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
AOC is my top choice, but I know everybody has a million reasons why America wouldn't elect her as president.
But, I had this thought the other day, and I know this is nobody's dream team, but possibly the odd couple situation that just might work. Am I crazy for thinking a Pritzker-AOC ticket might actually have a decent chance?
The Pritzkers are literally the billionaire family of the Hyatt hotel chain fortune. They are, if anything, one part of the problem with the democratic establishment. If you want there to be zero change in society when it comes to taxing the wealthy to create social safety nets, JB is your guy.
Realistically there is zero chance that an actual progressive and a Pritzker could ever function on one ticket. Thats like Bernie running with Bezos, it makes no sense
Pritzker is a guy who comes from money but actually does try and govern for the people. I live in Illinois and he did a bang up job for COVID, is actively doing things to try and fight/resist ICE and shows up in person to talk to the people, has signed vaccination protections to law, he helped to get stalled projects (like road repairs) going, he’s helped with education funding and requiring homeschooling to have more standards, and more.
Yeah, he’s not perfect but he’s at least one who fucking fights for the people and is trying to find ways to make things better for us in Illinois. I truly believe he would do the same on a national level.
Nobody hates Sociopathic Oligarchs more than I do, but there have been cases of ultra-wealthy people being sympathetic to the people.
The best example is Franklin Roosevelt. By my general way of thinking, I never would have supported him based on his wealth alone. And yet he went in to do more for working people than any 10 presidents combined.
So while my general attitude is to NEVER support a billionaire for office, I am prepared to make exceptions for the right candidate, but they have a very high bar to clear to get my support.
Pritzker is looking like a possibility, but I'm still deciding. I'd love AOC, but she's problematic at this stage. I can't stand establishment Dems like Newsome. But I will vote for anyone who vows to purge MAGA from our government and our society, reconfigure our government to remove MAGA advantages, and then follows through.
We have to deal decisively with MAGA before we can do any thing else. We can deal with progressive policies after that.
Definitely among the top five people that should be president. AOC is my first pick, but I would be alright with Pritzker too. Newsom is vaguely acceptable, in the sense that he at least has the ability to lead and isn't a complete idiot. I guess he would at #10.
I never said he is a bad governor or even a bad politician. I said it is antithetical for anyone who is legitimate progressive to run with him. The Prtizkers at large are the type of people who are democrats in the interest of protecting their money. Typical establishment democrats who will make limited concessions in whatever way is needed to prevent any radical change from occurring. No DemSoc or Progressive candidates or voters should be foolish enough to let the fox be in charge of the henhouse
Being better than nutjob conservative billionaires doesnt make someone a good fit to run with progressive candidates
We will see if the progressives like Mandani can do what they say. There is still a lot of resistance in law and interests against them. I think that’s why people get these aspirations to do big positive things in government and then can’t because reality hits. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it’s going to take multiple years and rounds of those kinds of elections and the voters do not have that patience.
So the argument most people seem to focus on regarding AOC is that she's too far left, especially in terms of economics. If we could have an actual progressive VP, I would hope we could logically then actually have a progressive as a president.
Pritzker may be from a wealthy family, and not be extremely progressive in terms of economics, but several of his economic policies seem more progressive than a lot of establishment Democrats. They would be an odd couple, but might offset each other enough to make a good team and cast a wide net.
He raised minimum wage in his state to $15 an hour back in 2019, he passed a law to protect collective bargaining, and he passed a graduated tax law that didn't make people making $250K or less pay more in taxes.
I would say the least likeable trait, and probably the thing that would make their pairing least likely, would be his unwillingness to call for the ceasefire in Israel until October of 2024 (which sadly is still a better track record than a lot of establishment Dems).
It's also worth noting that he apparently funded his own campaign for governor with his own wealth, and that could make him less beholden to big donors like many establishment Dems.
I also think he and AOC are two of the few politicians who could really mop the floor with the MAGA narrative control bullshit, and their individual strengths and differences could make them more difficult to target with typical narrative control attacks.