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
Most politicians are not reliable so people lose hope and stop voting yet people like you keep critisizing the voters and not the politicians
Oh I am far more angry at the Dem party. Not voting is still moronic.
Moronic or not, you make them vote by pressuring the politicians. Shaming them will not improve the chance of them starting voting again.
Sure and work right past them by electing progressives and DSA members.
But for non voters i fear we can shame them, worship them, do everything they want and it still wont matter. They don't vote because it makes them feel superior. Its not about politics, its about needing to feel justified in their belief that they are better. It's just ego. Others are just myopic and act helpless. Until they start getting marched into camps, then they might start to see why voting always matters.
I've watched it over and over, a candidate will agree with someone on 99% of issues, finally a candidate these voters can get behind. Most of those non voters still stay home. They'll find one issue they disagree with, or they'll say it doesn't matter anyway, that every candidate is controlled opposition. I've worked in politics, I've seen the data, I've courted those voters. Until non voters actually show up, mocking them is probably just as good a use of time as any (I'm maybe being flippant here).
Inaction is nearly as big an evil in society as bad action.
You can't be neutral on a moving train and all that. Also, Rush: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".
The non-voters that pay attention, but still stay home over some performative bullshit are the most exasperating.
It's one thing to be low-info; it's quite another to be a lazy/uncaring asshole that still has an awareness of politics, but because your pet issue didn't get enough care, or the candidate did not properly court a certain group to then bow out, and then - this is the best part - to act like they are morally superior beings because of that inaction. Oh, chef's kiss on that last part.
This is a democracy. Are you saying the voters deserve no criticism when we end up with Republicans?
Shitty establishememt democratic politicians gave you trump . Yes in democracies politicians are the one who should get critisized
How did they give us Donvict? Donvict was and is clearly a reaction - an all-too-predictable one, by they way - from reactionaries that had their brains utterly broken by having a black President for 8 years.
I don't see how it makes any sense to go all Murc's Law on Democratic candidates, but the voters, most especially Republican voters and non-voters, are blameless?
Number 1 failing to convince people that they will improve people lively hood, 2 backing genocide.
You can blame who ever you want, still you won't make any change by blaming people without trying to find solutions
He's criticizing the non-voters.
And i blame the system and politcians that allowed so much people to feel so desperate that they decide to not vote
A lot of things can be blameworthy.
If they were that desperate you'd think they would at least cast a vote, even against all hope. That's what desperation means.
The word you were looking for is resigned. People felt so resigned that they decided not to vote.
Whatever. As long as politicians keep promising to respect democracy and serving people then when they will they do the opposite many people will not vote. When some new politicians seems more trusty and bring something new like Mamdani the turnout get bigger . His election has highest voter turnout for an NYC mayoral race since 1969
I'm still trying to figure out what the first half of that is even trying to say, so I'm not sure how to respond to it.
As for running more candidates like Mamdani, you'll get no argument from me there. I'm happy with his performance so far, and the performance of others like him. The time is ripe for a sea change. People are ready for it.
Even so, sometimes and in some districts, damage control / harm reduction is necessary, and sometimes a strategic vote means voting for the least bad option. Not everyone has a progressive on the ticket, although they should.
But I'd still vote for a milquetoast centrist if the only other option is a mask-off fascist, and it's wild that some people still see things differently