this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
1053 points (97.1% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2259 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
 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said the reelection of former President Trump would be the “end of democracy” in an interview released Saturday by The Guardian.

“It will be the end of democracy, functional democracy,” Sanders said in the interview.

The Vermont senator also said in the interview that he thinks that another round of Trump as the president will be a lot more extreme than the first.

“He’s made that clear,” Sanders said. “There’s a lot of personal bitterness, he’s a bitter man, having gone through four indictments, humiliated, he’s going to take it out on his enemies. We’ve got to explain to the American people what that means to them — what the collapse of American democracy will mean to all of us.”

Sanders’s words echo those President Biden made in a recent campaign speech during which he said that Trump’s return to the presidency would risk American democracy. The president highlighted the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol in an attempt to cement a point about Trump and other Republicans espousing a kind of extremism that was seen by the world on that day.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

Not voting for the bigger evil has been the way it has been for much longer than you think. And it is on the voters. believe it or not it is actually the voters fault (the non voters fault) that it is this way. As It was also on the voters to do candidate nomination. So you can’t excuse your first neglect and then complain it’s ‘too much’ now when it is all the way at the the election phase and you just now woke up to complain you hate who was nominated for the election. So yeah it is on the voters. This part always is. It’s like a manager hiring a shit person because they didn’t bother to do a background check and then complaining ‘it’s too much responsibility’ when the shit hiree starts toxifying the work place. It’s not just a bad employee to make that situation. It’s bad manager. So voting public are just as much to blame for making this a shit show.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And it is on the voters.

No, it's on the party, and the candidate they select to run.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It's that simple. DNC should be having debates and put forward the best candidate. DNC is completely corrupt and bought by the most fundraising.

attorneys representing the DNC claim that the Democratic National Committee would be well within their rights to “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way." https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (3 children)

A. Parties haven't held effective primaries for an incumbent since I was born.

B. Political parties are private organizations. They are completely within their rights to go back into the smoke filled back rooms.

C. That would be political suicide and tells us exactly what the DNC thinks about us.

[–] prole 5 points 10 months ago

Right? I'm tired of being fucking surrounded by misinformation, even on lemmy.

Political parties don't give up the incumbent advantage. This isn't new.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

A. Primaries have existed since 1972. 1976 Ford primaried by Reagan. 1980 incumbent Carter challenged by Ted Kennedy. 1992 Ross Perot.

If B is true, they shouldn't be able to use tax dollars and public employees for their primary elections. They should have to fund and administer their private org election themselves. In fact, in many states only the two parties even have access to primary ballots.

C. DNC could care less about winning. See also Bernie.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

1992 Ross Perot.

Ross Perot was a third party candidate, not a primary challenger to an incumbent. I take no issue with anything else in your comment.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Sorry. Buchanan primaried Bush Sr. (Incumbent)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

That makes more sense. I'd forgotten about Buchanan entirely.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Ross Perot was an independent. That's hardly a party primary. The others were before I was born. Also primaries have been a thing since the early 1900's. They just didn't have as much weight then as they do now.

I'm going to need an example state where minor parties can't get on the ballot. At any rate afaik, they pay the state for the election. But it's also in the state's best interest to run it.

And they did win with Biden. I think it's more fair to say they care more about their internal politics than winning.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Presidential primaries did not exist until the 20th century, and they did not have a major impact on conventions until many years later. In 1960, John F. Kennedy won several Democratic primaries, but Lyndon Baines Johnson remained the favorite of the party establishment.

At any rate it was the Convention that selected candidate until...

After the controversial 1968 presidential cycle, the Democrats began to reform their nomination process to make it more inclusive and transparent, and to make its results more representative of the will of the party as a whole, not just the party bosses and insiders.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Which is what I said.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Ohio is one example that took away third party ballot access. The first hurdle would be getting 60,000 valid voter signatures in a limited time frame. Then you would need to get 120,000 General election votes for a Gov candidate. Arkansas etc are similar

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_political_parties_in_Ohio

Other examples can be found https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_political_parties_in_the_United_States

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's not a ban. That's third parties not having enough support.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You don't know what you are talking about. Taking Ohio as example when 3rd parties sued for ballot access, Libs had 3% of the vote, 4-6% for statewide.

https://lpedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_of_Ohio_Historical_Election_Results

Green Party with 1% to 3% when allowed on General election ballots

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_Ohio

Not sure what your definition of "enough support" is. Ohio repubs then tailored the law to exclude any future 3rd parties. (Through petition signatures which amount to millions in CPRS)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Fun story, they were on the ballot for the general election in 2020. They got 1 and 0.3 percent respectively.

Frankly, these aren't good enough numbers to be on the ballot. Even if they were at 3 percent. The standard around the world is generally 10 percent to get seated in a parliament.

So Ohio asking for a fifth of that in signatures isn't bad. In other countries they'd need to show half a million people for Ohio's voting population.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

It’s that simple. DNC should be having debates and put forward the best candidate.

Exactly. The Democratic establishment is trying to play things as if its just another regular election (by not maximizing their chances of winning with another candidate), and not a critical one, with the country in the balance, in hopes of gaining/maintaining power.

The fact that they are trying to guilt-shame everybody into voting for Biden is truly unethical/immoral/wrong. People died for our freedom to vote, its not something that should be manipulated so that a vote is forced a certain way.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

TY; corrected.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

So what you're saying is that more people need to be politically engaged and go vote. I agree. Biden is the only choice.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

Need to stay politically engaged. Tired as we are, this is the only true path towards lightening the burden in the long run.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Biden is the only choice.

No, he's not. The party can put someone else up to run against Trump.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It isn't voter's fault, once again the theme for Dems is "Hey I'm not that worse guy." to be the selling point to save democracy. People saying democracy is at stake isn't going to motivate everyone when it doesn't even work properly in the country they live in. The only class of people who have access to democracy is the wealthy ruling class. When they collectively want something, they get it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

The only class of people who have access to democracy is the wealthy ruling class. When they collectively want something, they get it.

Well that’s the point of voting. Has nothing to do with money you have saved in the bank. Stop looking for reasons to be lazy and blame others for the outcome of it

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago

I think I agree but I wouldn't have put it quite so dramatically.

I despise Trump, his popularity is infuriating. That said I don't necessarily think he's any more corrupt than politicians generally, he he just doesn't have any finesse. Like someone else might make fucking everyone over look better, if that makes sense.

Even before Trump I often thought that democracy isn't really about elected representatives executing the will of the people, it's more about elected representatives convincing the people that their preferred course of action is the correct one.

There are a lot of problems with democracy. I don't think the vast majority of people are capable of making objective, informed decisions about the best course of action for running a country. Myself included.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago

Not voting for the bigger evil has been the way it has been for much longer than you think.

I mean, it didn't use to be this bad. The Dems have been moving steadily right since the 90s. Clinton cut welfare, pushed mass incarceration, and deregulated Wall Street (and by repealing Glass-Steagall he helped create the 2008 financial collapse). Obama, for all his left-wing taking points, created a unprecedented mass surveillance program, a robot assassination program that has no congressional oversight, and when he had a filibuster-proof super-majority, he chose to pass the Heritage Foundations healthcare plan.

The Dems have been terrified of seeming too leftwing since Regan curb-stomped then, and as a result they've essentially become a center-right party, and there basically is no left anymore. That's not the voters fault; it's the fault of leadership that still thinks its 1980 and won't abdicate any amount of power.