this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
306 points (95.3% liked)

politics

19091 readers
3691 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
 

Summary

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez addressed Trump’s election win, urging Democrats to move past infighting and post-election rancor to focus on preparing for potential impacts of his presidency, such as tariffs, mass deportations, and censorship.

She criticized some Democrats for blaming the loss on “identity politics,” despite Trump’s campaign centering on white racial grievance and calls for white men to turn out. Ocasio-Cortez pointed to moderate voices like Reps. Tom Suozzi and Seth Moulton, who argued that supporting trans rights hurt Democrats, as misguided.

She encouraged people to engage in direct communication and join physical communities to combat despair and build resilience.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago

All trump voters can choke on a fat syphilitic dick and die slowly.

[–] zenitsu@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Guys guys, I know the country is getting taken over by criminal fascist scumbags, but let's please tone it down online.

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 day ago

Let's keep it friendly and civil while the MAGA police is dragging you out of your apartment because you made fun of the orange emperor

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

I will never vote for a democrat who opposes trans rights. I’ll encourage my friends not to as well. They want these stupid games they can have the prizes that come with

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 77 points 3 days ago (6 children)

She's talking about "moderates" who are trying to blame it on defense of LGBTQ....

Because surely what the Dem party needs to do is move further to the fucking right and abandon the Dem voter base.

Despite the fact that Trump ran a campaign steeped in white racial grievance and the fact that MAGA influencers were literally calling for white men — specifically — to get out to the polls, some commentators have resorted to tired takes about Kamala Harris losing because the party leaned too much into “identity politics.”

The Democratic ticket didn’t actually lean into identity politics, but some in the party have settled on that line of thought as well — such as Reps. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., and Seth Moulton, D-Mass., who suggested that Democrats’ support for trans people’s rights helped spell their doom this cycle.

We can't keep electing "moderates" just because the wealthy, corporations, and foreign governments like Israel keep giving them hundreds of millions of dollars

Shit, if anything that should be a reason we don't vote for them.

This a class war going on, and the only side fighting it is the wealthy.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 16 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Unfortunately where I'm from (the self centered shithead part of NY) moving to the right is EXACTLY what they want... I've had no shortage of people tell me they only voted for Kamala because she dropped the progressive stuff and was taking on Republicans in her cabinet. Of course the propagandists have done a wonderful job this cycle associating progressives with antisemitism so that did wonders for us too....

I think we just need to accept that America is a far right country and we're the miniscule minority that wants change... I was already depressed about the result but then hearing just how many selfish bootlickers are out there made it even worse.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago (5 children)

So your idea is to keep ignoring the third of the country who never votes because "both parties are the same"...

And you think a better strategy would be to continue to drag the Dem.party right, even tho when we try that the result is always depressing Dem turnout, Republican turnout staying the same, and Republicans winning the majority of the time?

I just don't see how that's a logically sound plan that has any chance of stopping fascism.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 48 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Next cycle she better be in the fucking primary.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Next cycle

Bless your heart.

[–] Allonzee@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Relax

There will be another cycle.

There will be "elections."

You know like the kind they do in Russia.

[–] Goodmorningsunshine@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And defenstrations? Good lord will there be defenstrations.

When in Prague,

[–] sudo@lemmy.today 9 points 2 days ago (7 children)

While I do think she has gone against the grain of the broken system and would be a great choice, thinking another woman and especially a woman is color will win over the racist misogynistic US populace, I think you'll be disappointed.

But who knows what will come of an actual fair primary if we even have elections in the future.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

While I do think she has gone against the grain of the broken system and would be a great choice, thinking another woman and especially a woman is color will win over the racist misogynistic US populace, I think you’ll be disappointed.

Been calling this for the past week. The "Harris lost because she's a woman of color" narrative was an excuse for blocking an AOC run.

Harris lost because moving to the right doesn't peel off Republican votes, but it sure as fuck alienates the base.

[–] Maiq@lemy.lol 20 points 2 days ago

I don't think gender or color is as big a barrier than who the person is. IMO Harris was a better choice than Clinton, still a piss poor choice, not even close to someone I would choose to vote for. If I had a choice that is. Pick a woman of any color that has the fight in her and the policies and fortitude to follow through on an actual populist agenda; I think she would succeed.

