268
submitted 20 hours ago by 000@reddthat.com to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 13 minutes ago

This is what Democrats call bipartisanship.

[-] clot27@lemm.ee 26 points 11 hours ago

When will US truly have a centre left party atleast?

[-] eric5949@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

Considering we have a far right and a controlled opposition party, never.

[-] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

When people on the left stop just circle-jerking on the Internet and actually get involved in their state and local Democratic parties, vote in the primaries and run for office.

How would voting for a right wing party or getting banned from running as part of that right wing party give us a center left party?

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 hours ago

Probably after we switch from a First-past-the-post voting system to something more representative.

Then people could vote outside the two party system without a spoiler effect.

We can make these changes at the state level. Alaska recently voted to keep using Ranked Choice voting. Conservatives were mad because Ranked Choice voting allowed alaskans to choose a more moderate conservative over Sarah Palin and pushed to have a referendum to go back to FPTP voting.

So why do Blue states use FPTP voting when it's clear republicans prefer it?

[-] mhague@lemmy.world 60 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

75% of Democrats voted against it and 100% of Republicans supported it. The problem in this country is Democrats, because a portion of them side with Republicans sometimes.

[-] rational_lib@lemmy.world 29 points 11 hours ago

Honestly the fact that 75% of Democrats voted against it is actually kinda surprising. In the past close to 100% of both parties were knee-jerk pro-Israel votes. This means there's actually a good chance it won't pass the senate. If people wanna call their senator instead of complaining online, maybe it won't. I'm in DC so I'm allowed to just complain online until you give me my two senators.

[-] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 6 points 11 hours ago

If fewer Republicans voted for it, more Democrats would have.

[-] mhague@lemmy.world -1 points 4 hours ago

I'd like to see a breakdown of this idea. Some people say Democrats seem to perfectly shore up votes to push through conservative shit, but the idea is the same color as "it's them vs us."

[-] HK65@sopuli.xyz 20 points 17 hours ago

Do the 75% of the Democrats call out and throw out the 25%? Like the whole ACAB thing, how are these people allowed to represent the party?

[-] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago

Because their constituents voted for them.

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 hours ago

The DNC allowed them into the party.

[-] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago

No, their state Democratic party did. Because they won a primary election.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Democratic primaries being famously neutral and all.

[-] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 147 points 20 hours ago

“Republicans want to sanction the ICC simply because they don’t want the rules to apply to everyone,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Massachusetts) on the House floor on Thursday.

McGovern highlighted that Republicans are moving to erode human rights while ignoring urgent issues within the U.S.

“We have a natural disaster unfolding in California right this second…. We have a gun violence epidemic, as we see massacres in our schools nearly every single day. And families are unable to make ends meet because they’re being ripped off by billionaire corporations,” said McGovern. “All those challenges, and this is what the out of touch elitist billionaire Republican party wants to waste time on. Sanctioning the ICC.”

I liked Jim McGovern already, but I like him more, now.

[-] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 25 points 19 hours ago

Yeah, he fucking nailed it.

[-] Masta_Chief@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

McNailed it

Also wonder if the fact that he's, uh, governing (?) is some nomnative determinism

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 94 points 20 hours ago

45 democrats need to get fucking primaried.

[-] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 25 points 16 hours ago

AIPAC is ready to fund them

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Then we lose while making AIPAC spend money that would otherwise have been put towards further entrenching foreign influence.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 17 points 11 hours ago

Honestly, campaign on that.

“My opponent supports genocide. They’ve received xxx,xxx dollars from AIPAC. They’re being funded by foreign interests because they put those interests before you.”

And to any dem politicians out there thinking about it- AIPAC and Netanyahu fucked Biden. They are not your ally. They are not your friend.

[-] Todd_cross@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Yes, but then they'll be accused of anti-Semitism because people don't understand the difference between Israel and Jewish people

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 hours ago

Oh no accusations! Republicans accuse people of all sorts of dumb shit, you really gonna fall for that old trick?

Yes... yes you will.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 6 points 12 hours ago

I worry that's exactly it.

[-] HuntressHimbo@lemm.ee 79 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

The list copied by hand from https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024242

Sorry for any errors

  • Boyle (PA)
  • Caraveo (CO)
  • Cartwright (PA)
  • Craig (MN)
  • Cuellar (TX)
  • Davis (NC)
  • Frankel (FL)
  • Gallego (AZ)
  • Golden (ME)
  • Goldman (NY)
  • Gonzalez (TX)
  • Gottheimer (NJ)
  • Horsford (NV)
  • Landsman (OH)
  • Lee (NV)
  • Levin (CA)
  • Manning (NC)
  • McBath(GA)
  • Meng(NY)
  • Moskowitz(FL)
  • Nickel (NC)
  • Norcross(NJ)
  • Pallone(NJ)
  • Panetta(CA)
  • Pappas (NH)
  • Peltola(AK)
  • Perez(WA)
  • Peters (CA)
  • Phillips (MN)
  • Ryan (NY)
  • Schneider (IL)
  • Schrier (WA)
  • Scott (GA)
  • Slotkin (MI)
  • Soto (FL)
  • Stanton (AZ)
  • Suozzi (NY)
  • Thanedar (MI)
  • Torres(NY)
  • Vargas (CA)
  • Veasey (TX)
  • Wasserman Schultz (FL)
[-] BMTea@lemmy.world 37 points 20 hours ago

Fucking evil rats, all of them. Reichstag rodents.

