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
They can't do anything as the minority, and as the majority they need 60 Senate votes to do anything more meaningful than budget reconciliation. Our country is designed to make change difficult, as the Senate filibuster proves. We would need 50 Senate votes to change that, and Democrats fell barely short in 2020. The most change they've been able to do is with Obamacare when they had a 60 seat majority for 2 months. Those 2 months are the only time in recent history Democrats have had a commanding majority, but even then they were still beholden to centrists like Lieberman to maintain the 60 count.
There's a vicious cycle in American politics. Democrats will win the majority when Republicans massively fuck up. They'll pass legislation that can't be more progressive unless we have more senators. Voters will be unhappy the legislation isn't better, staying home and leading Republicans to win. Republicans see their extremism as vindicated and are emboldened. We've seen this happen twice already. First with the Tea Party in 2010, second with Trumpism in 2016. When Republicans win, they drive us right.
Both parties are shaped more by their wins than their losses. Romney in '12 and Trump in '16 show this really well. If we want to push the party and the country to left, we have no choice but to continue voting.
And won't do what they campaigned on as the majority.
Democrats will always fall barely short. They will always stand in their own way. There are always enough manchins.
So goes the excuse, yes. No matter how great the majority, centrists always find enough no votes.
This is such a bullshit take it kind of pisses me off. Let me explain.
First, the only reason democrats have as much trouble in federal elections is all the freaking time is because they do Jack shit to support local campaigns. Which, leads to republicans gerrymandering the fuck out of districts.
Also, leads to a dire lack of new and up-coming canidates to source from… leading to the same lackluster “always been around” canidates that are unappealing.
But democrats, as a voting block, are not actually minorities. But they struggle getting the vote out precisely because a) there’s little support for local campaigns and b) the federal canidates are… rather underwhelming.
There’s exceptions who’ve managed to get there in spite of the DNC/national leadership.
But they’d never get the presidential nomination because actual progressives scare the fuck out of their corpo overlords.
Be fair. They support centrists when they have progressive primary challengers.
you're right. And of course the centrist looses because "I'm not that or that" is a really bad platform to be on.
I appreciate your response nonetheless and that you were civil towards me even if you disliked my opinion. Genuinely, thank you for that.
I do think you touch on some good points about local candidates and support. I think things are better now, but I do distinctly recall that it was lacking for a good part of 2008 - Present.
When it comes to federal candidates, I honestly think it's a mix -- yes, the candidates could stand to be better and a lot more appealing. I don't think it's a mistake that the more charismatic and friendly Democrat candidates have done well. I think too though that voter responsibility is a consideration. Even if the candidates are less than stellar, it's important to go vote, because the less stellar Democrat is still better than the best Republican. I think the best way to look at it is that both ends need to be responsible -- there need to be candidates that are genuine and spirited in some regard. And blue voters need to vote for them even if there's room for improvement.
There's never going to be a perfect candidate -- but that doesn't mean we can't have a good candidate. I didn't quite appreciate that second part until what you said. I don't think it changes my view about voting for Biden, but it does help me understand the consternation about it more. I can see what you mean by being tired of all the voting, just for things to be where they are. It can be a two pronged effort to both inspire voters with a good candidate and encourage voters to show up. I think the idea of a shared responsibility makes the whole nomination process and campaigning feel more like a partnership with the voter, which it should feel like.
I don't know about a progressive candidate never getting the nomination either -- I don't think any barriers they could put up would stop a really good candidate. Their strength is overstated, I think. Maybe I'm just refusing to accept a pessimistic reality, but if we don't fight like we have a chance, we aren't going to have a chance. Corpo overlords are only invulnerable if we think they are.
This is a tangent, but I saw it happen before, when I worked for a petrochemical company. Consumer goods manufacturers were pledging to stop using single use plastics because customers were demanding them to be more sustainable. It would've been devastating to my company's revenue if that happened, so corporate started looking at how to reliably recycle plastics and reuse them all the way on the chemical feedstock level. Collective bargaining is incredibly powerful.
I hope everyone actually moves away from single use plastics. Instead of making pledges they have no intention of honoring and "looking into" things they'll never actually do.
My understanding is that the work is being seriously pursued -- as in actual dollars have been spent and there's equipment currently proving out the tech. It's a far cry from all the other greenwashing the company does and did. There's enough going on that I think it's legit, especially since this was an industry wide effort.
To clarify, their plan is to turn "single use plastics" into just "plastics" by chemically reprocessing the waste from single use plastics. You wouldn't be melting the plastic and then reblowing it - you'd be melting it and reacting it several times first.
I don't expect you to believe me a priori, I would certainly have my doubts if I hadn't been in the department. I hope it pans out because it wouldn't just cut down on plastic waste. There would be value in collecting the waste all over the oceans, and if there's one thing you can rely on, it'll be some venture capitalist starting a company to harvest all of that.
Until there's results, there's no reason to believe anything they say. It's just vapor to stop companies from abandoning single use plastics.
That's fair. There's always a chance they kill it within the next few years too.