131
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

Behold the fruits of "no matter who."

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 14 points 3 months ago

If you check out the offending appointee, there's not really anything in her history that suggests she'd be expected to vote like this. Like sure, who knows what beliefs she professed in private vetting, but public information doesn't look like Biden appointed a risky choice likely to be friendly to big money.

[-] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 27 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

FTA:

At first blush, Ms. Lindenbaum would seem a surprising apostate for the left. She once marched with Code Pink, the left-wing antiwar group, and later served as a top lawyer for Stacey Abrams, the progressive former candidate for Georgia governor, and her voting-rights group.

“She came from the progressive community, so I think everyone was caught by surprise,” said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen, a consumer-advocacy group.

Pretty surprising, wasn't like some staffer for a more conservative dem or something, all public indicators were pointing to a progressive person. She also had the support of Bernie Sanders and other progressives, so the people in this comment thread implying omg Biden snuck a conservative onto the FEC are seriously misguided here or didn't read the article.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago
[-] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 months ago

Sorry, from the article

[-] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 3 months ago

So if you vote blue, at any time without warning, your chosen candidate could flip and vote opposite of their what their constituents wanted like Sinema and Fetterman did. Manchin was always Manchin but the Democrats ability to run to the right after they get power is staggeringly consistent.

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You spelled "behold the fruits of people who don't vote because they think politicians will notice or be able to care, but it only drives candidates right to capture more voting power" wrong

Edit: Okay this comment is very controversial. The thing I said above is a basic fact. If a group markets itself as unreliable voters, politicians will stop trying to get their vote over more reliable voters. Your vote matters. Your vote matters. Go fucking vote.

Edit 2: biden is currently not touting his more left-wing accomplishments (and oh boy there are a lot of then) to try and get more cwntrost votes, because the far left is currently "But Isreal" which is valid but trump is NOT better.

Edit 2a: sorry about that. I many go say "them" instead of "then" and centrist instead of "cwntrost" which us the word a catboy says instead of "contrast"

[-] anticolonialist@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

No matter who also gave us Manchin's successor, Fetterman

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

Its interesting right? In a Machiavellian sense.

The timing just.. all came together for Manchin to have played his role, and now Fetterman gets to be "that 'Democrat' ".

Maybe the Fetterman one hits a bit closer to home because I don't think Manchin really ever presented himself as anything other than what he was. Regardless, the useful tool of an "unreliable Democrat" remains firmly in place.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Regardless, the useful tool of an “unreliable Democrat” remains firmly in place.

Unreliable? They reliably do exactly what party leadership wants.

[-] Monument 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The next one will be Slotkin out of Michigan.

Democrat. Former CIA ‘analyst’ during the Bush 2 Iraq years.
Ran unopposed for a house seat in a “blue wave” (semi-competitive rural) district in 2020 and barely got 1% more than her opponent. Redistricting would have gotten her primaried in 2022, so she moved into the house of a lobbyist for 4 months to run without democratic opposition in a newly created district with a few cities, won with 0.5% of the vote. Then moved back to her house out of district because it’s only illegal to be elected if you live out of district.
When a senate seat unexpectedly came up, several other well-liked, progressive or at least middle of the road (and known) candidates expressed interest, and were rumored to have been offered concessions by the Democratic Party not to run. She’s now in a primary battle with a C grade actor that self-financed and gets no positive press coverage. It’s very obvious which candidate the establishment has picked for Michigan.

She’s widely hated by her constituents, because she talks of being a progressive but votes in line with big business interests. And voters will hand her an undeserved seat that she’ll use for the next 6 years to ruin people’s lives.

[-] HuntressHimbo@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

She and Whitmer have both debased themselves for Israel's genocide now as well. They both proved to that they aren't fit for office, if Whitmer goes for president in 2028 I might vomit after her comments about the uncommitted campaign.

this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2024
131 points (94.0% liked)

politics

18821 readers
4863 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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