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
There's a bunch of different notions about "the end of politics," but mostly I've seen it refer to the fact that the economic system in the US is basically not up for debate at this point. The issues that are up for debate now do not threaten the basic structure of the political economy, or the economic arrangements of people in this system.
I disagree somewhat about the "both sides" criticism of the media here. This "both sides" approach isn't because the media "hasn't figured out" how to move beyond conventional 90s politics, it's because the media subsists on it's ability to exploit the viewer's attention and emotions. There's plenty of writing and analysis of "real" politics, but the biggest news networks aren't running that as top stories because it doesn't offer the engagement of partisan culture war debates.
As a non USAmerican, this seems only partly true. The media does indeed benefit from the partisanship hype, but it is also (often) accurately reporting politicking made to exploit the same emotional response.
For example, there is little good statesmanship in the North Carolina Republicans founding their own extrajudicial secret police, but it triggers a lot of emotional response even before them actually using it as a fascist tool.
This isn't blown out of proportion by the media, it is an actual thing that the party officially proposed, and it is outright disregarding both rule of law and democratic principles. Even if they have no hope of enacting it, the proposal is made to evoke emotions and sow chaos.
The French would have striked until these people resigned.
Because the French have social services and resources that allow them to do this without facing bankruptcy, homelessness and starvation.
True, but how did they get those?
By collective action.
(and a lot of blood)
One wonders if we are going to keep working through bankruptcy, homelessness, and starvation.
Because the question is going to come up.
Its gonna take utility and food collapse for that to happen.
Up to 50% of homeless people in the states work full or part time.
The question has been answered.
https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insight/research-summary/learning-about-homelessness-using-linked-survey-and-administrative-data/
Let's go back even farther in French history and ask how they would handle this!
To be fair, the USAmericans also have a few notable occasions of standing up against oppressive rulers.
So did you only read the opening paragraph of the French Revolution, or are you super cool with thousands of innocent people dying for no reason?
Lmao doomers are hilarious
They don't see it that way. It's like how the Confederates broke away after Lincoln's election even though Lincoln promised he wasn't going to abolish slavery. It doesn't matter that we aren't going to change the economic system, the fact that they know we don't fully support it is the same as trying to replace it.
Well yeah, because we have the best one in human history.