politics
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
view the rest of the comments
If trying to court Republican defectors is a futile effort, who should the Democrats be trying to court? This article seems deliberately vague on that point. The article implies that the Democrats should make less tepid, less forgettable critiques of Trump nominees, that they should attack them, even, but for what reason? Seemingly, it's to court people other than Republican defectors, but who would that be? Relatively moderate, neoliberal technocrats? Do any still exist?
If they bothered to have a platform at all anymore itd be pretty obvious who to court. But they dont stand for issues anymore-- they stand for a smug low performing sort of centrism as if that was in itself a goal.
Discouraged voters who didn't vote in the last election. Getting 10% of them to vote Dem would swing a lot of races, and that's far more likely to be achievable than swinging part of the Republican vote like the Dems tried to do last time. Voters want decisiveness, not feel-good policy-free vote-grubbing.
Because they are objectively awful choices, several of which are severe national security threats in and of themselves?
The defectors the article is talking about are Republican senators. The author links to the piece about the trap:
Instead of worrying about the sensitivities of their colleagues, go all out against the nominee so they think confirming the nominee is an electoral risk. It's a play to their voters.
They should be courting the public by making it really clear how awful Trump's nominees and policies are.
Solid Democrat voters who are disappointed with the DNC and therefore don't vote. The Democrats' noncommittality makes them unappealing to everyone.
People who want change, but see no chance of that coming from the Democrats. The biggest pool of votes that can be harvested are discouraged voters. But they'll need to see something besides empty talk.
Billionaire fascists and allied fanatics have seized power by illegitimate means. Tinkering around the margins isn't going to stop them. We need to break the power of the billionaires, which will probably mean capping maximum wealth and forcing them to sell off assets until nobody has more than 5% market share in anything. We need to get influence-peddiling out of politics, and to purge the courts of corrupt stooge judges. And we need to re-establish the rule of law for all people in this country, regardless of their wealth, connections or what office they hold. The people need to see that nobody is above the law.
Democrats spent the last administration breaking campaign promises and moving right, to the point where they were enabling genocide, running anti-trans hate in their own ads, adopting republican border policy, and touting the endorsement of Dick Cheney.
I'd say that Democrats were actively trying to ruin their credibility, but these are Democrats and they never actively try to do anything.
I think you're targeting people that have become apathetic and disengaged from the political process because they don't see anyone actually fighting for them. Someone willing to attack the existing power structure on your behalf is a very appealing proposition to most people in our political climate.
Well we know Democrats aren't up to the task
Silence, nonvoter
Like so.
Hey what's it feel like seeing Trump come down on Israel and end the genocide you spent the last year telling folks like me to shut up and accept?
Get back to me in a few months
In a few months, Joe Biden will still be complicit in Israel's child-killing operation and we'll all still be mocking the people who defended or ignored it for the cowards they are.
Most people never defended or ignored it. They simply believed Trump to be a worse choice, and not voting to be equivalent to not caring which choice is chosen.
"No your honor, I was not beating that person, I was merely moving my arm up and down in a beating sort of motion. If that resulted in that person being beaten, thats simply not my fault"
Come on now @feathercrown, There needs to be a reconning with the Dem leadership having funded a genocide in order for things to move forward. Or we can continue marching toward our own extinction. You're trying to win elections here, that means swaying large groups of people-- not pointing fingers on social media posts.
And as to your other assertion:
OR, people wouldnt actively participate in immorality of that magnitude. Both candidates obviously broke major laws and so are criminals who belong behind bars, at minimum. We should all be insisting our laws be followed rather than simply gaming for the criminal wearing our parties colors to win. This isnt football. But hey, keep following your plan, its working so well.
A people are a nation. I thought we had agreed that we are a nation of laws?
I wrote a very long response but it appears to have vanished into the ether when I sent it so I'll summarize here: Don't assume how I vote, and voting is a relative choice, not a wholehearted personal endorsement. I legitimately believe Trump to be a bigger threat on the whole than Harris would be, to Palestine, Ukraine, and the US itself. Not voting isn't choosing "none of the above", and makes you complicit in the result that everyone else has chosen, since you have not reduced the chance of either candidate winning. The only legitimate protest against two equally bad options is voting third party. That's all the points with none of the arguments, so if you disagree, I can explain in more detail.