366
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] eran_morad@lemmy.world 113 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Doesn’t fucking matter, I’m voting D because it’s a fucking binary system and the other choice is a dystopian totalitarian shithole and abstaining from voting is voting for said shithole.

[-] rayyy@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago

it’s a fucking binary system

That can change but it requires people to get involved at ground level politics like school boards, city councils, county supervisors and township offices. It takes about ten years for these officials to reach congressional levels. The teabaggers did this successfully but they had a lot of financial support from wealthy conservatives.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[-] Xariphon@kbin.social 108 points 11 months ago

How about both of you go the fuck home and let an actual progressive do some actual good for once?

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 70 points 11 months ago

That would require getting elected, which would require them being broadly popular.

[-] Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world 40 points 11 months ago

Barack Obama pulled off a surprise victory over the established Democratic candidates by campaigning on a message of hope and change. Of course his administration ended up only slightly more progressive than a standard Democrat's, but the fact remains that a non-mainstream candidate can run and win on the promise of progressive reform.

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 31 points 11 months ago

I think Biden has been more progressive then Obama. Yeah, Obama was a minority and he was a damn good orator and importantly he wasn't Hillary. He represented progress. But his actual policies? Nah. There is something aspirational about having someone who isn't another old white man, and I think Obama was a decent President, just not particularly progressive.

[-] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

In 20 years he’ll be viewed as the ragen of the dems for encouraging privacy to get steamrolled. He was in a position to act to protect Americans after bush and all he did was add fuel to the fire

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 33 points 11 months ago

More specifically, progressives would have to actually turn the fuck out for those progressives at the primaries.

Bernie can tell you counting on that is counting on pigs flying.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Goferking0@ttrpg.network 18 points 11 months ago

The issue is they'd rather have another republican than an actual progressive

[-] Poggervania@kbin.social 27 points 11 months ago

See: Al Gore vs Bush

Also, still miffed about Bernie not being a “good candidate” for the DNC in 2016.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 22 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Gore won. He just fucked up by playing by the rules back when people thought that mattered. The brooks brother rioters knew better, and the right wing court put the fix in.

Also, not to be a pill, but nader took a small percentage of the votes in Florida in that election as a progressive. Most of those probally would have gone to Gore, making the bullshit soft coup the GOP pulled off impossible if he wasn't in the race.

First past the post means vote for the lesser evil and pressure the fuck out of them to get the system changed. Thats it. The system doesn't let anything else work.

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 12 points 11 months ago

Nader didn't just take a small percentage, he deliberately targeted swing states to sabotage Gore for stepping on the Green Party's turf by running on climate issues.

Literally the green party exists today because they refused to let the usual process 3rd parties swear is the actual reason they exist play out, and let the major party that is closest to them adopt their policies.

And you can see that "fuck you this is my shit!" mentality to a certain degree among modern NoVote "progressives", it isn't enough if Biden literally delivers on everything Bernie said he would and more, because he's "the DNC" and he's not Bernie so it's obviously not good enough and you should still refuse to vote for him.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] ME5SENGER_24@lemm.ee 61 points 11 months ago

How about no President over the age of 60? I want young politicians. I also want term limits.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago

Please no. An age cap is fine. But term limits will just add gas to the fire of corruption.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

This is something you can actually observe too. Districts that have implemented term limits have seen corruption go up, not down.

load more comments (17 replies)
[-] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

What exactly would term limits accomplish? Bernie Sanders would be prevented from running, but people like Kyrsten Sinema would be fine.

The solution to bad candidates is to vote them out in the primary or work towards ranked choice voting so that people have a legitimate 3rd option in the general.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Awesome357@lemmy.world 40 points 11 months ago

Not surprising, this is pretty much why he ran 4 years ago. He never wanted to be president, but his party had literally nobody (whom they would allow) that could step up and be a real contender.

[-] Xanis@lemmy.world 32 points 11 months ago

That "allow" part being a rather substantial issue for those not really paying attention back in 2016.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jayemar@lemm.ee 27 points 11 months ago

I'm not sure you can say he never wanted to be president. He ran in 1988 and 2008 before running in 2020. It sounds more like he always wanted to be president, but I could believe he'd prefer to not feel like he has to run for another term.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world 30 points 11 months ago

Getting 2016 vibes this time around...

Or it is just the vocal few that are more openly speaking out...

Polling and all, it will be in the history books come 2024.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago

If the history books aren’t burned.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Playingwithethenew@kbin.social 10 points 11 months ago

Honestly, this reminds me of 1968. Old president supports war unpopular with youth, people protest, the GOP choose a failed candidate from the previous election, y'know?

[-] chaogomu@kbin.social 17 points 11 months ago

Trump also seems the type to actively sabotage any sort of peace process to boost his own campaign.

And he has that Southern Strategy down pat.

[-] lurch@sh.itjust.works 14 points 11 months ago

Reminds me of 1933: A right wing guy briefly in jail for a coup attempt got out early and became German chancellor.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] books@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago

God. Trump keeps on fucking us.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] notannpc@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

And yet, most people don’t want to vote for Biden. He won because people voted against Trump. I’m not convinced it will work again.

[-] specseaweed@lemmy.world 28 points 11 months ago

I do. I’m an old progressive and he’s been the most progressive president in my lifetime outside of Carter, and honestly he’s probably been more progressive than Carter.

I don’t get the ambivalence about Biden at all from anyone who’s not a hard core Republican.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
366 points (95.5% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3966 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