399
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 14 points 2 months ago

It seems that your tribe and my tribe are not the same.

64000 people just donated over $120 million to the inherent nominee in 3 days, me being one of them. You call that corruption whereas I call it hope.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

If you need to be a cheerleader to belive things, thats fine. I also donated. I also signed up to volunteer like I have for progressive and democratic campaigns for the previous 12 years.

But I also need to have clear eyes when it comes to the political context I find myself in. We need to pick up the ball that the Democrats dropped by insisting on Biden for as long as they did, drive it down field, and put it in the goal. But I'm not going to live a lie about who the Democrats are, and who they have been, for literally decades. I can't afford that. The cost of living in a fantasy about who the DNC is, how they manage their party, and how they use different demographics of voters only when its convenient for them is simply too high. I've needed them to be a better party for years and they keep choosing to not live up to who we, the voters, need them to be.

Democrats need to do better and they can't keep relying on marginalized demographics and minorities to come in here and save their asses every time they fuck up (like they've been doing with this entire primary where they just about handed the whole damn thing to Trump).

I can chew gum and walk: I can both support the nominee and dial the numbers, and also have a criticism of a party that treats its voters with the level if disrespect it has.

[-] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Poignant, but I disagree.

I think you are treating the presidency as a dictatorship. Even though you even say in your comment that the party is segmented, you are treating the party as one monolith. I think you know each faction has their own special interests.

Hell, I’ll even tell you mine. I spend my times and resources focusing on climate change. It’s been my primary political motivation since the first Earth Day that I can remember, planting trees with my Mom and watching Captain Planet thereafter.

If I had it my way, I’d have the military spend at least 25% of their resources on that alone and require all citizens to complete 40 hours per year volunteering for environmental activities that impact their local community. I’d take back the word “sustainability” to mean impact to the climate.

If it were up to me that would be my main focus until we resolved the issue as I think it’s the biggest trial to humanity of our times. Those people are my faction.

I’d do that at the expense of many other initiatives; those others would likely die on the vine.

But I’m competing with so many other important activities supported by their own special interests. Now I wonder, which one gets prioritized? Likely the one by the faction that is screaming the most or the easy one that gets broad support and improves popular sentiment.

Now, if we were a dictatorship, we could get your and my issues resolved….but I don’t want to live in a dictatorship, so all I can do, living in our current moment, is cheer and vote and wait for my turn.

And I’ll do it with vigor, because the alternative is a big step in the wrong direction.

this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
399 points (98.5% liked)

politics

18973 readers
3098 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