this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
357 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2659 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
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/22940159

Bernie Sanders caused a stir last week, when the independent senator from Vermont and two-time contender for the Democratic presidential nomination sent a post-election email to his progressive supporters across the country. In it, he argued that the Democrats suffered politically in 2024 at least in part because they ran a campaign that focused on “protecting the status quo and tinkering around the edges.”

In contrast, said Sanders, “Trump and the Republicans campaigned on change and on smashing the existing order.” Yes, he explained, “the ‘change’ that Republicans will bring about will make a bad situation worse, and a society of gross inequality even more unequal, more unjust and more bigoted.”

Despite that the reality of the threat they posed, Trump and the Republicans still won a narrow popular-vote victory for the presidency, along with control of the US House. That result has inspired an intense debate over the future direction not just of the Democratic Party but of the country. And the senator from Vermont is in the thick of it.

In his email, Sanders, a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus who campaigned in states across the country this fall for Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democratic ticket, asked a blunt question: “Will the Democratic leadership learn the lessons of their defeat and create a party that stands with the working class and is prepared to take on the enormously powerful special interests that dominate our economy, our media and our political life?”

His answer: “Highly unlikely. They are much too wedded to the billionaires and corporate interests that fund their campaigns.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 8 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Not every single person who disagrees with you is a paid shill. I voted for kamala and did so happily, and I'm very worried about the democratic party's ability to change in the way they need to also. At some point, we do need to upend the 2 party system, it has yielded only bad things.

I don't know the right way to do that. I don't know how we can do that with the least possible compromise, giving conservatives an advantage by splitting the progressive vote while using a voting system that favors two entrenched parties over outside candidates. AND ALSO the two party system is a problem this country desperately needs to solve.

The two parties are absolutely not the same, but that doesn't mean the democratic party is doing a great job of representing people's actual interests, it just means they aren't literal fascists. I dunno about you, but I'd really hope my political representation can be better than "literal fascists, or, people who kinda sorta sometimes care about issues that represent you, except all the times when they don't"

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world -3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (3 children)

The only party that has a chance of beating the republicans is the Democratic Party. There is no other party.

As long as we are sowing apathy towards the Democratic Party we won’t have a chance of beating the fascist republicans that show up to vote no matter what.

So you can call it disagreeing or call it being worried or call it constructive criticism. It doesn’t matter what you call it as long as it sows apathy it will increase the fascist republicans chances of winning.

People like OP are reposting the same posts and commenting in each one systematically with comments to sow apathy. It has been obvious to more than just me for a while now.

[–] ochi_chernye@startrek.website 6 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

The election is over. Democrats failed spectacularly. Now is the time for criticism and accountability. If not now, when? We're all just supposed to pretend that Harris ran a great campaign? Are you familiar with the concept of learning from failure? I was beating this drum myself before the election—you know, when it actually made sense. Now it just smacks of sticking your fingers in your ears.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world -2 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Democrats lost because fewer Democratic voters showed up this year. That is a sign of apathy. If we spend the next 4 years sowing more apathy then it won’t matter what we are saying the months leading up to the election because everyone will already be apathetic.

To pretend democrats failed spectacularly is to ignore the billionaires doing things like buying votes to win or Russian bots sowing apathy to Democratic voters to convince them to not vote or vote 3rd party.

I see you’re federated with startrek.website. Ever heard the saying “you can do everything right and still lose”.

Apathy caused Democratic voters to stay home. Continuing to sow more apathy will guarantee we lose the next one, if there is a next one.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Just shut up and never ever criticize the party that only ever moves to the right, or you want the fascists to win!

You will never understand that votes are earned, not demanded.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world -1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Democrats: work with Bernie Sanders

You: this is called moving to the right!

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Bernie Sanders: Exists

You: This is working with Bernie Sanders!

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world -1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Bernie Sanders: votes with the Democratic Party You: this is not called working with Bernie Sanders!

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Sanders voting with the party is not the party working with Sanders.

I'm done talking to you. All you do is deliberately misrepresent my positions.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world -1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Bernie Sanders: votes with Democratic Party because that is what politicians do for work.

You: “Nooooo! This misrepresents my positions!”

[–] FutileRecipe@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Bernie is working with the Democrats. The Democrats are not working with Bernie. Bernie is picking the lesser of the two evils, as he sees it.

The criticism is not that Bernie doesn't work with them, but rather they are not working with him. There is a difference between those two.

[–] ochi_chernye@startrek.website 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Sure there were Russian bots. Of course there was billionaire fuckery. That's been the case every cycle for decades. Do you honestly believe that Democrats lost exclusively because of these things? And furthermore, that nobody should critique their performance or policies, because that constitutes sowing apathy? Weeks after the fucking election? That's the dumbest fucking thing I ever heard.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world -1 points 7 hours ago

Harris lost the popular vote by 1.6%. Trump gained more votes than he got in 2020. It was a close race but Trump got all the most important swing states with the most electoral votes. The scales were not tipped very far in Trumps favor.

