this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
48 points (88.7% liked)

politics

19097 readers
2951 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

What’s more, this person said there aren’t regrets over Biden leaving the race. This person said they could’ve been convinced before the switch at the top of the ticket that Biden was better positioned to win Pennsylvania but since seeing the explosion of Democratic enthusiasm they said: “I think we’d all agree it has been a net positive.”

It's concerning that so many people still don't understand why voters didn't want Biden, or even that voters didn't want Biden.

It's not just enough to vote D every four years, the only political party large enough to fight facisism, is completely out of touch with it's voters...

So like...

Maybe we should replace them with people who know what the fuck they're doing?

Maybe start putting some sociologists in charge rather than who has the best connection to donors and ignoring literally everything else?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Publicly funded elections are so needed.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And private funding (and specifically, undisclosed funding) of any candidate should be extremely illegal. But the Supreme Court (and the ACLU, incredibly) is behind Citizens United, so that’s not changing for the foreseeable future.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The ACLU is behind it because there are unintended consequences to getting rid of it.

For example, Florida could pass a law that bans pro-choice advertising from women's rights groups while still allowing ads from anti-abortion groups.

The only reason they can't do that today is that pro-choice organizations have First Amendment rights.

There is a misconception that without CU corporations wouldn't influence elections. But actually without it, politicians could choose which corporations are, or are not, allowed to influence elections.

load more comments (1 replies)