[-] Drusas@fedia.io 2 points 14 hours ago

It would be nice if this were sorted alphabetically by state, but thank you regardless!

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 47 points 20 hours ago

I can’t be an American. There’s no way my politics are this divorced from the average person and I’m still an American.

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago

You're not a 1%er, the only people our government represents. Culture wars are a distraction

[-] Bacano@lemmy.world 46 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

(https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/)[The bottom 90% of income earners have a statistically zero level of influence on policy.]

It's not you who isn't American, it's the current governing body.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago

Then why is it every time we vote I feel less American?

[-] SolarMonkey@slrpnk.net 5 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Because the options you get to pick from are also unamerican. And you get to choose between supporting unamerican and supporting facism. And that’s not a choice that leads one to patriotism.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 6 points 16 hours ago

No, the options are entirely American, and that’s the problem.

It’s “the land of the free and the home of the brave”

Not the intelligent.

Not the compassionate.

Not the effective

Free and brave.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Cue Lionel Hutz:

"Oh no, those printers messed this all up.

It's the land of the Fee and the home of the slave.

Better remove this bar logo."

[-] SolarMonkey@slrpnk.net 6 points 16 hours ago

I mean sure, if you look at the average citizenry. But if you look at the goals, it’s no surprise you are disappointed.

I’m a (non-combat, undeployed, medically discharged) veteran, and tbh I regretted it within a few years of joining up because I realized a lot of things. And it’s really the same thing as civic participation. We are sold a myth, and over time realize the truth is that the people we have to pick from don’t share the same ideals we were led to believe they would have.

So I totally agree with you, but our current crop are, indeed, unAmerican regardless of what the population has been led to believe is totally fine.

[-] Drusas@fedia.io 1 points 14 hours ago

Only approximately 30% of the eligible voters in this country voted for Trump. They are not the average person.

What we need now is some polling on the average person's views on the ICC and this in particular.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 26 points 20 hours ago

If we keep acting like anyone with a D by their name is perfect we'll never fix shit.

The hard truth is the party needs to clean house because when shit like this happens "both sides" is hard to deny

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

If we keep acting like anyone with a D by their name is perfect we’ll never fix shit.

Progressives usually don't (value based on group membership). You know those disappointments only got into power because they were the least-bad option. Because progressives don't value loyalty; progressives need to fall in love.

Thing is, they have just one option, and it's merely the lesser of two evils. They need more less-evil choices. They need more people saying "people have the right to defend their land" and blow the dog whistle, and then say "that's not their land. That's not defending" when they get in.

I say that's 45 disappointments, but it's only 45. Promise me you'll get it to 44 and lower if they're in your area. Do what you can, at least.

This isn't a movie script; it's a continual slog with a progress report every 2 years. This is one time when "line must go up" from the pit it's in now. So. And I mean this after all that rambling.

Primary their asses.

[-] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

It's easy to say but the solution takes a lot more critical thinking for people to vote ethically or even just in their own interests rather than for the team they've been trained to vote for.

Most people either don't have the available time to research, the interest to put the effort in or the capacity to understand the consequences of their choice.

Simplification to "trusted source K recommended by trusted source L says I should vote for team B" is the default solution. "Surely everyone in recommended team B is a fine upstanding person who will fight tooth and nail for my best interests?"

Most people need to be engaged and critical or the system defaults to whoever controls the trusted sources.

[-] Bacano@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago

Third party corruption investigations and prosecutions are needed on every branch of high level government.

The tone is set from the top. Hold the top accountable and the rats will cease to try and climb.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world -1 points 18 hours ago

Know how to get shouted down on lemmy? Make a comment about how rotten the Democrats are, comparing their sins to Republicans. And here's the secret sauce...

Let the next comment say, "fuck your 'both sides' bullshit!"

That's all it takes. No matter the original comment, first reply sets the tone.

Sprinkle in some approved slogans to really rack up those points. A real point scorer is, "the suffering is the point!" Or, "capitalism", or "racism". Context be damned, just comment the right words and you can lead these kids around by the nose.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 12 points 20 hours ago

Scratch a Blue Dog Democrat...

this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
268 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19296 readers
2247 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