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
That's how first past the post voting works. It sucks, but until that changes it's what we got.
Yeah, except for the fact where even THREATENING to do anything but meekly go along with it gets you ridicule if not outright hostility, no matter how noble the goal.
If you truly think it sucks, why are you vehemently defending it against viewpoints closer to your own than those of the out of touch establishment?
Because we tried that and got Trump. That's the risk here.
More Hillary primary voters didnt for for Obama in his general then there were Bernie primary voters that didn't vote for Hillary in the general. So I don't think saying 'we tried that and got Trump' is truthful at all.
Sticking to the two party system will not stop the next fascist, it can only delay them. Look at the past 30 years of presidents, flip flop back and forth some 4 years some 8 but a new face meant it was the other parties turn.
At some point we need to do something different and if you wanna wait for the better smarter fascist that's learns from Trump's mistakes, you're going to have a really bad time.
No shit we need to move away from the system we have. Literally no one here is saying otherwise.
The problem is you're not proposing a solution, you're just saying we should piss on a sign post and call it effective action. It does nothing to help, and actively helps those making things worse.
You want change? Look for something meaningful to do instead of whining that people are rightfully criticizing you for your ineffective actions.
The larger the share of votes third party candidates get the more funding they get from the government to help run candidates that arent already rich or connected or party officials, as well as increasing the incentive for main parties to adopt RCV or IRV to try and get shares those votes. Because as it stands neither party cares enough about third party voters to really do much to court them outside of enforcing two party rule. You're upset that it may lose one or two elections along the way, but don't act like theres no strategy involved in growing the number of third party voters, super disingenuous.
No matter what you think of my plan, it's more thought out than your plan for RCV which im dying to hear.
The problem is that your "couple elections here and there" have massive implications nationwide, while the "progress" it promises is little more than a trickle at best.
You want to take a couple steps forward toward your own goal? Do it! But don't espouse everyone else take a massive leap backwards so you can have your token change.
I think third parties are a good idea... at a state and local level. Where they actual have a chance. But advocating for them on a national level is foolhardy at best, and downright regressive at worst.
Well if you want to slow walk further into the electoral conditions that give rise to fascism, do it! but Don't espouse that everyone else has to follow you folly and agree with your absurd notion of changing things by patiently waiting for the people who will always have your vote to do something they're not already doing.
The so called "Most progressive president of all time" is a Rail Strike Breaker, which subsequently resulted in the Ohio spill among others, and a financier of far right genocide. If you can't respect someone to whom literal genocide is their single issue vote then I have little faith in your understanding of US politics and voter demographics. "Trump COULD be worse" isn't gonna win Biden any votes with them, because only a fool would vote for a genocide under the logic that the other guy may also do a genocide.
You're slow walk into American Fascism is no more noble than someone trying to do something actually different in hopes of different results. Still waiting on that plan of yours.
We have proposed the solution and you’re unwilling to try, and this keeping millions of us trapped in the abusive relationship you’re rather happy to be in. BuT bEInG bEaTeN iS sO mUcH bEtTeR tHaN bEiNg StRaNgLeD!
No, you tried going along with the neoliberal way of doing things and everything went so shitty for regular people that a lot of those who were already most vulnerable to demagoguery were radicalised to the point of Trump.
Last time I acted on a threat like this, we got Bush Jr. I absolutely did not want to see Tipper Fucking Gore in the White House again, so I voted Green Party. Turns out, me and a bunch of other people doing the same thing almost certainly resulted in the resulting 20 years of constant war, and the deaths of countless innocent civilian non-combatants. I really do believe that blood is on my hands.
Every potential US president with any real chance of winning - all of them - will support Israel. Taking voting action that will lead to a guy who will not only continue to support Israel, but will fan the fires of anti-Islamic rhetoric, and is also a right-wing white supremicist who openly hates poor people... that's the definition of "cutting off your nose to spite your face."
They're angry. I*m angry. My representatives know I think our support of Israel in this genocide is unconscionable. Threatening to not vote for the lesser of two evils is an understandable statement of frustration, but until there's a credible alternative candidate who says they'd cut military support for Israel... well, it's just punching a brick wall.
puts on mechanic outfit that's your problem right there! You've got your intended effect meter on backwards. puts it back to "politician acts on threat from constituents"
Blaming yourself for what others do is a classic sign of being in a toxic relationship. You didn't invent the undemocratuc Electoral College, without which Dubya would never have been president and none of his war crimes were suggested by you.
Yeah, as long as people like you reinforce the toxic status quo by doing their best to vehemently oppose every attempt to hold them accountable.
And your representative also knows that they can count on you and others to run interference every time someone tries to effect meaningful change.
You would have told Martin Luther King to cut it out with the "brick wall punching" for sure.
One tiny correction: SCOTUS appointed W.
https://www.history.com/news/2000-election-bush-gore-votes-supreme-court
I know, but they wouldn't have gotten the opportunity to do so if not for the EC.