this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
614 points (98.7% liked)

politics

19141 readers
3254 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Ohio voters just took firm positions on abortion and reproductive rights and adult-use recreational marijuana Tuesday, but gerrymandered Ohio lawmakers are already planning to flout, ignore, challenge, and abuse the voters’ wishes. This is what gerrymandering brings. This is why it’s a fundamental poison in the lifeblood of our republic.

Mere hours after Ohio voters passed the Issue 1 reproductive rights amendment with 56.62%, according to unofficial results, and the Issue 2 recreational marijuana law with 57% (both getting nearly 2.2 million votes), Ohio Republican legislative leaders signaled they would not respect the will of the people.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Salamendacious 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Protesting without voting is just taking a loud walk. It's easy for politicians to ignore you if you don't ever show up at the polls. That would be like a bunch of people protesting outside a McDonald's because the food is unhealthy and then eating at that McDonald's for their lunch break. Definitely protest but back that protesting up with voting.

[–] angrystego 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, I never meant protesting without voting. In this case people DID vote. But their decision is being ignored. I don't think the reasonable thing to do in such case is to wait peacefully for another election!

[–] Salamendacious 3 points 1 year ago

I must have misunderstood. I apologize

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Protesting without voting is just taking a loud walk.

My dawg WE DID VOTE. I VOTED. I VOTED FOR BOTH OF THE ISSUES IN THIS POST AND THE PARTY IN POWER IS STILL SAYING FUCK YOU.

Sorry for the all caps but like, c'mon guy, do you think people aren't voting? We fucking voted! We did it! We did the thing people have always told us to do and the Republicans are still getting their way! Just voting isn't cutting it anymore! Stop telling people just to vote, and stop belitting other valid forms that the voting populace can use to enact change!

[–] Salamendacious 2 points 1 year ago

People vote once and a while. In the 2020 presidential election voter turn out spiked. The 2022 midterm though? 46%

You want to protest? Go for it.

You want to scream in all caps? Go for it

You want to say "fuck the fascists" or talk about what you'll do to them? Go for it

Do whatever you want. As long as one of the things you do is vote.

[–] Viking_Hippie 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's easy for politicians to ignore you if you don't ever show up at the polls.

It's much easier if you ONLY show the at the polls and only for them no matter what.

[–] Salamendacious -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That's why you have to vote in the primary. AOC should have taught you that. Also, did you happen to see the last sentence in that previous comment?

[–] Viking_Hippie 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's why you have to vote in the primary

The primary controlled by the very party actively fighting progressives. The party that argued in court that selecting the candidate themselves is within their rights? Yeah, that's a fair contest for sure 🙄

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

You're so incredibly pessimistic. Then how did Ocasio-Cortez beat Crowley in 2018? He had been in Congress for twenty years and was the chair of the House Democratic Caucus! If "the party" controlled the primary why would they "let" her win? The only way things can ever get better is by voting.

[–] Viking_Hippie 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then how did Ocasio-Cortez beat Crowley

A rare and momentous triumph. That someone exceptional like AOC with an exceptional grassroots organisation behind her can do it once doesn't mean that it's easy or even, in most cases, possible for others.

The only way things can ever get better is by voting.

Odd thing to keep repeating on a post about people betrayed by the very people you advocate voting for as "the only way" 🙄

[–] Salamendacious 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wait first it was:

The primary controlled by the very party actively fighting progressives.

Then it became:

A rare and momentous triumph.

Does "the party" determine the primary or do the voters? It's one or the other.

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

It was a rare and momentous triumph for AOC to win a primary that was controlled by the very people actively fighting progressives.

Which part don't you understand?

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

If the party controlled the primary then Crowley would have won. I don't like arguments where everything is X but if Y happens that just proves X. I see it as flawed logic.

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

You're conflating the impossible and the improbable/exceptional.

You're acting like either there's no control from the party or there's total control. It's the kind of flawed logic called a false dichotomy.

Think of it like this: if one runner is chained to a post and the other is unhindered, the first runner has no chance. That's what it's like if the Democratic Party has TOTAL control of the contest.

Imagine, on the other hand, one runner has weights on her wrists and ankles totalling 4 pounds and the other is unencumbered. While it's not impossible for a MUCH better runner to win, it's not a fair competition and only exceptional runners will overcome the unequal treatment and still win.

The latter example is how Democratic Party primaries are. Progressive candidates are wearing the weights, even incumbents.

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

My whole argument has been that more people should vote. That more people should engage politically. Meaning they educate themselves and they vote in every election they can. Do you sincerely think that if voter participation rose from 2022's 46% to 60 or 70% that we would have better politicians or worse politicians? I think we'd have better people running for office and being elected to office. That's the bottom line of my argument.

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

And the bottom line of MY argument is that, while we should definitely vote, voting alone doesn't fix the broken system that lead to the perpetual lesser evil choices in most general elections.

[–] Salamendacious 0 points 1 year ago

Im glad we agree that we should definitely vote.