170
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
170 points (96.2% liked)
politics
19233 readers
1412 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're not getting my point. Every single election cycle there's this online contingency saying "we must fight the DNC." Cool. Let me know when it actually happens. I'm guessing right before all the people who say everyone needs to vote third party to teach the DNC a lesson get that one right.
This is different. I would never advocate for any existing third party. Your point is moot because what happens from here won't be anything like before. It will have all the trappings but when it's time for a free and fair election people are going to freak when they see the results. My argument is, why wait for it? How many years have we already wasted and invested into a party they is not functional. Even if things stay how they are the DNC is a sunk cost and they proved it by losing to trump now, when it mattered most. Trump, the shittyist candidate I've ever witnessed in my entire life.
It's always going to be different this time. And I would like to point out that there is a word for doing the same things over and over again and expect a different results.
Also, I'm not sure why you are assuming there will be elections at all anymore unless you're talking about the kinds they have in places like Russia and Belarus, in which case it's the DNC that's moot here.
My fucking brain just broke, are you arguing against me anymore?
That's what I'm saying, the DNC is moot, stop supporting it so people arent fooled into believing in 2026 they will "wipe the floor" blah blah blah. All that rhetoric is a waste of time. Democrats need to see they are generally accepted as the joke that lost an entire to trump the circus clown and everyone else needs to start feeling urgency to act, ASAP.
And do what exactly?
Brah, I hate this part, because you're supposed to be able to dismiss me now because I don't have every fucking detail planned out. Just what you're asking of me is so absurd. Im not the leader of the revolution I am the guy ringing the alarm bell. There are certainly things I would do but you don't really care about that. You're just fishing for another argument that you don't like that you can dismiss and "win the conversation."
I didn't ask for every detail. A general overall picture would be nice. I'm not "supposed to be able" to do anything. You're making an argument that the DNC needs to act. And now you're getting upset that you're being asked what actions they are supposed to take.
That's beyond "I'm just the ideas person here" territory.
I do think the DNC should act, they should do a number of things. Prove to me that you give a shit about ideas before I waste my time educating you.
How, beyond asking you three times now including this time, am I supposed to prove that to you?
Or is that another question you're going to refuse to answer?
There is a concept in improv called "yes and." When you are out on stage, or practicing, doing improv, rejecting someone's idea can be jarring for the audience and the performers. For instance, as an improv preformer you go up and say, "here we are, on the moon." Then another preformer comes up and says, "no no no, were at a mcdonalds." The problem with the other performer saying, "were not on the moon we are in a McDonald's" isn't that McDonald's is less funny; or that being at a McDonalds in more accurate. The problem is the negative feelings needlessly brought up just because the other performer had a different idea. Then, they decided that their idea was better, or good, based only on the fact that they thought of it.
The negative feelings are just part of it. Obviously, the audience might be a bit confused but it's improv they can suspend disbelief for a second. The performer might be jarred because they had one idea that got shit canned publicly but it was just a random thought, they can move past it. The problem is when the other preform keeps doing it, right?
"OK we're at McDonald's, I'm going to order a coke "
"No, this McDonald's serves pepsi."
You get the point.
What "yes and" does is acknowledges someone's personhood while giving you license to be just as influential. This is called collaboration.
So now, we have two performers, one says, "here we are on the moon" and the other says, "At the McDonalds you won't shut up about."
That's it.
If you wanted to know my ideas for what's next. This is it.
We collaborate. Until we are all really fucking good at it.
Your answer to my question on what their actions should be is to "collaborate." That's not a political action, it's a way to achieve it. It says nothing about what they're supposed to do in the face of democracy being over and America becoming a fascist dictatorship in less than two months.
You are not discussing this in good faith and you clearly don't have an actual answer, so I'm done.
Lol, there it is.