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
Agreed. The purity testing and splintering into to niche issues is what always screws the left.
If people could just focus and align on some core root cause issues, like getting corrupt money out of politics, the message would be stronger.
Centrists never have a problem when they do it against leftists, but cry fowl when leftists refuse to compromise with awful human beings that deserve the worst things that happen to them including the end of their lives.
But but… wHaT aBoUt SuPpOrTiNg GeNoCiDe?
All well and good, but what happens when someone comes to the meeting and says "we should end corruption and remove Trump, but I don't like DEI policies."
I'm guessing that will suddenly be added to the "root" cause and we're right back into splintering and purity spirals again.
@FaceDeer @just_another_person @simplejack
"I'm a huge racist, but I don't like Trump. Can I join your group?"
No.
That person should go find a "Racists Against Trump" group.
This is another perfect example of the point I'm making. The slightest variation from perfect alignment with your complete set of ideals and you'd rather descend into a purity spiral and purge your own supporters than beat Trump.
It's a tale as old as history, alas.
@FaceDeer @just_another_person @simplejack
I'm not going to partner with racists. I am not sorry.
If you are willing to work with fascists and racists, you are not my ally.
Be careful with insisting on "all or nothing", you often end up with "nothing." Like what happened in the 2024 election.
Also, I am not a racist. If you read my other comments you'll find that I'm in favor of the intent of DEI programs, they've just been implemented badly in many cases. But it's just like the virtue-signalling that Trump himself demands of his followers, the moment I said something that seemed slightly out of step I get ejected into the "enemy" camp. No compromise, no effort to understand nuance.
Well, bold strategy, good luck with your future elections I guess.
@FaceDeer @just_another_person @simplejack
I'll take nothing over partnering with racists.
Winning with racists is losing.
And the racists winning without you is an even bigger loss.
@agamemnonymous
The biggest loss would be aligning with racists.
I'm wondering if some people actually understand what being on the progressive left even means.
Partnering with racists makes you a racist, win or lose.
No, the biggest loss would be fascists staying in power and eliminating racism by eliminating all but one race. Material conditions are much, much more important than ideals.
Is the life of every minority a worthy cost for standing by your principles? If, I hypothetically, you knew for a fact that losing would mean total ethnic cleansing, would you still refuse to accept the support of racists to elect someone you knew for a fact wouldn't do ethnic cleansing?
@agamemnonymous
Yes, we've all seen the Trolley Problem. It's bullshit.
Just like this entire question. People who hate DEI aren't trying to join the left. No one on the left has to reject racists because racists hate us too.
This whole thread is basically trying to split the left. But the funniest part is pretending the fascists and the racists aren't the same people.
That's not an answer. Is it worth it or not?
That's what you got from this? It's overwhelmingly people rightfully pointing out that these line-in-the-sand ideals are what's splitting the left.
@agamemnonymous
Sorry, but I'm not interested in hypothetical game theory.
I'm not going to apologize for drawing a line in the sand that excludes racists. It's a line that must be drawn.
If the left doesn't oppose racism, it stands for nothing.
Good, me either. My hypothetical has nothing to do with game theory or the trolley problem, I didn't know why you brought it up.
The hypothetical was about lines in the sand, and how they lead to absurdities. You still haven't answered the question, which indicates to me that you know quite well that if you did answer it, you would expose your idealism as hollow virtue signaling.
Racism isn't even the point. It was just an example of ultimatums doing more harm than good.
If the left can't act strategically and make incremental progress, its stances are materially irrelevant.
@agamemnonymous
Yes, racism is the point.
You're claiming that rejecting racists as allies means the left is obsessed with purity, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.
My point is that if you expect the left to accept racism, you probably don't know diddley shit about the left.
The left is all about incremental progress. That's all we've been able to do for centuries. Again, y'all don't seem to know anything about being left in the USA.
No, it isn't. Making every issue a core issue was the point. Drawing lines in the sand over dozens of single issues, contributing to the erosion of an effective voter base was the point.
Racist "allies" were an offhand example, offered by someone else, to illustrate that point. You don't win elections on principles, you win them on votes. Sometimes principles gain votes, sometimes they cost them, but at the end of the day it counts down to how many people pulled the lever.
You don't have to let the casual racists determine the ticket, you just have to let them pull the lever.
But again, it's not about racism. It's about every single stance that's equal to or objectively better than the electable alternative which is snubbed for not being good enough. When it's between Bad and Worse, and people are lining up by the millions for Worse, being one of 12,000 votes for Perfect isn't really helping anyone.
