91
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 27 Dec 2024
91 points (92.5% liked)
politics
24085 readers
1540 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
I voted for Harris. I voted for Biden. I voted for Clinton.
I still wouldn't warn a single one of them if they were about to get hit by a bus.
Its harm reduction. They don't solve anything. They just keep us treading water sinking slowly whereas Republicans start taking a hammer to the hull to open up new holes.
Harm reduction is bad?
Obviously, it's not ideal, but one has to act according to the real life conditions... And in 2024, our only two options were "harm reduction," and literal fascism with literal concentration camps.
Fuck you if you didn't choose harm reduction.
To be fair to them, we're just delaying collapse. It is a choice.
I agree with them that there's no saving this constitutional structure. In one sense it's cowardly, because there's no escape from this capitalist slaughterhouse hellscape without collapse. Collapse is necessary. Trump will certainly usher that in faster.
But Im too much of a softy to let the blood that always has to spill be on my hands.
This country was irreparable since Reagan, a zombie nation oligarch piggie bank. My vote was a cowardly one for a few more years of quiet orderly slaughter, NOT peace.
But we lost, so the slaughter will be loud and bigger than it's ever been, so maybe it's time for revolution if we want our kids to have anything left.
Because in 4 years the DNC WILL anoint someone to meet Trump's economy in the middle, and even I may not be able to stomach voting for that.
Kamala was in a weird place as well.
Normally it's easy for people to hold their noses for an incumbent. But if Kamala won. Shed run again in 2028.
Which would mean from 2012 to 2032, there wouldn't have been a fair Dem primary.
20 fucking years...
Party leaders don't understand that when you take primaries away, it hurts general turnout. Because regardless of who wins, the primary is the time for the eventual candidate to get their finger on the pulse and see what voters want.
Which is reliably that the Dem candidate moves left.
Without a primary they move right and turnout goes down.
We have literally decades of data that shows this, but it's not what the donors want and the present DNC wants donations more than votes.
Hopefully Winkler gets chair in a few months and that changes.
The DNC would rather have Trump as POTUS than Sanders or AOC.
With Trump, the bribe money keeps flowing to both party machines, They are both paid to keep this sociopath owned economy safe from the people.
Realistically they weren't gonna hold a fair primary anyway. If they held one we would've gotten candidate Shapiro, who would have been stomped into dust by Trump.
In large part because Jaimie Harrison was the DNC chair.
There's an upcoming vote for chair, and there's some standouts and one crazy with no chance.
But from what I know about them (not everything) we're almost guaranteed a good chair with a very good chance of getting an amazing one.
I'm no fan of the DNC, but there's a real chance to turn everything around and it's barely a month away
Here's hoping, though remember the people who voted for Harrison are still the ones voting. I remember we did get Howard Dean after his campaign, so hopefully there's a similar thing that happens.
Jaimie got it because Biden appointed him...
He was the only option for DNC members to vote for, it's a rubber stamp process when a Dem wins the presidential.
The only time they really vote is when a Dem president doesn't win, or the chair resigns early (I think).
voting is not harm reduction.
It is when both parties get the same orders from the same bribers on economic policy and merely war on how to or if to address some of the social issue symptoms, the ones that don't effect their briber's quarterly results.
Example: they war over forced births, but abortion is often an ECONOMIC decision, and the markets have demanded 2 breadwinners the last few decades to make moar from themselves, which is antisocial and antifuture. You won't hear either party calling for a single income for most to all being able to support a family. That's a matter of economic policy. That's a choice. There would objectively, naturally be fewer abortions without coersion if economic desperation wasn't defended here by both parties, no threat of state violence required.
No, our choice is on the social issue of forced births? No forced births? Your choice lol... Then get back to work, battery.
There are tons of ways to reduce abortion and, typically, those are supported by Democratic politicians and opposed by Republicans. The concern is not to reduce abortion, there's actually very little concern about the actual number of abortions that happen by its opponents. The concern is that the opponents want an opportunity for themselves to take a "strong moral stance" against abortion. They prefer a world of more abortions which are illegal to a world of fewer abortions which are legal.
Same.
But there's not enough willing to hold their noses for us to reliably win elections.
So it doesn't make sense to blame anyone besides the people at the DNC actively stopping the type of candidates those people would love to vote for and instead cramming someone the majority of the party dislikes down our throats and hoping enough hold their noses.
Like, not even from a perspective of which policy is better, just on the basis of what wins elections...
Why isn't the DNC backing the candidates who are most popular with Dem voters?
Why do they keep picking the ones that will get the most donations, then trying to use that money to build up to less than the support the popular candidate already had?
And why the fuck is anyone blaming anyone besides them?
American Democracy in a nutshell. You get two choices, they're both awful for different reasons. One of them wants to see you executed for your religious beliefs/sexual preferences/nation of origin. The other is continent to sell bunker buster bombs to some raving psychotic mass murderers overseas. Nobody is going to do shit about climate change, though, so we're all on the clock in the long run.
It increasingly feels like the closest thing to harm reduction the US achieved was the time Trump fucked up his COVID response and a bunch of his senior leadership choked to death on their own lung fluid.
There’s only one man who’s done any meaningful harm reduction in your country and your judicial system is charging him with terrorism.
The democratic process doesn't start on election day.
Yeah, it starts when someone has a billion dollars and wants to influence government.
There was roughly 20 different elected positions on my ballot.
The real problem with American politics is everyone is so focused on the POTUS that they ignore the politicians who have an actual measurable effect on their quality of life.
I challenge anyone to look up your local town hall and see when the next city council meeting is. Go to it and see what they talk about and vote on. Notice the other people who go.
Many cities have public meetings for police oversite too. They're even less attended than city council meetings
Another massive problem is the voting system which could barely be designed better for forcing a two party system on you. There is no room for someone getting 30% of the vote and of course they should then have about that much influence.
harm reduction has a specific meaning..voting is not harm reduction.
It quite literally is a reduction of harm. If two options are presented one is extremely harmful and one is slightly harmful, then voting for the slightly harmful one is a reduction of harm. Harm. reduction.
I don't know what you are talking about with "harm reduction has a specific meaning..voting is not harm reduction." because the words literally mean a reduction in the amount of harm, whether active or potential.
Even if you can provide an alternate definition, that is more of an example of the versatility of the language allowing multiple definitions, than any commentary on the current subject.