this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
371 points (95.6% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2539 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Goferking0@ttrpg.network 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Poggervania@kbin.social 29 points 11 months ago (2 children)

See: Al Gore vs Bush

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

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 23 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

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 (1 children)

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.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago

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.

i'm torn between jill stein and cornel west, but if dark brandon returns and actually accomplishes this, i will vote for him. tell your boy to get to work.

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

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

Absolutely! Steve "three-shirts" Bannon and wealthy conservatives are trying their best to dilute the Biden vote by encouraging/financing RFK, Jill Stein, West and the No Labels party

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

To add in, the court didn't have the authority to intervene. Congress is supposed to decide elections that are tied or otherwise in doubt.

And didn't Gore actually win the recount after all was said and done?

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And didn’t Gore actually win the recount after all was said and done?

Yes but he conceded before then.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Concessions don't have legal force. The legal force is the state secretary. Or SCOTUS giving itself power.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Right but everything moved forward once he conceded.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Nope he conceded on December 13. They day after SCOTUS overruled the state supreme court and every federal court under them.