726
CNN hosts told they're "complicit" in Trump re-election in live interview
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
726 points (97.0% liked)
politics
18601 readers
4106 users here now
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.
- 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.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Published July 1st.
I feel so fucking vindicated right now that a presidential historian is saying the same exact thing I've been saying. Trump's "performance" was horrifying and nobody said a word. Its infuriating.
You must only care about the horse race aspect of the election then.
There are people who don't see "beat the other guy no matter what" as the aim of our great political project.
The aim of our great political project is "Lets work together to create a world worth living in, a world of broadly shared prosperity, a world with the infrastructure that is the envy of the world, a world where housing is a human right, and so are healthcare (including in the rural areas), retirement, food, education and transportation. Let's work together to explore space and to discover new science. A world that's unpolluted. A world where being poor is not a slow motion death sentence. A world where everyone is in a position to build some savings instead of living paycheck to paycheck. A world of internet connectivity as a human right, including in the most rural area. A world of net neutrality. A world of limited copyrights and limited patents. A world void of monopolies as a matter of principle. A world of personal bodily autonomy. A world where privacy is protected for most people but where the superrich have transparency requirements because they can greatly affect our wellbeing with a stroke of a pen. A world with a wealth ceiling and no billionaires."
One option, and that's a possibility.
The other, and that possibility disappears.
The fact that you don't recognize that is, to me,a huge problem for the upcoming election.
I am against Trump as much as you.
But if we feel we must vote D "or else" how and why would the Democrats feel the need to offer meaningful reforms to their voters?
If I am a Democrat politician and I depend on billionaire good will $$$, I know I don't even need to promise much to my voters, I just need to be less tyrannical and less insane than my friends across the isle. Then my goal is to work the system enough to get reelected, and after a few election cycles revolving door myself into a $300k a year "do nothing" job that one of my billionaire backers will have lined up for me assuming I don't displease him.
The logic of this is inescapable. It means our only hope is for the Republicans to somehow become much more progressive so that the Dems actually need to work to compete.
The only way for a progressive voter to escape this conundrum is to signal to the Democrats that the Dems do NOT have our votes on lock. And the only way to signal that is to vote our conscience no matter what, even if it's scary.
Bullshit; you're concern trolling. That means there are only three possibilities, all of them bad:
You're too dumb to see this as the existential threat to democracy that it is, and that now is not the time for an ignorant-of-game-theory protest vote.
You're too privileged to care.
You're a pro-Trump shill doing it on purpose.
One more - tankie accelerationist who thinks that there will be some mythical bloodless uprising or just outright doesn't care that hundreds of millions would die in a collapse of the US.
Which I guess fits as a mix of 1 & 2, with a sprinkling of tankie on top?
The logic that is inescapable is that if the neofascist moviement captures America the only 'meaningful reforms' you're going to get your whole life is a vast enshitfication project like 1930's Germany.
No, no, no. It's too late for that.
We are already in the 30's Germany NOW, today. And we are betting our all on a geriatric Paul von Hindenburg.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_German_presidential_election
Maybe. But is your alternative just to directly elect Hitler to the chancellorship and short circuit the process?
Sure seems to me like that's what these folks want.
How about we circle the wagons around a candidate who can mop the floor with Trump during a debate?
That's the absolute bare minimum.
Did it occur to you that most people dont give a shit how they debated, just what they said? Biden won the debate from my perspective.
Besides all that, debates just dont matter much overall.
You're welcome to think that.
You rep your interests. I rep mine.
I saw two worthless sundowning capitalist losers at the debate. Trump is a liar and is also senile, just less so compared to Biden. Trump lies 3x more than Biden. But neither candidate offers an even remotely positive and inspiring vision for America. Biden's vision is "nothing will fundamentally change, tweaks around the edges." Fuck that!
Local elections.
No one is getting a 3rd party candidate in the Presidential office today. Full stop, totally ridiculous idea, an absolute waste of a vote. Yes, a waste. It's a vote that will do nothing but help Trump win.
Meaningful reforms don't happen overnight, don't happen with magical ghost candidates that don't exist, or by "showing the Democrats you aren't happy by voting against them".