And furthermore, that nobody should critique their performance or policies, because that constitutes sowing apathy?

Saying we should waste our votes on 3rd parties or claiming democrats are the same as the republican fascists is not “critiquing performance or policies”. To even claim that is a bad faith argument.

[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

Yes. There isn't another party. Democratic voters didnt turn out, and lots of people feel that is a reflection of the Democratic party's strategy, and it's ability to connect with people and motivate them.

For those who see it that way, there are two options, the reform and improvement of the democratic party, or a replacement that can better motivate people by offering more significant change. And many folks in the camp that are frustrated, and feel the democratic party isn't reflecting their interests, or doing enough to connect with amercians, also don't feel like the democractic party can change.

People want to act on what they think will solve the problem. I understand you think their idea of a solution is counter-productive, the case I'm trying to make is that going around assuming everyone you don't agree with is acting in bad faith in service of a secret agenda is AT LEAST as counter productive, if not substantially more so.

Theres an entirely legitimate good faith reason for someone to post this kind of thing- they think it will build momentum towards what they see as the solution to the problems they care about.

If we can't even have productive conversations about what the problem is and why we think it should be solved a certain way, we're fucking doomed. Democracy is fundamentally about collaborative governance, even in an unhealthy democracy like ours. These problems are fundamentally bigger than any of us can solve alone, and the solutions we pick, and how many people will throw themselves behind them, are BOTH materially improved by seeking to understand those you disagree with, rather than insinuating that they're up to some plot to get a fascist elected, here on one of the most progressive platforms on the entire internet.

Your frustration is understandable. We're all fucking angry and trying to find the best way to resolve what we see as the source of our anger.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world -2 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

It's getting to the point where a third party push seems logical.

OP is suggesting we throw away our votes on a 3rd party. That has always been a bad faith argument in a first past the polls system. It is statistically impossible to win that way which is why it is a bad faith argument.

I’m not claiming it’s bad faith as an emotional response. I’m pointing out that when someone suggests the option that guarantees failure, they are not acting in good faith.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I’m not claiming it’s bad faith as an emotional response.

Yeah. You're claiming it as a Pavlovian reflex to people disagreeing with Democrats' failed strategy of moving to the right.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world -2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Throwing away your vote against fascism and thus allowing fascism to take power is not “disagreeing with democrats”.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Throwing away your vote against fascism and thus allowing fascism to take power

This particular lecture just proved unsuccessful against the fascism you prefer to any move leftward.

is not “disagreeing with democrats”.

I said:

disagreeing with Democrats’ failed strategy of moving to the right.

But since you are pathologically incapable of admitting that moving to the right has failed as a strategy, you have to lie about my position instead.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world -2 points 5 hours ago

Harris and Cheney: “we need to put aside our differences to stop Trump”

You: “Nooooo! This is called moving to the right!”

[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Firstly saying it's logical to push for a third party doesn't actually mean "let's just piss away our votes"

It can mean pushing for voting reform along with a new party. And the change has gotta start somewhere if you want it to happen, and if you think it has to happen then picking a place, even one that you feel is impossible, doesn't make it a bad faith argument. Its not like there's any easy route to overturning the two party system, so if that's what you think has to happen, you don't exactly have any options that will be a cakewalk.

And furthermore, I'm not aware of statistics that say that (though I wouldn't be surprised) but you're essentially saying that because your (I assume) informed opinion is that it can't be done, anyone who suggests it must be suggesting it with an ulterior motive. You reached for malice as an explanation where, if you're right, ignorance would be a much more suitable explanation. Its an issue I care about, and if we actually have data to suggest its impossible then I would be ignorant too

It'd be far more productive to say "I really don't think that's possible, here's why: xyz. I think if you want to make that kind of change happen I think you'll have to find a different approach"

Do you have research or data on the topic? Or are you being hyperbolic in order to make your point that you think it's unrealistic? (Honest question, I think both would be fair, though if it's just a personal perspective that its unrealistic I do think that even further weakens the argument that its bad faith on OP's part)

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

[The most successful third-party candidacy came in 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt finished second and got around 27 percent of the popular vote. Of course, he was a former president of the United States who hadn’t been renominated by his party and formed his own party. In recent times, H. Ross Perot’s third-party candidacy in 1992 got 19 percent of the popular vote, the second most in US history—but he got zero electoral votes. With the electoral college system, it’s highly, highly unlikely a third-party candidate could win an election.

