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
You're missing the point: Is it bullshit they get to get away with being Republican-lite? Yes.
Is it something that we can change right this second? No.
It boils down to the same annoying reality of our situation being accepting tradeoffs because there is literally no alternative that is feasibly going to happen.
They don't have to accept tradeoffs "like everyone else"; they have to accept tradeoffs like the favored portion of the party that gets everything it wants out of the party at all times NEVER DOES.
Don't belittle people who are upset about genocide by acting like everyone in the party has to accept shit they don't like from the party. It's simply not true.
I like how they don't like genocide so in protest, they vote for the other party that "likes genocide" (and is actively hostile to minorities, but whatever).
In this case the tradeoff they have to accept is...voting for a party that does the same thing but even more overt.
I'm not belittling anyone, I'm simply stating that facts of the situation - regardless of which party they vote for - they will be effectively choosing to accept genocide, whether their vote is a protest vote or not, because that's how the 2-party system works.
When was the last time centrist Democrats had to accept a tradeoff? Don't pretend I'm talking about anyone else again. Don't try to change the subject again. Stop avoiding the question.
Moderate democrats are the majority in power, so it makes sense they are the most powerful and get what they want the most. In cases like Manchin, they get outsized power due to how tight margins are in the senate. That's how it works in a "coalition" of sorts. If Dems had a comfortable majority, they could force through more things. It's basic logic that a party with multiple different wings has to cater to the ones that are more likely to flip on them. In most cases, the left wing of the Dems will never vote for the Right, so it's a safer bet to de-prioritize them when compared to the right, who may vote right.
If the left wing of the dems had more voters (which is slowly happening by the look of things), they could exercise more power, and if they had a comfortable majority (and more balls), they could ignore people like Manchin.
As per your question, I have no idea, I dont keep tabs on every vote, but I am very confident my assessment of the situation is correct.
You can't provide a single example because none exists. "Everybody" doesn't have to accept tradeoffs. Centrist Democrats don't. You're expecting people to accept genocide based on an argument that has no basis in reality.
Centrist Democrats right now don't need to accept tradeoffs because they are needed atm. As demographics shift, eventually, things will change as they must.
As for accepting genocide...well, if I had to choose between my own safety and someone else's, I know where I'd stand...
"Just accept genocide because the group that runs the party may one day in the nebulous future have to accept tradeoffs"
is not the same as "Everybody has to accept tradeoffs."
You've made your position regarding instant unquestioning support of genocide for its own sake abundantly clear.
I love the big sweeping generalizations you make; it really shows an utter lack of understanding reality. Keep up the purity tests so the left can't ever get anywhere because we are too busy infighting I guess
Keep expecting everyone to be happy with tradeoffs you make on their behalf but never your own.