this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2025
340 points (87.3% liked)
politics
25300 readers
2921 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Do I like seeing him fuck with Trump? Yes.
Is he a dirty neo liberal? Yes.
Would I support him in a primary for President in 2028? Probably not. I sure hope someone better shows up.
Would I support him if he won the Democratic primary? Yes. Assuming we get elections. Assuming the DNC hasn't fully fractured and a third party candidate cannot reasonably win.
Would he fix our country? No. See item 2.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk. Its not hard, people.
Good take. Maybe the Kamala protest abstainers will have a fresh enough dose of Trumpism to remember that halfway-kind-of-decent-sometimes is better than literally-the-worst-possible-decision-at-all-times. I hope we still have elections. I hope we are not stuck with Newsom as the only choice. But if we are, he IS the only choice, and even though he's not nearly a progressive, he is far closer to it than whatever the GOP rolls out with in 3 years (whether it is Trump again, Trump Jr., Vance, or a new piece of shit far right authoritarian). We need to make sure he wins, and that means getting your asses to the booth. All of us. Even you.
Goddam. You guys sure love hoping someone else learns lessons. You ever hope democrats learn a little something?
I very clearly said that I hope we are not stuck with him. Hoping that Dems get their shit together and act right or at least get out of the waybof those who do is a constant state for me.
The democrats weren’t the ones that stayed home during the most important election of their lives. Just saying…
No, they're the ones who failed to win that election. They're the ones who willfully did everything they could to avoid taking principled positions and connecting with voters. Will they do it again? You betcha. Go ahead and be mad at millions of people, or demand a bit more from the couple of hundred of your "leaders" whose entire job it is to win elections.
Wish I had your faith in American voters.
I'm not sure how to take your comment in this context. Do you have more faith in the dem party to run popular and successful campaigns? Whether you have faith in the voters or not, you still need to get them to vote for you.
So, you think that if the Dems run a candidate with principled stances and popular positions that people would support them.
I have no such faith in the American voter. They can't tell the difference between principles and propaganda, and they have no idea what's good for them.
Say you're right. What do you do with that information if you're running a campaign? Those are the circumstances. You can't change them, but you want to win.
For me, I understand why you feel that way, but I'm not really in agreement. I think your average voter knows good and well that politicians are generally full of shit. Unfortunately, they feel trapped by the system. This makes them either choose "the lesser evil" or give up entirely. Both of those reactions are understandable given the context. This dynamic has not improved the context.
They feel trapped by the system because they are trapped by the system. Even the politicians are trapped by the system. Voters know which ones are full of shit because the answer is literally all of them.
AOC has gotten pushback recently for her vote for weapons to Israel. I don't think she forgot where she came from in 8 years, I think she works in a system that is corrosive, where you are punished for pushing back and rewarded for conformity in ways that even the strongest principles cannot resist.
The voters do not care and are not privy to the pressures and compromises the pols are making. I don't think the system is fixable in any foreseeable timeframe. And for that reason, I am content to throw my vote to the least bad candidate. I'll keep doing that in primaries and general elections until we don't get to vote anymore. Hopefully, it never gets that far.
Sure, we're all doing what we think is best. We are all worn down by the system, and by our daily struggles. Politics should be helping us. If it's not helping, people lose interest.
Boy howdy! I sure learned my lesson! And I’ll bet you must be happy as the day is long that the millions of Americans hurt by the questionable decision to allow good to be the enemy of perfect have also learned that lesson right alongside the rest of us.
Thank you so much for the tough love you brought down on us all. I’m sure we’re all going to be so much better from it once we’re done morning our losses and are once again allowed to be seen in public.
Aw shucks pardner, you've convinced me to vote against my conscience! Adding my vote will surely put us over the top. What's that? We need to convince millions more? Well, okay, sure seems like it might be easier to scare a few politicians into doing what's right, but I'm down to hear your plan. The plan is to gaslight and browbeat people who recognize the moral bankruptcy in the Democratic party until they just vote for them anyway? Can I at least pretend that genocidal dementia patients like Joe Biden are actually "the most progressive president in history"? I can? Damn, I'm really understanding the attraction now!