Polls put the two biggest parties, the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, at around one percent of the popular vote, whereas in 2016, they got around four to five percent of the vote.](https://www.bu.edu/articles/2024/is-voting-third-party-a-wasted-vote/)

[Third parties that have been established were either short lived or, like the Libertarian and Green Parties, have had little impact on federal and state elections other than bringing more attention to issues for voters or siphoning votes from major-party candidates, sometimes serving a spoiler role in elections.

However, as has been the case for prior third-party candidates, Kennedy’s initially higher levels of support eventually faded. Kennedy also struggled to gain ballot access in many states, with his efforts landing him on the ballot in 21 states, and 13 additional states pending before he suspended his campaign and endorsed Trump.](https://news.gallup.com/poll/651278/support-third-political-party-dips.aspx)

[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Thank you very much for taking the time to type out all of that information, I really appreciate it! I would very much like to see the two party system overturned, and understanding the issue better helps me consider which (probably crappy) route has the best chances.

I don't think that saying someone wants a third relevant party means they're intrinsically acting in bad faith. I absolutely understand seeing it as completely unrealistic. It probably is. I just also have a really hard time seeing this system yielding the kind of represtation this country needs, and that's something I desperately want for this country.

In an economy, only two companies vying for control of a market is a duopoly, and it's unlikely between the two of them that they'll do a good job of serving consumers. There's no meaningful competition driving parties to really offer compelling solutions to the public, because both parties have to option of just saying "well I'm not THAT guy over there, the one you hate"

I'd like to see the first past the post voting system replaced, but l worry neither party will ever offer the public the option to replace it if it threatens their control. Obviously republicans never will. But I also don't really believe another party can win until it's changed.

Its an intensely frustrating status quo. And I can't help but look backwards desperately wish we could have had bernie instead of Hillary. :(

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Thanks for having actual discourse and being genuine. I also would like ranked choice voting and a party that better represents Americans.

Unfortunately because of citizens united and the two party system and first past the poll voting we have to support the lesser of two evils to make progress.

And I realize that not everyone who suggests we ignore that reality is acting in bad faith. But it is definitely a strategy of bad faith actors and then repeated by those who don’t know any better.

[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

Thank you for discussing with me too, I really appreciate it. I feel very strongly that because there are so few people here compared to mainstream platforms, we all have a much greater impact on the culture of this space. I want to be a part of it being as sincere and kind as possible.

We don't completely agree, and that's okay, I appreciate you sharing your perspective with me. I hope you have a lovely day my friend. If you celebrate it, happy Thanksgiving!

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

The only party that has a chance of beating the republicans is the Democratic Party. There is no other party.

And they just shat the bed because they can't resist moving to the right and ordering people to love it.

Democrats aren't interested in beating Republicans. They're only interested in beating progressives.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

They didn’t lose because they weren’t progressive enough. They lost because Biden inherited a pandemic that caused inflation and weak economy that required increasing interest rates.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Oh, now the economy at the time of the election was weak. Last month it was roaring and everyone who noticed that they couldn't afford groceries was a Russian shill.

Democrats supported genocide, ran anti-trans bigotry in their own ads, and reveled in getting the endorsement of Dick Cheney. They moved to the right and lost. Quit defending their shitty behavior.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 0 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Oh, now the economy at the time of the election was weak. Last month it was roaring and everyone who noticed that they couldn't afford groceries was a Russian shill.

Not sure what you are babbling about here. Republican ads during the election were all focused on the high inflation.

Democrats supported genocide, ran anti-trans bigotry in their own ads, and reveled in getting the endorsement of Dick Cheney. They moved to the right and lost. Quit defending their shitty behavior.

The US military supports Israel to prevent Iran from getting stronger in the region because Iran has teamed up with China, Russia and North Korea and are actively supply drones and other weapons to Russia for use in Ukraine.

Netanyahu is responsible for the genocide. He is the only one who can stop it.

Cheney had absolutely nothing to do with Harris losing. Absolutely nothing in the polls or anecdotal evidence supports that claim but it is heavily pushed as a taking point here on lemmy from lemmy.ml so that fact should speak to how disingenuous it is.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Not sure what you are babbling about here.

Don't fucking gaslight me. Democrats ran on "the economy is great actually".

The US military supports Israel

Biden and the entire centrist wing of the party supported GENOCIDE for the sheer joy of it and no other reason.

Cheney had absolutely nothing to do with Harris losing.

He sure as fuck didn't help. But since you and your entire wing of the party has always loved everything he ever stood for, you were happy for his endorsement. Senpai noticed you.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Don't fucking gaslight me. Democrats ran on "the economy is great actually".

Democrats didn’t run on this. Biden simply pointed out that inflation was going down but there was more to do.

