4 decades ago and they have reaped the benefits of that understanding so thoroughly that people on the left have been running around like chickens with their heads cut off, calling for things like revolution. No, the playbook is simple. Use every advantage you can within the system. Fight for the SCOTUS and don't be afraid to politicize it in opposition to the right wing fascists. Find wedge issues that you can call the other side on. Take control of the narrative. Be aware of your demographics and create a unifying message that brings the disparate groups together.

[–] TokenBoomer 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think I need to clarify. Only the threat of revolution can effect change. If your only recourse is reform. The system and structures of institutions will adapt to thwart them. If reforms worked, revolutions would never happen. Rosa Luxembourg found this out a century ago.

[–] givesomefucks 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Of course the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you--if you don't play, you can't win.

-Robert Heinlein

The only option is to beat them at their own game. There's no reason not to try.

[–] TokenBoomer 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He also said:

“Democracy can survive anything except Democrats” ~ Robert A. Heinlein

[–] givesomefucks 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He said lots of stuff.

He went from a staunchly conservative military officer to being one of the biggest opponents of the military industrial system and fascism and wrote what was known at the height of the hippie movement as "the hippie bible".

Dudes thinking evolved like neoliberals pretend Biden's have...

[–] TokenBoomer 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] givesomefucks 1 points 1 year ago

Stranger in a Strange Land

It's a fucking trip and is basically about while an older person may not understand progress, that's no reason to stand in the way.

Now keep in mind tho, this shit was written over 60 years ago. Pelosi was in her early 20s, so even really progressive things at the time seem a little outdated.

But it's pretty much one of the most influential pieces of Science Fiction

[–] ComradePorkRoll -1 points 1 year ago

No, stop playing the game. The world is on fucking fire and we're playing games. We need to take a material approach to this whole thing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

This is what irritates me when people don't get it. Constantly seeing shit about Feinstein like "CaLiFoRniAnS VoTeD foR hER!" But when it comes to national elections, all of a sudden everyone is capable of seeing how imbalanced those are, because if they didn't they would have to hold themselves responsible for 2016 by their own logic.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

There won't be a single dollar given to anyone by the dnc to anyone but her. The obstruction power of the controlling party apparatus will get focused like a laser on any opponent who has any chance at all. You're only a Democrat if the money people say you are, and you're only their choice if you can help the oligarchy keep their money.

She'll be the only person with any chance to get on the ticket until she dies.