this post was submitted on 15 May 2024
135 points (91.4% liked)

politics

18789 readers
2817 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
(page 2) 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

I highly doubt Trump and Biden are coordinating in any capacity

[–] [email protected] 33 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Trying to worm his way into the debates

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

No honestly, he should join the debates. I'll start getting a bingo card ready

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

He should get someone to make a high quality edit of himself in there answering the questions alongside them and then release the video himself. He's not great, but the juxtaposition with those two would make him look great and people would get a kick out of some nice editing/AI tricks or whatever.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (2 children)

This shouldn't be a big surprise; In a winner-take-all contest, the two bigger players are going to gang up and eliminate the smaller one first before focusing on each other. Neither Biden nor Trump are going to allow RFK to waltz in and get a boost off of those two fighting each other; it would just make it harder for them to eliminate him later.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 103 points 3 months ago (5 children)

He's not wrong, the two main parties absolutely do collude to create a duopoly.

He's also the wrong messenger to deliver the message.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 months ago (20 children)

He's polling at 10% nationally. He should be included.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The two main parties are so big that they don't need to collude. Every single component of our media will do the work for them.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

Colluding involves communication and coordinated ation. They don't need to collude because excluding third parties is in their best interest.

Both parties are still wary after the outcome in 1992 when Ross Perot received nearly 20% of the vote after being included in the debates. Neither want to risk having a wildcard on stage.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 43 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (6 children)

It's not just that.

Every other election debates are held by a nonpartisan organization and a third party that meets certain requirements can also join.

Because political parties are private organizations not attached to the government.

This election both parties agreed they will only do debates that they arrange.

Meaning they're in charge of who shows up, and they'll never both agree to let anyone else join.

People keep acting like it doesn't matter, but it's a big deal.

Edit:

Obviously RFK is a joke and won't win, but we shouldn't just shrug as the two private parties seize more and more power when they have zero accountability to voters and neither side will ever be held accountable by their own politicians.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Every other election debates are held by a nonpartisan organization and a third party that meets certain requirements can also join.

They change the rules rather arbitrarily to suit their needs anyway. During the 2000 election Nader was excluded from debates under the new rule that the green party had to have gotten 5% of the vote (nationally) in the previous presidential election to quality. Some of the votes for Nader, that helped get Bush elected, were cast to make sure the green party got that 5% for the next election. They didn't, it ended up at 4% and change, but the rule was changed for 2004 anyway so it wouldn't have mattered.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

The lower one side goes, the lower the other side goes. How are you gonna vote out fascism when the Democrats go a low as they can simply because Republicans go lower. Trump doesn't even need to win at this point for fascism to continue encroaching because Dems will continue to strip liberties like fair debates away under the guise of stopping the other sides fascism. Every day we march rightward.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Now that made me laugh.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›