Cool story! I hope for your sake, history repeats itself. And if it helps, from what I understand, the suffering of others is a lot more tolerable when you lack the empathy it takes to think of anyone but yourself.
Good luck! And welcome to my block list.
2 comments in and we're already blocking.
Soy Right and snowflakes up and down, lmfao
I block wastes of my time. Simple as.
I’ve no problem debating with people that have both the intelligence and the maturity to discuss a topic without resorting to manipulating my point into shit I’m not saying, or saying moronic things like “Genocide Joe.”
Basically, I’m just not about entertaining stupid attempts at manufacturing an argument. I don’t have the time for it, and those types love to waste time.
I also have noticed that literally 0 of the "we can't vote for Democrats, stop voting for them, that is the way to progress" strategists have anything to say about candidates to support before the primary, protest organizations to join in the meantime, anything generally productive that is outside of the general election they're so gung-ho about giving their input to.
Right now would be the time to be looking around for good midterm or primary candidates who aren't corporate whores, talking up third parties or reforms that would make third parties viable, all that kind of stuff. Nope. Just "let the Republicans win" in the general election, and then, crickets. And now occasionally popping up to shit on Gavin Newsom when he's tangling with Trump, like a romantic partner who is grabbing on your arm and screaming "stop it!" while you're in the middle of a fistfight. Just fuckin' helping, the lot of them, from morning till night.
You mean the same person that refused to say "Genocide is bad, and we shouldn't support it"? The same person who proudly stood behind Biden when was bombing innocent people? The same person who put people in prison for marijuana, then laughed about it when talking about smoking herself? The same person who campaigned with the Cheneys?
I think your definition of "halfway-kind-of-decent-sometimes" might be different than mine. All we're looking for is someone who isn't a monster, and she couldn't even pull that off.
This is why the Democrats keep losing, and have such a low approval rating: They keep normalizing monsters, and can't figure out why the voters don't like that.
I mean someone who will not literally destroy our democracy to remain in power. The bare minimum.
You mean the people from the DNC who pretty openly refuse to have fair elections? The same party that has shit on civil rights for decades? How is that not destroying our Democracy?
You're right. Better to just actively or indirectly (through inaction) support the party that is currently actively revoking civil rights on a national scale, and planning to rig/end elections to stay in power indefinitely. That will fix the broken system.
That's what gets me about this whole thing. There's plenty of core of truth to the idea that the Democrats are very bad, although yes the alternative currently is infinitely worse. There are thousands of things that any given person could do to try to fix that or work for better things in American politics. Refusing to elect Democrats anymore, no matter what, is 0 of them, and will make things quite a lot worse.
It's like punishing your child for bad grades by refusing to feed them anymore. One, it doesn't address the problem, two, it will make even the thing you say you are upset about and trying to fix, infinitely worse.
Functionally, things are the way they are because the people that want to change things for the better do not make up the majority of people yet. Plenty of the boomers are still happy with the status quo since most of it doesn’t directly impact them. Gen X even was more right leaning than the boomers in 2024.
Just looking at the number of people that actually vote, neo-liberal boomers and Gen Xers will still be dictating policy for another decade at the least. If they aren’t progressive, most of the policy getting passed will not be either.
This isn’t even taking into account the way that land has more power than people in the US either. Sparsely populated red states hold just as much power in the Senate as New York or California. The House is currently capped on the number of Representatives as well, meaning that those small red states are over represented and larger blue and purple states are underrepresented.
The best shot at changing anything before another decade passes is by starting locally to each of us. We can try to do what New York City did and implement an alternative voting system in our own cities, that will help immensely to get more people like Mamdani in office. If we garner enough support at the city and local levels, we might even be able to be like Maine or Alaska and get an alternative voting system in place at the state level.
Alternative voting systems are pretty much the only real way third parties will have a chance to get off the ground and have a seat at the table on a national level. The main reason for that is because it helps mitigate the spoiler effect; where your preferred candidate and the safe candidate knock each other out allowing your least preferred candidate to win elections.
