this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
1022 points (98.8% liked)

politics

23557 readers
3309 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] 273 points 18 hours ago (6 children)

Weird. The party that claims to be "for the people" keeps putting centrists in charge. We're ready for someone who is actually for the people!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I'm confused. Are you arguing that AOC is or isn't for the people?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 hours ago

She absolutely is. Her nomination is the DNC's nightmare.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 15 hours ago

It all makes sense when you realize who makes the cutoff for what they consider "people."

[–] [email protected] 13 points 18 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 16 hours ago

Buzzword catchphrase

[–] [email protected] 32 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Sadly I don't think it's possible to have a party "for the people" with only two parties. There's too much pressure for both of them to champion the status quo.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 13 hours ago

Yes it is. If the part "for the people" turns out to be captured you drop it and get in an actual party for the people. Rinse and repeat as needed. There is a problem with political parties growing too old and becoming too institutionalized. But keeping them in power instead of giving them the boot is a choice made by the voters.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 16 hours ago

"Championing the status quo" is not how I would describe what Republicans are doing right now.

[–] [email protected] 177 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

Quickest way to mobilize the Democratic party is to threaten to put a progressive in charge

[–] [email protected] 21 points 17 hours ago

they'd rather lose to Trump for a third term than do that.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 17 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 17 hours ago

See Bernie Sanders.

[–] [email protected] 127 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

They learned their lesson with Obama. The funny thing is he’s not even a fucking leftist, the party is just so full of dinosaurs they think a modern centrist is a leftist.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 16 hours ago

The dinosaurs know they're marching right, that's where all the money is (for them).

[–] [email protected] 46 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

With Obama they just learned how to take a somewhat progressive candidates and bend them into a moderate. It's the same thing that happened with Kamala, although of course it's hard to say if either were ever really progressive or if they just used that for votes and didn't mind discarding it once they got pressured by the party and consultants.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 hours ago

Obama wasn’t even somewhat progressive before the Democratic Party. He was against gay marriage for a while.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

Kamala was never progressive.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah I definitely agree, both Kamala and Obama are candidates that acted progressive in their primaries but as soon as they eventually got the nomination they went towards the corporate Democrat establishment. My main question is whether they were progressive at some point but let themselves be changed by the establishment, consultants, and donors or if they never really cared that much to begin with. The end state is the same but the difference is important as it gives us insight into how much power the consultants and others have over candidates vs if they didn't really care then it wouldn't have taken much to change them.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 hours ago

Kamala was picked as VP because Dems thought she would get votes from the republicans who aren't so MAGA. She's on the conservative side of things: tough on crime as AG, opposed cannabis legalization (changed position later), opposed abolition of death penalty (flipped later), etc.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 15 hours ago

In general, no. In terms of specific policies as an AG, there were some.

I'd say she's a centrist, with some progressive policies and some regressive. Just my opinion obviously.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 15 hours ago

Neither was Obama. Not long after he put a bow on the nomination, he voted for an expansive security bill. A lot of people were surprised, but not me.

[–] [email protected] 66 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

They’re definitely for the billionaire people.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Aren't there primaries for the Dems?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Sort of, sometimes. They can and will heavily disadvantage candidates they dont like. Like when they gave Hillary the questions for debates beforehand but not to Bernie, and let hillary control the funding of races, including her own. And like when they cut new hampshire out of the primary results this year because the New Hampshire dems wouldnt move the date for the primary to when the dnc wanted. So sure you could vote in that primary, but nothing was done with the results. Straight to the garbage can with those ballots.

Russia says they have a democracy too, with votes and everything. Not saying we're the same, but proving we have "democracy" by the fact that voting happens is not that firm of a thing. Its easily corrupted.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Voter turnout in primaries is pathetic. In 30 states, you have to be registered with the party - i.e.: give them your name and address for fund-raising purposes - to vote. This all works to bias primaries to 'establishment' candidates, or at least people well known among party apparatchiks. They are, theoretically, the best way to get progressives or populists into office, but practically, those progressives are fighting demographics and the general apathy of voters under 40.

The same phenomena that let MAGA take over the GOP keep the moderates in charge of the Dems. At least, until someone figures out how to motivate all the young internet revolutionaries to actually go and vote instead of memeing about how useless voting is.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

You're blaming the DNC for something that is controlled by each individual state.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 minutes ago

Not really. I'm saying that the system discourages change. If there's blame for the DNC, it's that their message has constantly been something along the lines of "be reasonable & empathetic; improve the world through measured change" which tends to demoralize people who think the system is seriously fucked. That empowers the career politicians. GOP propaganda, at least for the last 50-or-so years, has been "More guns! More babies! No brown people!" which tends to attract passionate radicals.

[–] [email protected] 50 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

DNC: I am here for the working people-- from billionaires, all the way to millionaires.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 18 hours ago

From the business owners to the CEOs, the Democrats are here to hear you. All the people, white or tan, brown people of light complexion as long as they have a 401k and 10 million in assets they will LISTEN