this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024
114 points (96.7% liked)

politics

19238 readers
2227 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

While it's nice to dream, even the author of this piece acknowledges he is doing exactly that.

It’s unlikely that the insiders who built a system that enriches themselves—guaranteeing profits whether the party wins or loses—will willingly dismantle it. Yet that is exactly what is required.

If he knows it won't happen this way It kinda boggles me what exactly he's laying out here. He identifies the issue, then he hides from the implications of his own assertion.

He goes on.

Unfortunately, one of the first major tests of whether the Democratic Party was prepared to take progressives seriously—the vote on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s bid to be the ranking member of the Oversight Committee—revealed troubling signs of continued resistance to the grassroots wing of the party.

If he hadnt mentioned this, i woulda. This is a huge sign of the partys intentions, further indication he is right.The fact the Democratic party fresh offa loss this bad... changes nothing, in fact signals their intentions are to lose rather than changea thing.

Why does he then tell progressive to 'get the establishment to listen? Listen to what? Are progressives to assume, after author explicitly tells them otherwise, that merely talking to the establishment dems (who only care about enriching themselves) will do a 180 and help reform democracy?

Give me a break with this crap man! If he's gonna acknowledge the Democratic party is rotten to the point where they don't care to win, how can he write the rest of this daydream with a straight face? It feels like he lost the thesis he started with