864
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 25 Jul 2024
864 points (97.2% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2067 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I prefer the Republicans offer a reasonable alternative so that Democrats can actually be held accountable. Currently Democrats can engage in insider trading, pass laws that help their stocks, continue to give weapons to war criminals, and you still have to come out in droves to vote for them or the country becomes a Dictatorship.
If Republicans are forced to rebuild and offer someone that isn't going to run the country and everyone's freedoms into the ground, (or better yet completely crash and burn allowing an actual leftist party the chance to be the 2nd party) then Democrats can actually be held accountable if they pass shitty laws.
You want the Republican party to compete with the Democrats by attempting to make things fairer, less corrupt and more honourable than the Democrats?! It's like expecting Biden to be the youthful candidate, Trump to be the honest and rational candidate and Bernie to be the corporate shill all in one.
No, I meant making a 3rd party actually potentially viable
That's really not how your previous post reads to me, apart from the thing in brackets.
The rest of my post was saying I want Republicans to not be a dumpster fire that is going down the fascism hole. They don't need to be "fairer, less corrupt and more honourable than the Democrats," they just need to not be taking away established human rights when they're in power so that not voting for Democrats if they aren't behaving can be a reasonable option.
Fair enough.
I think that as long as winner take all first past the post remains the method here there will never be room for more than 2 parties.
https://www.ossoff.senate.gov/press-releases/sens-ossoff-kelly-introduce-bill-banning-stock-trading-by-members-of-congress-2/
I like how you disengenuiously phrase everything. Oh Lordy, I wish the Republicans could force those filthy Democrats to stop their cheating ways, or I swear I'll faint!!
Meanwhile, there are already Democrats who ARE proposing fixes to your little list. LOL, we don't need Republicans to hold Democrats accountable, we need them to vote with the Democrats trying to fix the problems. But good luck with that
Yep. If you're a progressive and you want an actual progressive party, the only way to do that in this current (two party) system, is to shift the Overton Window to the left such that the current Democratic party becomes the center-right party (replacing the far right Republicans entirely), and said new progressive party, the left.
That means voting Democrat (including down ballot, which would be especially important in shifting local politics to the left) for now while continuing to do everything in our power to promote and support progressive candidates.
And this would take several election cycles. The collective ADHD of social media addled brains of Gen Z voters is another massive hurdle. They haven't seemed to grasp yet just how slow things can move in politics (which by itself isn't inherently good or bad).
How do you get them to stay engaged for 12+ years when it may seem like nothing is getting better?
Oh no! I criticised something only most Democrats are doing! That must mean I support Republicans!
At no point did I say Republicans need to hold Democrats responsible. What I said was I want Republicans to present an at least somewhat reasonable alternative so that the voters can hold Democrats responsible without risking the safety of marginalized people.
If 10 Democrats are trying to stop this that's great, the problem is you still have to vote for the 100 other Democrats that are gleefully taking part because the alternative is literal fascism. Democrats don't have to actually try to improve people's lives because what are you going to do, not vote and let the Republicans win?
I would not have expected "I wish there were 2 reasonable candidates to choose from" would be a controversial take, but I suppose American "Politics" is more tribalism than anything else.
I used to say (and believe) things like this. The fact is, it cannot exist. Reasonable people don't run for office as a Republican, full stop.
What color is the sky in your world?
"I would prefer a functioning democracy"
"What fantasy world are you living in?"
Americans are full on drinking the Kool-aid aren't they?
Republicans being reasonable? Reasonable Republicans holding Democrats responsible? For what?!?!
You're down k hole and experiencing a fever dream.
And it was Flavor-Ade. Get yer shit straight.
What I said was I would prefer if Republicans were a somewhat reasonable option, that wouldn't be taking away people's rights or diving straight in fascism, so that voters could hold Democrats responsible.
Basically, wouldn't it be nice if you didn't have to vote for a Democrat if they didn't follow through on their promises or engaged in unethical behaviour?
Short answer: yes. I'd prefer we move away from a two party system and embrace something like ranked choice or STAR to promote more voices at the table, but that takes away power from both Dems and Repubs, so it ain't happening anytime soon.
That sounds great too. The person I was originally replying to said they hoped Trump lost and continued to be the candidate for the next couple of elections, which would not lead to a more stable or functioning democracy. (No third party has a chance when there's a risk of actual fascism if the Republican's win.)