503
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2025
503 points (98.8% liked)
politics
23099 readers
3287 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
Frankly this is a good idea in the long term despite a possible short term loss.
The Tea Party hurt the Republicans in the short term, but they took over the party and purged the liberal elements. They replaced Eric Cantor with a speaker who does everything they want. They’re a monolithic block now and have been winning out on their strategies ever since.
AOC ousted 10-term congressman Joe Crowley in a primary by a huge margin. A few more of those couldn’t hurt.
We should be doing this to every single motherfucker who clearly is doing insider trading.
I agree, we do need a "Guillotine Party" to do for us what the Tea Party did for the GOP.
Unfortunately, Hogg and gun control are part of what needs to be removed.
As always, there's some excuse for why the person who is trying to move the party to the left shouldn't be doing that.
It's neat watching the party go from "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good! It's just a little genocide!" to "This guy who is primarying centrists who hold us all back doesn't agree with republicans enough!"
Of all of the people in this thread for whom the second amendment fills the void where a personality would be in a more complete person, not one cares about the incumbents' opinions on firearms.
I don't know if you didn't get the memo or something, but the left likes guns now. Gun control is not "moving the party to the left". Gun control is a plank in the old, establishment platform, and needs to be thrown out along with those ancient fossils.
Nobody gives a shit about the incumbent positions on anything, with the possible exception of their retirement. Get them the hell out of office, and bring in some actual leftists.
Provided that the person calling for it has the opinions you prefer on guns. And only guns.
No, that conclusion does not follow from the facts at hand. There are any number of issues that raise my ire. I've railed just as vociferously against Hogg for guns as I have against any number of democratic fossils, for reasons ranging from pro-genocide, to appeasing Republicans, to senility. Gun control is just one of many disqualifying conditions. That he and I share an absolute disgust for Retired-in-Place Democrats is not sufficient to rehabilitate his image. He is an honorary fossil, and needs to go along with them.
Just seems like whenever there's someone who is trying to get the party to move to the left, suddenly there's some criterion for why they shouldn't.
Bernie's too old and that was a problem from 2016 until the second Biden announced. It's a problem again now that Biden is out of office. AOC is a woman and that's suddenly a problem because she's seizing the moment. Hogg doesn't agree with the NRA on guns.
There's always some excuse.
Again, "gun control" is not a leftist issue. Gun control is keeping the party from moving left.
Further, Hogg isn't trying to move the party to the left. He openly supports legacy Democrats like Pelosi and Hillary who built the failed party, and he is looking for younger candidates who will keep the party right where theose decrepit fossils planted it.
Because you don't like that he's not Wayne LaPierre?
No part of my comment history suggests I have ever supported Wayne LaPierre.
You and I probably agree on 99% of the issues, but you're willing to alienate me on the basis of this particular, obviously divisive issue.
You are not alone in this. The party has long used gun control as a purity test, rejecting candidates (and alienating voters) who offer anything less than full-throated support for gun control.
But that purity test is one of the things that needs to be excised from the party.
Gun control does not have the broad support it did in the 90's. The wave of concealed carry adoption in the late 90's/ early 2000's has radically expanded the number and political diversity of gun owners across the country. The party has thus far failed to recognize this shift in the political climate. We can see the results.
Until just now, when centrist control of the party is threatened.
Until just now... Did you just decide to stop using gun control as a purity test?
No, you just decided to start.
You and David Hogg are Democrats, despite your irrational, centrist support for gun control. I'm apparently Wayne LaPierre because I oppose it.
One of us is using gun control as a purity test. The other is not.
You want nothing to do with Hogg or his push to primary useless incumbents. And your only stated reason is because he's not pro-school-shooting enough.
Sounds like a purity test to me.
Nah, he's still a Democrat, even though his position conflicts with the electorate. As are you.
The "test" here isn't one of purity. Here, the test is whether he can represent that electorate. He can't.
His position on gun control is the most obvious example, but it's not the only one. He idolizes Pelosi and Clinton, and wants to replace "useless incumbents" with Baby Nancy and Baby Hillary.
And the kids that die as part of your demand for gun ownership rights, you just dont care about them at all do you. You need to man up and take care of your community.