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
Fucking go for it! Honestly I'm okay with splitting the party if the party refuses to move forward or compromise with progressives while bending over backwards to find bipartisanship with Neo-Nazis.
Whichever group is not recognized as the Democratic Party of elections past will have zero ballot access without huge signature campaigns in every state. No 3rd party was on all 50 states' ballots in 2024. Only 3 were on more than 10 states' ballots. Take all that energy and enthusiasm for a new party and out into the Democratic Party primaries (unless your state already has some form of ranked choice voting at the state level).
Do honest primaries, then.
Were eligible voters turned away, or did they stay home? Were eligible candidates prevented from running, or did they choose not to? Which candidates won the popular vote in the primary and then were not nominated?
I'm fully aware that the donors exert pressure with campaign funding, just like any PAC can do. And I'm fully against the Citizens United ruling and the corrupting influence of money. But at the end of the day any eligible candidate can still choose to run against the candidate that the donors prefer, and the voters can choose to show up and vote for them. There is always that choice.
The owner/donor class is never going to not use the resources they have just because it's an unfair advantage. The only leverage we have is to show and vote in bigger numbers.
You're gloating that the deck is stacked.
No, I'm trying to point out the stark reality to people who keep saying the DNC needs to give us better candidates and ignore donors. I'm saying we need to wake up and realize that we have to give ourselves better candidates because the donors are not going to. They didn't give us AOC. She decided she was going to run against the establishment incumbent and the people came out to vote for her. That's what we need, everywhere. We need candidates to challenge the crap-ass incumbents whether the DNC likes it or not, and then we as voters need to show and vote for them. That's how elections work. People enter the race, then people vote, and one of the people who had entered the race is going to win no matter how many people don't vote. We need more engagement instead of removing ourselves from the process. Removing ourselves only serves to support the status quo. The new head of the DNC used to chair a progressive minor party in Minnesota, before he ran for and was elected to the chair of the Minnesota Democratic Party. He wasn't appointed to those positions as some good-will to the voters by the DNC. He was elected to those positions. The party won't change itself for us, so we have to change it through the primaries and the internal party leadership elections.
Yeah, democrats learned from AOC, which is how you got the party bending over backward to "protect the incumbent" when coathanger cuellar had a progressive challenger, but doing fucking nothing to protect incumbents Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman when they got primaried. The party plays favorites.
When we have primaries. When the party wants to keep the genocide going, they don't give us a choice. Just "you're voting like we order you because we're second worst".
I wonder what he had to promise. I don't trust the party until it shows it's trustworthy again. With actions. Overt actions, not "they're totally not useless corporate shit behind the scenes."