Want to help? Get the word out about alternative voting systems and organizations that promote them. Get involved locally.
Underrepresented Fediverse Social Media Accounts:
Involvement Links:
Who said to do that? I certainly didn't. I push for parties that and actions that are actually trying to do something against the current party. The Democrats are the ones that have spent their time propping up and actively supporting the current party.
You started this conversation by advocating for not voting for Newsom if he is the only candidate with a chance against the GOP. If your "other parties" have fractional support of the democrats come general election day, they're not viable alternatives and your vote for them is functionally identical to not voting at all.
By all means, I 100% support advocacy for change, for reform, for new people and ideas in power. But we also have a shitty voting system that means you usually need to pick the least of two evils come election day. And you need to be practical and make peace with that. I wish we had something like Approval voting where there was no push to a two party split and everyone could vote for every candidate or party they like, and I would support voting reform in that direction all day every day, but that is not what we have now.
And I've seen what happens when Democrats have power. They support the Republicans, build out the systems that the Republicans want, fight against meaningful change for the working-class, and screw over their voters. Functionally, they are worse than doing nothing at all. Why should I support them when they fight against the things that I want?
3rd parties have been fairly innefective at a national level, yes, but so have the Democrats.
That's simply not true. Neither about how they are universally supporting Republicans and fucking people over as a whole, nor that doing nothing is better. They are individuals, not a monolith, and the party is built from those individuals, not a static set of policies, principles and practices. It can be changed if you do something about it. And doing nothing does not acheive that. Best case scenario, doing nothing results in the same outcome, worst case it causes the worst outcome. Doing nothing is a cop out that makes you feel like you took some moral high ground while ultimately either not mattering at all or playing into the hands of the people who would do everything they can against your ideals. If you want to effect change, particularly for the democratic party, support and advocate for a new candidate with better ideals and resolve (or even run yourself), then primary out the useless incumbents. Far easier to do that then to suddenly see mass third party support giving them power to make change.
They are a party of sociopathic individuals who spend more time fighting against their voters than they do fighting for them.
Yes, they can change, and the fastest way to get them to change, is to make them realize that they don't have my support until they start fighting for what I want. But they keep fighting against what I want, and are pretty open that they don't really care.
If you want to try to reform them, go ahead. I have no problems with that, but I also have no faith that you will succeed. I think you'll have just as much luck getting the Republicans to change as you will the Democrats.
In the meantime, I've long abandoned them, in favor of parties that are actually doing something for their voters.
The message they are getting is that the majority of active voters are voting for the GOP. They are not competing for non-voters or people that uselessly vote for third parties without a chance, they are competing for voters. If you are incentivizing them to change in any way, you are incentivizing them to move right and court more moderate republican voters. Your strategy is inherently self-defeating.
Yes, they are competing for GOP voters, rather than trying to pull in leftists. When leftists are on the ballot, they get a ton of votes, but the Democrats spend their time shooting down leftist candidates, because they don't want to actually change. They have a choice: Pick up the voters that aren't voting for one of the big-two parties, or pull in the right-wing voters. Which has been more productive in the past few elections?
Hint: It's been the former.
Right, we dont disagree about that. And that is maddening as hell. But, again, the way to fix that is by voting out the incumbents, the same old lifetime career men that just want to maintain their positions rather than to seek change. Refusing to vote for the entire party at all because of them just removes your voice, one of the more critical reformist voices, from the conversation, from the vote that ultimately matters.
Again, we agree. The old guard are morons who are trying hold onto their old school party tooth and nail and are dragging it down. I want to take the party back from the old codgers and give them the boot. I want new voices, young voices, pissed off voices, and I get that by voting for them. I get that by making sure that the party itself isn't incentivized to move farther right. I get that by participating in the debate and through advocacy. Not by abandoning them wholecloth because the DNC is corrupt, so my voice doesnt matter anymore. We have to change it from within.
I do wish that other parties were viable on a national scale. I do. But they are nowhere near it. By all means, vote them into office when it is between them and a dem. By all means vote your conscience when the stakes are low or the choice is safer. But if a right wing nut job is the likely outcome of a split vote, especially on a national scale, please for the love of god, dont split the vote.
