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
I know there are plenty of arguments to hit the dems on from the left. However, most of the attacks I'm privy to seem to be more about establishing leftist cred than actually doing something productive, and Jill Stein is one of the best examples of this.
Calling for an arms embargo is productive.
Yes, but then being unwilling to take any concession is not. The green party could, for example, pull itself off of ballots in key states or elections when the Democrats agree to their policies.
Running a doomed to fail candidate that only weakens the likelihood of the most left candidates and pulling progressives out of the Democrat party is a bad move.
Say what your will about RFK, he's getting political power from Trump by dropping (if Trump wins). What will the green party get? Nothing.
Dropping and endorsing after concessions is the real way for a minority party to weld power. Running no matter what is just delusion that works counter to any goal you might have.
I just want you to understand how this sounds when it's flipped:
Yes, but then being unwilling to take any concession is not. The democrat party could, for example, pull itself off of ballots in key states or elections when the Greens agree to their policies.
It may be easier to identify this way that this is not a reasonable position, no matter which party it is about.
If the Democrats were the minority party to the green party then yes, this is still sound. This is how politics works in FPTP election systems. You may not like it, but it's not unreasonable. If the purpose of the green party is to get its policies enacted then the best way for that is pushing and endorsing when concessions are made.
Heck, for a lot of its positions the best thing the green party could do is run for local and state level positions. But they don't do that, they only run for presidential positions. They waste a ton of time and money getting nothing done. You only hear about the green party once every 4 years which is why they are unserious.
And I'm not even saying they can't keep doing their dumb campaigns. However, they work directly against their goals by running in contested states. The green party pulls votes from Democrats which are the most in line party with the green party goals. By running in contested states they help Republicans get elected. Of the green party was more than just a joke or a rat fuck, they'd mainly be running in states like Idaho or California.
It's not clear to me what you mean here. Are you saying that AOC is attacking Jill Stein in order to bolster her own "leftist cred", or that Jill Stein is chasing "leftist cred" by attacking democrats?
If it's the second one, then I would just refer you back to my previous comment. Any attacks from Jill Stein could be easily defused by adopting a few popular planks. If you actually meant it the first way, then yeah I kind of agree!
Jill Stein attacking others on the left to establish leftist cred, just like so many other leftists we see on the net.
We have so much more in common than we have differences, and we could get a lot done if we were to band together - but instead we do the right's job for them by dividing ourselves.
I don't think that's a very charitable interpretation of what is easily explained by honest political differences. People can and do work together when possible, but there are also issues too important to compromise on.
She wants to play them off as honest political differences anyway.
When her actions match her supposed intentions then I'd be more willing to give her charity.
You're painting "so many leftists we see on the net" with that same brush though. Is it so hard to believe that there are people genuinely to the left of you politically? What "actions" do you need to see from Jill Stein? She's been running for office, giving interviews and speeches that platform issues that the dems are weak on. If nothing else she's forcing democrats like AOC (and you, presumably) to engage with these ideas or risk political consequences. If we didn't have 3rd party candidates to the left, there would be even less pressure on the dems to adopt leftist policies.
She could start by dropping out of the race, endorsing Kamala, and then putting every dollar she has into organizing for national ranked choice voting so that hopefully once in my life I can vote my conscience at the same time I vote pragmatically.
I sincerely doubt there is much room between where Stein is at on the issues and where AOC is at on the issues - the main difference is that AOC is not running for president and making it easier for despicable people who don't care about anything to win.
That basic strategy is why you rarely see people shitting on Bernie. He manages to pull the conversation to the left while not fucking everything up by being a spoiler.
Yup. He wants to be the most left option in a two party system, so when he runs to be that, he competes in Democratic primaries (both nationally and locally) to clear the lane so he's not setting up a scenario where the conservative wins because the left is divided.
Of course who knows what the centrist Democrats would have done if he'd won a presidential nomination, but at least Bernie did everything right.
It's the Dems that should do that, they have more to lose and more power and money to get it done, no?
If you mean ranked choice, there are a lot of dems working on it
Hah!