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
Man, the comments here leave me with no hope that any lesson was learned at all this past election. It seems as if many here are positioned to do the exact same thing in 2028 as they did in 2024:
Which was nothing.
Let’s maybe break this down in a way it may be more easily digested by those that seem to still not understand how it works:
Let’s say MAGA is a cancer. I’m certain very few would argue about this (I’m not thrilled by the idea of likening it to such a disease, but bear with me- it works). And we all know that the more aggressive the cancer, the more aggressive the treatments are needed to be to overcome it.
Democrats are chemotherapy. Yes it sucks. They suck. But as it is a proven treatment in the battle against cancer, they are proven capable of defeating the cancer that is MAGA. Hell… they did it with Biden, and that dude’s bones are at times, barely enough to prop himself up on.
To add- Do we see many people choosing to undergo a rigorous chemo therapy session if they don’t have cancer? No? But what if they enjoy it? Still no?
Yeah, no. And that’s because no one wants chemo if they don’t have to have it- but until a more successful treatment for the disease is readily available- we have to go with chemo. No one is happy with how the democrats handle things, but right now, it’s what we have- no, it’s ALL we have. So we go with that. Because there is no other viable option- regardless of your wishful thinking, in reality- no, THERE IS NO VIABLE THIRD OPTION. understand this.
Back to the cancerous stain on America that is the Trump administration-
Note how we also don’t ever have oncologists suggest that with an aggressive cancer such as MAGA- doing nothing at all is the best course of action. EVER. Not do we have them suggest that we should use antibiotics (the equivalent of third part voting).
Once the cancer is on its way out and kicking rocks, we can then stop the chemo and work towards the necessary steps to a healthy and cancer free body.
NOT BEFORE.
Now, I’m full well prepared to have this analogy torn apart and rewritten to make some bizarro-world version of a point in argument against it, but at the end of the day, no matter how you look at it-
this cancer was assisted by those that chose to not aggressively go after it when they had the chance.
(Disclaimer: my apologies if this example strikes a nerve with anyone. I too have also lost many family members to this disease. Colon cancer, breast cancer, skin cancer and lung cancer. It in no way is being made light of- but instead, being used as a placeholder to illustrate that the one thing that can win against the one thing we all hate, is also something we all hate- but the casualties in the end will be exponentially less)
no, you are wrong because you are looking at this problem using the wrong framework. no, MAGA is not cancer. MAGA is a symptom of cancer, but it's not cancer itself. Democrats aren't chemotherapy, in fact I would argue they are a symptom of cancer too. maybe not as pronounced, not as painful, but a symptom nonetheless.
what's the cancer then? well, it's the broken electoral system, it's the two-party system that forces people to vote for the lesser of two evils. but most importantly, it's the late stage capitalism. if we don't get that sorted, America is facing an eventual collapse. whether Trump had won 2024 or not, that only changes how fast the cancer progresses. you are too short-sighted - 4 years don't really matter! if we don't actually start fighting the real cancer, in 50 years, or maybe 100, the United State of America will collapse.
You’re not wrong, but unfortunately- you’re working within an ideology that can’t exist.
The electoral system is not now or ever will be changed from what it is. Period. It favors them, and the them are the only ones with the authority to change it. A complete reform of our electoral system is out of the question.
And while it’s a fun thought experiment to imagine how cool it would be if we could change it- sooner or later we’re going to have to come back to reality and accept things as they really are and work within the confines of what is actually possible.
And right now, the immediate threat is the cancer that is MAGA. We had the chance to rid ourselves of it- and too many chose to do nothing in protest of chemo.
And now, after reading the comments here, I’ve no doubt anymore that the cancer is going to spread and we will succumb to it.
I think you are missing the forest for the trees here. Had we elected Kamala, we would have thwarted MAGA, there is no doubt about that. But the MAGA voter base still exists, the socio-economic circumstances that allowed Trump to be elected in our timeline would still exist. Things like that don't just pop up overnight, it takes decades and generations, and they sure as hell won't go away easily. Do you think if Democrats were elected, they will correctly recognize the problem and try to solve it?
(Also, to leave no doubt, personally I vote blue no matter who. But I also at the same time think that won't really matter in the end.)
The MAGA voter base would still exist, sure. But FAR less people would have been hurt or suffered as a result of it at this point- and I can only imagine the suffering that has yet to come.
How can the Democrats be the chemo when they enabled Trump and Republicans?
Because I’m using what’s called real-world examples. Not made up horse shit that’s shared with abandon amongst wannabe socialists.
I think that your point has gotten a bit lost in the analogy for me. Like if we're saying that the Democrats are like chemotherapy — unpleasant but necessary — in your view, what does this mean for the potential split caused by Mamdani winning the nomination and many establishment Dems seeming to have a problem with this? You seem frustrated at some of the comments in this thread, but it's not clear to me what your issue is in particular, or what you think is the best course of action with respect to the upcoming mayoral election.
For what it's worth, I like your analogy, and how you frame it; I think that with some refinement or clarification, it could be an effective way to deliver your point
In my view and my analogy, what is happening with Mamdani really helps to exemplify my point:
Chemo is the essentially the carpet-bombing of cancer treatment. Unfortunately it’s going to take out some of the good guys also. Not unlike how antibiotics work. There’s no discrimination. It takes out ALL bacteria. This is to say that in the analogy, Mamdani represents the good bacteria.
Essentially, it’s collateral damage. Would you prefer Trump as president while someone like Mamdani gets their seat at the table, or Trump doesn’t get elected and Mamdani has to wait a while?