this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
142 points (86.2% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3364 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

That's totally unrelated to my statement.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yea what kinda response is this? Did the OP reply to the wrong thread?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

They have an agenda. They don't care about the question so long as they can turn it to the subject they want to talk about.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You are trying to claim there can be no progress unless we elect enough Democrats, that's happened before and all we've gotten is crumbs.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And when we don't elect enough Democrats we don't even get crumbs. What's your point?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And it's fear of losing your crumbs why people will never find their proverbial balls and do what's right for people and society

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Easier to do what's right when you've got crumbs to nibble on than when you're starving. Accelerationism is a deranged and wildly privileged alternative.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Liberals have somehow convinced themselves that a slow death via poisoning is somehow better than a fast death via poisoning. The prolonged agony of society because of that poison continues to poison generation after generation.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Slow death buys time for other action, it's objectively better. No one's saying you're not allowed to take other actions too. They'll be harder to enact under P2025, it's a no brainer.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

People have been saying it buys time for generations, buys time and what we have gained? Gained no more progress for civil rights and labor rights and wage rights and housing rights and healthcare rights. For the last hundred years we've been having the same conversations about these inequalities for several generations. And we will have these same conversations for the next few generations because we are getting nowhere because people have convinced themselves that they are buying time with a slow poison.

Harm reduction and buying time relies on a hypothetical worse future, so you don't spend time concerned about the horrible present. Keeping you always asking for the potential of something better later instead of demanding a better now

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

No one's saying you're not allowed to take other actions too. They'll be harder to enact under P2025

For the last hundred years every advance we have made was under one party, and the worst of the steps back were made under the other. Real change is made from the ground up, voting isn't sufficient, but it is necessary. It's like you refuse to acknowledge the basic logic.

I'm not saying you're a troll trying to split leftists away from the democratic candidate so the fascists can win, but if you were, how would your talking points be different?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Because there is no logic, I'm not trying to split leftists away from the Democratic candidate because if they are leftists they would not be voting for a Democratic candidate.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

My point exactly.