The call is coming from inside the house comrade. Big tent with Bad to keep Worse at bay until Good is prepped to make a break for it. Good isn't ready yet. Keep Worse out long enough for Good to gestate. Accelerationism is cringe and privilege-pilled.
@agamemnonymous
Yes, racism is the point.
The extreme centrists can ally with them. I won't.
Thanks for your advice on how to left properly. I think I'll ignore it and keep voting left in Democratic primaries. We just need more Mamdanis and fewer Fettermans.
No argument from me. I'm envious that New York has the political climate to support a Mamdani. I'm totally on board with more of his ilk in as many races as they can win.
But some districts aren't going to elect anyone left of Fetterman, and Fettermans are at least better than whatever R would have otherwise won that district. I'm all for whoever's the furthest left candidate that stands a reasonable chance of winning any given district.
Draw your lines in the sand after the office is filled by the least obstructive reasonable contender. Put their feet to the fire for reelection, don't gamble with the more obstructive contender.
Hopefully yes, because that's exactly what it is. You can't fight fascism with fascism lite.
You don't vote for the candidate you want to fight for you, you vote for the candidate that's easier for you to fight.
It's not about fighting fascism with fascism lite, it's about fighting fascism lite instead of full strength. Whatever you're going to fight with is going to be much more effective against a weaker enemy.
If that is the case, then I assume you voted for the geriatric cult of personality who will be dead within the year?
The fascist with a cabinet full of fascists, congressional control, SCOTUS control, and a detailed fascist playbook?
No, that would be stupid. Even if he is on death's door, his replacement will be just as bad.
Ah ok. Then I assume you voted for the PSL candidate who isn't quite on-board with full communism now (She still believes in markets) , but could probably be swayed that way right?
I did not give any consideration to candidates with no chance of winning, for obvious reasons.
I voted for the one who wasn't a rabid fascist, and also stood a snowball's chance of beating the rabid fascist. So the Dem candidate.
If it was useful to vote for allies instead of enemies (say, if our elections were some variety of ranked choice) I would have voted for whoever was most socially liberal and closest to market socialism (since that's about the farthest we can hope to push the needle in a term or two; after that I'd start considering positions moderately to the left of that, rinse and repeat).
But it isn't, so I didn't. Dirty break is the only strategy that makes sense in our political environment. Obstruct the worst major party while you build a better platform grassroots style, and then once that platform is popular and normalized, and the worst major party is neutralized, then start running outside the Dem tent.
Voting for a candidate with no chance of success, with a population effectively propagandized against the platform, does not improve the material conditions of the working class in any way.
Ah, so the very least you could do, not voting for capitalism, you refused to do. However you have concocted a series of didactic expressions to help you rationalize your unwavering support of the "lesser evil". But added some additional qualifiers that make your position indistinguishable from the average blue no-matter who voter. I'm sure eventually, somehow, your pragmatically compromised morality will certainly defeat fascism.
In the meantime, things have gotten a lot worse for a lot of people, so maybe it's time for you and the other liberals to try something different?
What? Only if by "least" you mean "least helpful". Capitalism was going to win that election. It's probably going to win the next one. The choice we have is between fighting Christo-nationalist fascist capitalism, or milquetoast neo-liberal capitalism.
The very least we can do is choose the fight with fewer literal casualties. Accelerationism is cringe.
That's exactly my point. Protest voting keeps not doing anything, fascists keep winning. You have to abandon this strategy, it obviously isn't working. The Dems aren't going to "learn their lesson", and your third party darling isn't going to gain 49.97% of the vote overnight.
There are appropriate axes of praxis for principles and integrity. FPTP elections ain't one of them. Elections are a support action. You're not going to get to vote for someone you like until after a lot of people spend a lot of time on some serious local work.
Electoralism is the least you can do. It accomplishes next-to-nothing. So you may as well vote for the best candidate. Not the "most-viable" candidate in your extremely imperfect understanding of US voting trends, not the one you can post on facebook about how your vote "matters," but the literal best one that doesn't support capitalism. Everything else you can possibly do is much more important and has greater impact. Not voting for capitalism costs you nothing, you will never be punished for not voting for capitalism, no one is worse off for you not supporting capitalism, it is the least you can do. Yet you can't even manage to do that, because the status quo is what you support. The genocide is what you support. Capitalism is what you support. Even within an imperfect system where you are free not to support those things, you will still choose to support them.