Meaningful reforms take time. Look at marijuana legislation. Incredibly popular support for, at a bare minimum, medical uses. We are talking nearly 50 years of fighting at a federal level, but local compassionate use has been around since the 1970s, despite efforts at the federal level to constantly make all marijuana use criminal. By the 90s there were several states with compassionate use ballot initiatives (though it took until 2000 for a state to legalize it through the legislature - Hawaii).
Despite democrats that were out there against use of cannabis for medical purposes, and the many, many, many Republican administrations who put up as many barriers as possible, we are now trending toward full legalization.
Should everyone have just given up because only some supported legalization, even medical-only? And let it be banned outright?
It's the same with climate change legislation, it doesn't have to be all at the federal level. And abortion access, protections for minorities, police reform, and so on, and so on.
So let's be clear about one thing. The choices this election are Trump and Biden. You're not getting any others.
You can vote for Biden with a chance for the future, or Trump where the platform explicitly goes against these concerns to the extreme, and outright going full throttle for fascism.
You want to signal to the Democrats? The only signal you'll be sending anyone is that fascism is A-OK, because you're not getting another chance at democracy.
So you send that signal locally. The other option is, for lack of any better way for me to phrase this right now, the absolute stupidest fucking idea I've ever heard.
Never in history of America has a 3rd party candidate been elected president. There is not one 3rd party voter, not one, who does not know this. Whoever votes 3rd party in a presidential election thinking a 3rd party candidate will win?
No one does that. I never argued for that, for a 3rd party win. I was very clear about the purpose of voting 3rd party in a presidential or Kingly (as the case may be this year) election. I won't repeat myself. You are an adult and you can read.
So you're agreeing that the message you're sending is that you're totally cool with fascism and an effective end to the legitimacy of elections.
Noted and thanks for the confirmation.
Easy. Actively, vigorously, constantly primary Democrats with solid, left leaning candidates. But show solidarity in the general. At first they accidentally lose a few seats. But it's okay because those that won still caucus and work with them. Eventually the "others" start to become sizeable. And they'll think to themselves perhaps we should work with them more to get things done. Eventually they become us. It's realistic, and 1000% more effective than protest votes they'll continue to ignore.
The DNC completely controls every aspect of the primary process. The DNC is a private corporation, not a democracy.
The DNC is completely regulated by the billionaires.
The DNC is not obliged to even have primaries. Nor is the DNC committed to any kind of fairness and openness. In other words the DNC is not committed to democracy but only uses some democracy whenever they think it will suit the DNC's objectives.
Who cares?
Locally, I have third party candidates that have made it to various offices. Do you think a new federal level party just magically appears?
Seriously, what part of this do you not understand? Because I don't think you're jumping to wild conclusions here, I think you're achieving teleportation levels here.
The DNC does not matter.
You have TWO choices for president. Full stop, no discussion, that's reality.
I never implied otherwise. You are arguing a straw man and not against what was said.
The DNC is not completely regulated by billionaires. But the wealthy and Powerful have always had an outsized voice throughout human history. It shouldn't be that way but it is. The way to change it is not to screen that they should pay attention to someone like yourself who has no wealth power or control. But to come for them and win. They can close their primaries if they want it will only hurt them. Because we don't have to run it then we just have to work together to actually get s*** done.
Yes they do. Through this charter.
https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/DNC-Charter-Bylaws-03.12.2022.pdf
Article 2: Section 4. The National Convention shall...(b) assure that delegations fairly reflect the division of preferences expressed by those who participate in the Presidential nominating process,
Section 4. The National Chairperson shall serve full time and shall receive such compensation as may be determined by agreement between the Chairperson and the Democratic National Committee. In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.
Section 12. All meetings of the Democratic National Committee, the Executive Committee, and all other official Party committees, commissions and bodies shall be open to the public, and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot or use of the unit rule
Regulations require laws or charters. The elected delegates to the national convention elect the membership of the DNC as well as the nominee. That would be the same nominee who as president raised taxes on corporations despite having a razor this senate majority to work with including 2 who later became independents. Weird that the billionaires forced the DNC to adopt principles that taxation should "clearly be based on ability to pay".
Section 17. Democratic Party Credo.
We believe it is the responsibility of government to help us achieve...a society where taxes are clearly based on ability to pay;