91
Dear Democrats: It Would Be Nice If You Could Lead, And Not Off A Cliff
(www.techdirt.com)
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 08 Mar 2025
91 points (96.9% liked)
politics
22011 readers
1897 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
The fact that Democrats should be raising their voices as loudly as possible against this admin’s moves but instead a sizable 10 of them voted to censure the 1 Democrat who tried to in fact do that, tells you everything about the Democrats’ plans.
At this point, there are only a handful of them who are rallying their constituents and speaking out about this admin’s atrocities, but the majority is completely MIA. Then they wonder why their voters are MIA during the elections.
10 in the house, out of 215 or 214 depending on the exact time of death of Sylvester Turner, not really sizable imo. Also, since there were 0 Republican Nays, it would have passed regardless.
Give those 10 a piece of your mind, yes, but it's not sizable or impactful at all.
It should have been zero. Stop making excuses.
The point you seem to be missing is that you're using the actions of ten to condemn the whole party, which isn't reasonable.
I don't accept excuses. It should have been zero. democrats expect unthinking lockstep from their voters no matter what they do, so I expect them to vote with the party.
All of them.
That doesn't make sense. How can you blame the party for party members defying the party line?
If they accept it when it's legislators doing it, they don't get to demand it from voters.
What does that even mean?
If democrats just accept that they're going to have turncoats in the legislature, they don't get to demand perfect lockstep from voters. They can't keep control of a couple hundred people, but expect to scold millions into voting for them no matter what they do.
What are you talking about? "Perfect lockstep?"
When do Democrats "demand perfect lockstep?"
How is it possible to demand that of the average person, who votes about once every two years?
We're going to nominate someone who does things you find abhorrent. We will put all our resources into making certain that no one who prioritizes what you prioritize makes it through the primaries, and not really give much of a shit about the general. We will shout abuse at you for all criticism, demand but never think of earning your vote, and blame you every time we lose, regardless of how you vote.
We will fervently and lovingly kiss the asses of the worst republicans of the previous decades just to gloat about how far to the right we've taken the party.
When has any leading Democrat "shouted abuse" at the voting public?
You seem to taking the unpopularity of your politics very personally and blaming the Democratic Party as an institution - as opposed to the majority of Americans, who just don't agree with you.
Your shitty wing of the party lost to trump twice because it wouldn't listen to the people.
I take it by your ignoring my first question you don't have an actual answer.
Your shitty wing would have lost by more. People thought Kamala was too far left. The only people insisting she was too far right wouldn't have turned out to vote regardless. It's your own fault. Your side is politically irrelevant.
My wing doesn't support genocide.
She tried to court them and only them anyway.
EDIT: misread as "not far enough to the right." If people who thought she was too far to the right were so insignificant that they could be safely ignored, they're too insignificant to blame for the loss she earned by moving to the right to please your shitty wing of the party.
According to you, your wing got Trump elected, so it does.
Was healthcare, civil rights, education and equitable taxation not enough of a carrot?
Now where did I say that? Your wing is the one that thought genocide was the most winningest issue ever.
Your obvious implication is that if Kamala put on a keffiyeh, people would have turned out en mass to vote for her. The implication being your side sitting this one out gave Trump the election.
And, considering he did win, it would appear that genocide is a winning strategy.
You're continuing to be ridiculous. All she had to do was put one lousy photon of daylight between her and biden on the subject. That was too big an ask.
We tried to warn you that it would happen. We could read the writing on the wall. Your wing chose to ignore it because you just loved genocide that much.
If you're trying to appeal to people who love genocide, it is. That's republicans. They were never going to vote for harris. That's the problem with moving to the right. republicans don't believe you but democrats do,
You were never going to vote for Harris.
You would rather whine about Democrats than actually act to prevent the Republicans from actually engaging in genocide.
Because the God honest truth is you don't give a fuck about Gaza. This is all about stroking your ego and that is all it has ever been about. And that is why you will remain totally irrelevant, because you don't aim to accomplish anything and nobody will ever support your political ego trip.
I did vote for harris. I also tried to warn the pro-genocide wing of the party what would happen. Lots of people like me did. Pretty sure centrists knew and didn't care as long as no one listened to the left.