this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2024
214 points (88.8% liked)

politics

19243 readers
2251 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Such as insisting on doing a bunch of reprehensible things that your base hates while you're running for public office?

Yes, exactly! That is a counterproductive action. And I levy my criticisms regarding that action to the actors themselves, in my direct communication to them.

You have a direct line of communication with the president and vice president of the United States? That's impressive, but I don't. Hence the need to express my critiques to peers in stead.

Two things can be true: it is in the best interest of the DNC to more effectively court their base, and it is in the best interest of leftists for the lesser evil of the duopoly to win until we can break the duopoly.

Yes, but I have at no point argued that the lesser evil shouldn't win.

That's what you keep refusing to understand: I want them to change their actions both because the actions are themselves atrocious AND because I wanted them to win and those actions were causing them to lose.

That's why my correspondence with my representatives is focused entirely on their failings

First of all, I still don't have a direct line of communications to the white house. Second of all, I guarantee that, if I had, my complaints and warnings would not be heeded. Like those you pretend to have made were.

and my correspondence with other voters is focused entirely on their virtues.

Well that's just obsequious serf bullshit. Pretending in public that "your team" is always perfect and can do no wrong doesn't convince anyone. It just makes you a bootlicker whose perspective only fellow bootlickers will relate to.

It's amazing how you keep holding the meaningful actions of the most powerful people in the most powerful country in the world to a much lower standard of responsibility than me, a regular poor person, expressing a reasonable opinion.

I hold them responsible for their actions,

No you fucking don't! You claim that you have a private line where you get to discuss all your concerns with the White House, but we both know that that's bullshit.

You may leave a message for your congressperson and/or senator to ignore, but that's it. That's the extent of your options for expressing dissent ay we both know that won't stop the support for genocide any more than me voicing my displeasure in a public forum. If anything, it's LESS effective, as public dissent is much harder to ignore.

and I hold you responsible for yours

My actions of checks notes making my opinion on committing the most heinous crimes against humanity and (correctly, it unfortunately turned out) warning that continuing to ignore the people could cost the election and lead to the fascists taking over

Ooh, such transgression! Ever heard of the first amendment to the US constitution? It has a few sentences specifically about this kind of thing.

It's not that my standard for them is lower, my standard for them is irrelevant to the actions of others.

That would normally make sense, but in the specific case of arguing that it's wrong to ever criticize the Biden administration in public, that's absolute counterfactual nonsense.

Be better and demand better from the people supposed to represent you, please.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You have a direct line of communication with the president and vice president of the United States? That's impressive, but I don't.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Hence the need to express my critiques to peers in stead.

That doesn't make any sense. "I didn't have a wrench so I used a hammer instead". Those aren't interchangeable, they don't do the same thing. You can't accomplish the task you're attempting with the tool you're using.

Yes, but I have at no point argued that the lesser evil shouldn't win

You can't scream genocide and begrudgingly whisper lesser evil and expect that outcome.

First of all, I still don't have a direct line of communications to the white house. Second of all, I guarantee that, if I had, my complaints and warnings would not be heeded. Like those you pretend to have made were.

Again, yes you do. And if you don't think expressing your grievances directly to them will help, how exactly does telling everyone else your grievances do anything? If those voters aren't directly expressing their grievances en masse, how do the people you're trying to convince hear your message?

That's the extent of your options for expressing dissent ay we both know that won't stop the support for genocide any more than me voicing my displeasure in a public forum. If anything, it's LESS effective, as public dissent is much harder to ignore.

When I contact my representative directly, they are informed of my complaints, and what to do to improve. Voicing your displeasure in a public forum gives them no information, unless the users of that public forum contact their representatives directly. If you don't actually organize your dissent, it is extremely easy to ignore.

Ooh, such transgression! Ever heard of the first amendment to the US constitution? It has a few sentences specifically about this kind of thing.

Again, you have the freedom to be counterproductive. It's not forbidden, it's just stupid.

Be better and demand better from the people supposed to represent you, please.

I do that. Be better at directing your actions to accomplish your goal. Stop banging on bolts with a hammer.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Communicating your displeasure on, say, Israeli policy, does nothing unless you can also replace the millions and millions of AIPAC campaign contributions.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

A fair assessment, nonetheless it is still more effective than communicating displeasure to the wrong audience. Not much more effective, but definitively so.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is true. I used it as an answer to fundraising calls and texts. :) "No, as long as you're taking AIPAC dollars, you don't need mine."

Direct communication to people associated with DNC strategy, a noble and effective action.