I think our disagreement boils down to this: You think there's a higher likelyhood that the Democratic ledership changes their ways, than there is that a third-party gains power.
I'm in direct opposition. I think there's a higher chance that a third-party gains power, than there is that the Democrats start fighting for what I want.
Prove me wrong. I'd love to not be "politically homeless", and have one of the big-two fight for what I want. But the Democrats have been very clear that they'd rather lose, than fight for what I want.
Ehh, not exactly. You think there is a higher likelihood than I do that third-party gains power spontaneously without any indication that they are catching up to, much less overtaking either of the two major parties. When the winds of progress start making themselves apparent and a new legitimate challenger enters the stage, I will, of course, seriously consider them. Until such time though, my vote will go where is has a chance to matter in the current election.
I also acknowledge, though, that the Dems are doing very little for me and other progressive currently, nor even for your typical liberal. Short of not actively trying to dismantle the US government and our democracy, they are not exactly a shining light in the darkness that is our current situation. But while they are the only left-of-Fascism party with any chance in the running, I will continue to do what I can to correct their direction from a position that matter to them, as one of their voters. At the very least, if nothing else, they MIGHT be concerned about losing me if they go too far too fast to the right. But if I already dont vote for them and they arent moving in a way that is likely to reabsorb my vote, they can just forget about me. Can't boycott something you already dont buy.
Why would they think this? You've openly stated that you will vote for them no matter what. They don't need to care about you, because you've already given up the negotiation.
Imagine you went to your boss and said: "Hey, no matter the outcome of this conversation, I'm gonna keep working here until the day I die. I will support you no matter what. Now, lets talk about giving me a raise."
Do you think you are gonna get that raise?
No, I said I will vote for them while they are the lesser of two evils and while no one else stands a chance. If they shoot to the right, a d become functionally indistinguishable from the GOP, or if a viable and better alternative presents itself, I'm gone.
You are saying the same thing as I am, with more words.
Hard disagree. The voters very clearly do like monsters.
Some do, sure. But the two major parties have only put monsters on the ballot for the past few decades, so we don't really know how many would pick a non-monster given the chance.
Parties didn't put those politicians on the ballot, voters did. The Democratic party got rid of smoke filled rooms and contested conventions in the 1970's and the Republican party followed suit in the 1980's.
If you are disatisfied with the pols on offer, you have only to look to your neighbors.
The voters are often just as behind at times as the politicians they put into office. The lion’s share of the voters are neo-liberal Boomers and Gen Xers, of which the Gen Xers are more conservative than the boomers as of 2024.
We’re not going to look much different for ant least another decade unless suddenly a ton of Millennials and Zoomers show up to vote in record breaking numbers.
Changing our voting systems locally and on the state level is the best chance we have at making a difference within the next 10 years, imo. It opens up access for third parties to grow and it lets progressive have a better chance of squeaking out wins against the neo-liberal incumbents.
lol, you mean the same DNC that said "...the DNC charter’s promise of ‘impartiality and evenhandedness’ as a mere political promise—political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts." ?
The same party that openly rigged the past two elections for the candidates that they wanted?
I desperately wish it was this straightforward to the majority of people who shape our future in this country.
I am firmly convinced that most of our population doesn't have internal language, no internal tools for abstracting ideas into mental words for comparison and evaluation, and just spout rhetoric by instinct. Literally, this is why everyone seems so stupid... they've changed the way their minds work by scrolling all day, every day, and not socializing and not changing habits.
Nuance is something that you can only arrive at if you have this mental narrative tool that lets you see multiple angles of an issue.
This means that our future of politics is going to be entirely grifters riding on this fact and creating over-the-top caricatures and WWE theater style politics. And people will eat it up because everyone just wants something to be all-in for or all-against so they can fight with the opposing fans. We're so fucking cooked.
Yeah it can’t be that people are frustrated about living in a country where they’re in a permanent minority and will never be happy with their government.
This is the way.