I think we've had enough of the "we hope we might be able to give you the change that you mandated but we're not really gonna try and if you point that out FUCK YOU!" candidate the dems always push on us.

[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 24 points 2 days ago

Obama won, with record turnout and vote count. Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, despite her severe unlikeability and controversial history.

While it is important to recognize the role that white supremacy and misogyny have, it has demonstrably not been a hard ceiling.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago (2 children)

What if the US populace is not misogynistic. Perhaps Clinton and Harris were just bad candidates.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Clinton still won the popular, and Harris had the background of inflation. I think if AOC had similar circumstances, she probably would have lost, too. Even though I would looooove to see her as President.

Now, maybe, if she runs after 4 years of donvict fucking all kinds of things up....hard to say. She'd probably be running against "JD" "Vance" who is a white guy, so....

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

It's always "it's not all women, just not this woman" when it comes to presidential misogyny.

I think the best bet for getting a woman in the white house is to have a major TV show where a popular actress plays the president, and then have that actress run for president afterwards. Americans are so unimaginative that they probably need the visual example, and then some are probably stupid enough to think they're voting for the incumbent.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

It worked for donvict after he was given that GD game show - a whole lot of people think he's a businessman, and a successful one at that.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

To illustrate your point. Americans would vote for Oprah.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Dear gods no she gave us Dr Phil it's the tv version of the clap

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I didn't say she would (or wouldn't) be a good president. I'm just saying people would definitely vote for her.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just registering my horror early in case this happens. You know what they say, if you can't be happy, you might as well be right.

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago

She doesn't need to win over the racists. If there's anything we can learn from the last few election cycles is that you win elections by convincing your existing base to go out and vote, and to do that you need to give them something to believe in and something to vote for.

I think AOC would absolutely kill that.

[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That’s the whole point of the primary. To find out. We had no primary for Harris.

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Haven't had a primary without a preordained winner since 2008.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I certainly can't prove this and it may be me being optimistic but I don't buy the "it's just misogyny" claim. Clinton and Harris represent the two furthest right candidates that have ever run for president on the Dem side and I think their spectacular failures owe more to that than anything else.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 54 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I do think a lot of liberals are spending far too much time trying to score cheap political points...That criticism actually extends to one of Ocasio-Cortez’s top allies in the Senate — Bernie Sanders — as well.

America is silly. Because of our first-past-the-post electoral system, we are a de facto two party state. As a result, Americans have come to believe that there are only two political or ideological possibilities: liberalism and conservativism. Therefore, everyone is either a liberal or a conservative, and everyone who isn't a conservative must necessarily be a liberal, and vice versa.

I am not a conservative, but I am also not a liberal. I don't agree with either ideology. Yes, generally, I might agree more with the liberals than the conservatives, but that doesn't make me a liberal. It doesn't even necessarily make me a liberal ally. Stop calling us liberals. We are not liberals, stop trying to make us part of your group. Stop with the, "hey, we're all liberals, guys," no, we're not.

Bernie Sanders is not a liberal. If he were a liberal, he would be a part of the liberal, Democrat party. He is not, he's an independent. He often joins with the liberals, because, again, the liberals are nearer to him than the only other party, the conservative Republicans, but he nonetheless remains an independent. Stop calling us liberals.

[–] MentallyExhausted@reddthat.com 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

American political lexicon is stunted (probably deliberately). I volunteered my time and donated my money for Bernie’s campaign, and prefer to go by “progressive” since it hits the main points and has an actual caucus in Congress.

The conservatives I know call me a liberal (if they’re feeling nice), but they also know it’s not accurate, they’re just trying to sow chaos on the left.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 26 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Martin Luther King Jr identified this roadblock some 60 years ago: The White Moderate.

Particularly salient point, 53% of white women just voted for Trump.

https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

[ I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured. ]

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with.

I just wanted to highlight this statement. He's absolutely right.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 22 points 2 days ago (4 children)

"You go high, we go low"

There's a reason why the right manages to spread its message, it's because they know the left won't do shit about it.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›