As for local work I volunteer at a workers association. They run no candidates, they accept no cash for services, they are volunteer based, do grass roots work, hold workshops on theory, provide legal, dental, and medical benefits to their members. They have nothing to do with who you are voting for, and the only political help you can give them is trying to end capitalism. Yet you won't even do that, even when it costs you nothing. You are more interested in voting for "student loan forgiveness for pell grants recipients who run a business in a disadvantaged area for 3-years." You don't know why you support that, you don't even know that is what you support, but you don't care. And that is the actual problem.
Sorry comrade, you've got it exactly backwards. It's so dumb it makes you look like an agent provocateur deliberately trying to diffuse leftist action. Electoralism is good at one thing: select from a binary choice. A smart person uses that little bit of power to try to secure more fertile ground to "do grass roots work, hold workshops on theory, provide legal, dental, and medical benefits to their members.”
Exactly. Voting for someone who says they want to end capitalism does not end capitalism. Especially if that person won't win anyway.
If you want to end capitalism, you have to realize it is a deeply entrenched, centuries old institution. You're not going to overturn it in an election. You're going to overturn it with decades of grassroots work, and it's easier to do that when leftists aren't being thrown in camps.
Look at DSA, they're probably the most reasonable third party, and even Mamdani is running as a Democrat. They understand that BNMW is a temporary, but crucial, strategy for the current political climate. If we want a better political climate, it starts with direct action, not spoiler votes. Spoiler votes don't end capitalism, they prolong it.
Fascists keep winning cause the Dems are also fascist. Either support actual non-fascist parties or just accept you're no better than Blue MAGA.
Either use a strategy that helps more than it hurts, or just accept that you're no better than a right wing troll farm bot.
We have been by turning these fuckers against each other. It's what got us the death of Charlie Kirk which was a needed step and almost got us the death of Trump. The only thing that works in stopping fascists is violence cause that's all they understand. Not peaceful protests and votes for different colored fascists.
If everything is "root" then nothing is.
You... you think racism and xenophobia aren't a root cause of this? If so, you should read a history book. Start from Nixon.
Racism and Xenophobia are tools the Nixo used quite effectively. Do you think Nixon was racist and that was his goal? Was he in Vietnam because of how racist he was? Perhaps you should take your own advice Re: Nixon and make sure you understand "Why" and don't confuse it with "how."
And here we go, a disagreement over policy balloons instantly into "racism and xenophobia" and an ally gets kicked out of the meeting because everything is black or white and no compromise is possible.
I find DEI policies to be a complicated topic, personally. I don't oppose the basic idea and motive behind them, but I think they've been implemented poorly and often turn into discrimination in their own right. Am I now classed as "Trump supporter" in your eyes? I've been called a Trump supporter because I don't like the recent Star Wars movies, so I'm sure a lot of people would indeed lump me in with him on that basis. And thus is proven the basic point about how Trump's opponents are destroying themselves without Trump's supporters having to lift a finger.
Oh, so you're saying you personally don't like DEI policies. In that case I'm not necessarily calling you racist and xenophobic, but your seeming willingness to accept the results of past racism and xenophobia is definitely concerning. If I was running the meeting you wouldn't get kicked out, but your "can we not include DEI in our platform" would be met with an uncompromising "no." Before I explain why, do you understand the concepts of systemic racism and generational wealth?
You need such "discrimination" to undo the results of past discrimination. For example, did you know that despite being only ~0.7% of the population, Native Americans make up about 24% of the poverty population of the US? Is this not injustice? How do you rectify it without affirmative action (aka DEI)?
I honestly don't think dei did shit one way or another and was all just a show. That being said I agree. Lets all get behind the constitution including all the bill of rights and argue about the other things once we have enough rights to do so in a civilized manner.
This comment chain is just chef's kiss
At best I was expecting a few "huh, yeah, that's a common pattern" responses.
This heap of "you're racist! Get out!" Rage I got instead illustrated my point better than I could have hoped for. Unfortunately. What a complete lack of self-awareness.
I wonder if anyone would change their mind if I "recanted" and started gushing about how I loved everything about how things were being handled on the left with no reservations or caveats? Or if, once branded an enemy, always an enemy?
In any event not a promising sign for future efforts to take Trump down. Probably for the best I'm not American, I'll just focus on staying out of the splash zone.
I'm holding out hope that the real world remains separate from social media. We shall see. And for the Americans in the audience, remember No Kings Oct 18!