this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024
-4 points (0.0% liked)

politics

19098 readers
3504 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
[–] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

But if we don’t push for bold change now, we’ll never get off the ground in the first place. Settling for what’s already in motion only ensures that the landing strip stays the same, election after election.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The point is to make changes before takeoff, to continue the example.

Grassroots positions. Down ballot posts. Judicial reform. Be planning for elections in the 2030's.

The effort to establish viable 3rd party candidates now, started years ago. It unfortunately failed. Those candidates did not achieve viability in 2024, and therefore don't exist, for practical purposes. To circle back, they especially don't exist if the goal is to keep trump out of office, which I stated was mine.

I can't understand how others don't share that goal, due to his wild, right wing plans that are an order of magnitude worse than harris' positions. Especially for disenfranchised minority groups, not even starting on the basics of governmental integrity.

If 3rd party groups spent their energy deplatforming conservatives then we would all have greater harmony, and third party platforms would find more space for their voice. Instead they make primary enemies with democrats, their nearest neighbors, and then wonder why the DNC and popular democrats shun them at every opportunity.

[–] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago

I agree that building a viable third party should start from the ground up, focusing on grassroots positions and down-ballot posts. However, the reality is that change isn't linear and doesn't always follow a neat timeline. While the efforts to establish viable third-party candidates for 2024 may not have achieved widespread success, it doesn't mean the push for alternatives should be abandoned or ridiculed.

Regarding Trump, I don’t deny the dangers his return poses, particularly to disenfranchised groups. However, this isn't just about Trump; it’s about the systemic issues that allow figures like him to gain power in the first place.

If third-party efforts only focused on deplatforming conservatives, they would risk becoming just another arm of the duopoly, which itself has consistently failed to bring about meaningful change for working people. The real challenge is not just to oppose one party or candidate but to break the cycle that leaves voters feeling trapped between two unsatisfactory choices.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is incredibly naiive and counterproductive.

Listen to these people.

[–] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Listen to these people.

Nah, I won’t be taking advice from those who are desperate to keep the capitalist duopoly in power.

Their insistence on maintaining the status quo only proves how threatened they are by the real change we’re fighting for.

[–] CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You're deeply misrepresenting the position. We're not desperate to keep the duopoly. We're desperate to keep it from collapsing into a dictatorship, and you're over there trying to kick its legs off.

[–] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago

If the system is so fragile that it risks collapsing into a dictatorship, then it's already broken beyond repair. So I refuse to help the duopoly even more.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago

Glad you agree!