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
Seems like the governors race in California is going like shit
Yeah that's why there's so much arguing. There's no good candidates.
The powerful are very good at weeding them out for higher offices.
Steyer seems like the best option.
I agree but I don't love it.
Yeah. Katie Porters downfall has been monumental. I'm embarrassed to say I shared a stage with her as a fundraiser for other candidates
Oh interesting. I would vote for her too but she has her issues and has fallen off in the polls. So if you don't want a chevron-owned candidate it's basically Steyer or bust.
Oh I wouldn't vote for her at this point. She's been a bit of a disaster for a couple years now.
Like you, I'd vote for Steyer. They're genuinely the best option and the only progressive in the race.
There are no progressive billionaires. There are no ethical billionaires. Every billionaire is an enemy of humanity.
Tom Steyer is worth $2.6 billion. He should be food, not a governor.
Sure. And someone is going to be the next Governor of California.
If you would prefer to eat Steyer, who do you suggest people then instead vote for?
Porter is — or was — the only candidate who is not completely deplorable.
I mean policy wise, Steyer is clearly to her left. Porters did get Pelosied when she went for Senate previously, but her performance in this election cycle has been her own. Porter also didn't make in-roads with the rest of the squad and, well, I think that also has cost her.
Most importantly, at this point she's sub 8% and is acting as a spoler to allow a Republican onto the ballot in November. She needs to take the L, drop out, and endorse Steyer.
If I could wave a wand, I'd make it Porter vs Steyer for the governership. Because yes, eat the billionaire, but I'm gonna vote on policy every time. And they are objectively better than the rest in this regard.
As an aside, I also wish Harris would have run. Not because I want Harris but because I want her not-involved-whatsoever in the next presidential election.
What turned you against her?
One thing was not showing up for other progressives. She seemed to think of the label as a pejorative and I think that cut against her. I think she should have tried to be more squad/ squad adjacent and she really didn't show up for other members of the squad in her votes or with her voice. That being said I see her defeat in the Senate race as a pure rat-fucking on the part of the DNC, so its a mixed bag. Honestly, I guess I realized what it was that I was often more-so rooting against Porters opponent than I was actually rooting for Porter. But thats also good instinct on her part, picking good fights.
Like I think she could have beat Schiff if she would have tried to be more of a stand-out-progressive in her time in congress. Then she just kind-of continously kept falling short and having melt-down after melt-down, and it was like 'aight your time is up'.
She was mean to people a couple times on camera and has the audacity to have not been born a man.
Seems like billionaire Tom Steyer learned that spending assloads of money in the Democratic primary -- but doing precious little meeting constituents -- doesn't make the voters love you.
I got so tired of the sheer volume of physical junk mail from Steyer. It's like he was waging a war against trees.
So now he's whoring for a smaller more winnable seat.
I was down in SDO a bit ago and all I saw were Steyer ads. Like wall to wall. One Bacera ad.