view the rest of the comments
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.
- 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
Considering we have a two party system, game theory implies we will vote between the 81 year old guy who has some idea of what he is doing and the 77 year old guy who maybe just finally after seven years figured out how to start a fascist regime.
If we could somehow change the status quo, I'm not even certain who the "good candidates" would be. Warren is 74 and Sanders is 82.
Our media, gerrymandering and attention spans have led to a place where everyone who is famous and wants the job are criminally nuts.
Yeah I think I'll stick with Biden until Harris and Newsom are ready to fight about who is next.
What does this mean? You can't just trust one need source. It starts with learning about political science and history. And learning more and more. And then reading multiple new sources. That's the only way you'll get context. Being engaged and having the background information.
There are a lot of popular Democratic governors who have had legislative success in their states over the past several years. They're going to be the ones that have the best chance at a nomination in 2028. If Biden is re elected President and gets a Democratic Congress he'll probably be able to do things that will make those governors even more popular.
If Trump is President I don't think we have to worry about elections again.
Oh, and if Biden wins next year I think the Republican Party will go into full meltdown mode for the next several years, which will be an opportunity for the Democratic Party to flourish.
Provided congress doesn't do it's usual "Whoopsie! We managed to find exactly enough votes to block this!" routine that they've been doing since at least 2009.
Yes. This isn't about who is best. This is about maximizing chance for survival.
If a project just isn't working, scrap it and start over.
And my comment about news was a request for good sources.
So I’m not in disagreement with you that it’s clear the project has at some point gone off the rails, and it might sound easier to just wipe the slate clean and start over. But there is no way that happens without a revolution or civil war either preceding of following that attempt, and that won’t even guarantee we get something good.
We’re in an extremely tight spot. Things must change drastically and quickly to avoid catastrophe but unless we’re really really careful we’ll end up in a somehow worse situation than even currently
OK, are you starting the revolution? Or waiting for someone else.
I'll point out that amendments to the constitution will never me made positively and peacefully while states with their land vote more than people.
"Starting over" a country tends to result in a lot violence and bloodshed and quite often makes things worse.
The fact of the matter is that, for many many people, dealing with a somewhat shitty status quo is a much more attractive option than taking a gamble that a revolution doesn't result in catastrophe, and you can't really say they're wrong for that.
Scrap what doesn't work and keep what does.
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. And it doesn't have to be violent.
I mean, good luck with the tension between D and R, but companies can form and grow successful without blood or death (**there are some...).
Using the creation and growth of a company as my analogy is meant to remind that peolle work together all the time without bloodshed* to create great things.
Government could be that way if people cooperated and listened to each other.