Bad faith actors tried to spin that into “bIdEn SaId GrOcErIeS aRe ChEaP oMgWtF”.

supported GENOCIDE for the sheer joy of it and no other reason

Such a blatant bad faith argument. If he really just wants to commit genocide then why specifically arm Israel. Aren’t there easier ways to commit genocide. You’re pretending that he is some Bond villain to ignore nuance and geopolitics.

But since you and your entire wing of the party has always loved everything he ever stood for, you were happy for his endorsement. Senpai noticed you.

What is my wing of the party? Anything you pretend to know about me is based on assumptions just like everything else you’ve said. Finding common ground and reaching across the aisle is how you get things done in a democracy with many different ideologies.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Democrats didn’t run on this. Biden simply pointed out that inflation was going down but there was more to do.

Democrats tried to pretend that nothing was wrong while people couldn't afford to eat.

If he really just wants to commit genocide then why specifically arm Israel. Aren’t there easier ways to commit genocide.

I see you've fantasized this out.

Finding common ground and reaching across the aisle is how you get things done in a democracy with many different ideologies.

Democrats don't reach left.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Democrats tried to pretend that nothing was wrong while people couldn't afford to eat.

This is literally the republican spin on Biden pointing out that inflation metrics have improved since their peak.

I see you've fantasized this out.

I see you’re avoiding the question. Sorry if reality doesn’t support your narrative.

Democrats don't reach left.

You don’t consider Bernie Sanders or AOC to be further left than the rest of the democrats? Oh you’re just arguing in bad faith… gotcha

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

This is literally the republican spin on Biden pointing out that inflation metrics have improved since their peak.

Everything that isn't performative worship of failure is "republican spin" to you.

I see you’re avoiding the question. Sorry if reality doesn’t support your narrative.

The reality is that there's an ongoing genocide. The reality is that the Biden administration supported it unconditionally.

You don’t consider Bernie Sanders or AOC to be further left than the rest of the democrats?

And what was the last thing either of them proposed that had as much support from the party as "reaching across the aisle" to capitulate to Republicans? Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman are also further left, and the party let them twist in the wind instead of "protecting incumbents" which was their excuse for propping up anti-choice, anti-labor, pro-NRA Henry Cuellar.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Everything that isn't performative worship of failure is "republican spin" to you.

No, I’m saying you are literally repeating what republicans put in their attack ads.

The reality is that there's an ongoing genocide.

Caused by Netanyahu not Biden.

The reality is that the Biden administration supported it unconditionally.

Biden only support Israel proportionally to what Iran supported Russia.

And what was the last thing either of them proposed that had as much support from the party as "reaching across the aisle" to capitulate to Republicans?

Reducing healthcare costs and forgiving student loans are a couple examples off the top of my head. I never said democrats capitulated to republicans. Not sure why you threw that in there.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

No, I’m saying you are literally repeating what republicans put in their attack ads.

If you missed all the "the economy is fine, just ignore the evidence of your pocketbook" bullshit that was shoveled out by Democrats, that's on you.

Caused by Netanyahu not Biden.

Exacerbated and enabled by Biden, to your considerable delight.

Biden only support Israel proportionally to what Iran supported Russia.

We're supposed to be better than Russia or Iran. But there's a genocide to support, so you'll make excuses for it until it's complete.

Reducing healthcare costs

Ha.

I never said democrats capitulated to republicans. Not sure why you threw that in there.

They capitulate and excuse it by calling it "reaching across the aisle." Republicans are never expected to reach across the aisle. They're never expected to be magnanimous or gracious. They're never expected to move to the left in order to appease Democrats.

Democrats keep moving to the right to appease Republicans. They don't move to the left to please their own base.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 0 points 6 hours ago

If you missed all the "the economy is fine, just ignore the evidence of your pocketbook" bullshit that was shoveled out by Democrats, that's on you.

Literally made up which is consistent with everything you’ve said so far.

Exacerbated and enabled by Biden, to your considerable delight.

I’m not delighted at all by it. That is why I place the blame where it is due. On Netanyahu. Because this isn’t something that should be spun into a political talking point like you’re doing.

We're supposed to be better than Russia or Iran. But there's a genocide to support, so you'll make excuses for it until it's complete.

You’re the one trying to reallocate blame from Netanyahu onto Biden to support your political narrative.

Ha.

Nothing to say because you’re wrong? I know.

They capitulate and excuse it by calling it "reaching across the aisle." Republicans are never expected to reach across the aisle. They're never expected to be magnanimous or gracious. They're never expected to move to the left in order to appease Democrats.

Republicans are never expected to do those things by the Republican Party. Why does that matter to us? You want us to follow their example?

Democrats keep moving to the right to appease Republicans. They don't move to the left to please their own base.

I literally gave you examples of democrats moving left and working with Bernie and AOC and you proved me right by showing you had no rebuttals.