Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
Progressive dems have been cleaning up over the past year. Hopefully the DNC doesn't plug it's ears and ignore the obvious. There's certainly a good number of corporate democrats trying to make this out to be a nothing.
They're really trying to ignore it. It's going to be up to voters to make themselves heard in the primaries.
They’re really trying to ignore it.
Man, they suck at ignoring things...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9Nk7RcZh7k
I've never tried to ignore something so hard that I travelled back in time two weeks ago to retroactively support it.
Maybe the DNC really is all powerful, I mean, they got a time machine
You serious? Nothing in that source contradicts anything I said. They don't discuss the progressive policies of the candidate at all, Ken Martin just plugs his strategy of focusing on smaller races. The fact they don't bring up his policies, just like how they always try to make Mamdani's popularity about his personal charisma instead of his policies, reinforces that they're trying to ignore progressivism's popularity.
They don’t discuss the progressive policies of the candidate at all, Ken Martin just plugs his strategy of focusing on smaller races.
Because this is a "smaller race"...
just like how they always try to make Mamdani’s popularity about his personal charisma instead of his policies, reinforces that they’re trying to ignore progressivism’s popularity.
That's not true either, and luckily I have a print quote for that one so we don't have to argue over timestamps:
One is, he campaigned for something. And this is a critical piece. We can't just be in a perpetual state of resisting Donald Trump. Of course, we have to resist Donald Trump. There's no doubt about it for all the reasons we just talked about. But we also have to give people a sense of what we're for, what the Democratic Party is fighting for, and what we would do if they put us back in power.
And that's really critical. And I think that's one of the lessons from Mamdani's campaign, is that he focused on affordability. He focused on a message that was resonant with voters, and he campaigned for something, not against other people or against other things. He campaigned on a vision of how he was going to make New York City a better place to live.
But, if you think his opinions on policy matter, then you don't understand how he's running the DNC, even tho he's very open about it.
If these candidates were piece of shit neoliberals, they'd get all the same support from the party, minus a few nice soundbites in interviews
That's the strength of Martin, that he's legitimately non-biased. All progressives need is a fair primary, and that's what Martin gave Minnesota for a decade.
If you're focusing on what he says on policy, you're just not looking at the right thing.
Hopefully the DNC doesn’t plug it’s ears and ignore the obvious.
As soon as Mamdani won his primary, the DNC chair said we need a candidate that not only emulated his charisma, but also the popular policy position Dem voters want...
That was months ago.
It's been a year since that chair was seated.
I think the problem isn't that anyone is plugging their ears, just that the billionaire owned media doesn't want people to be engaged with the DNC now that they no longer control it.
I mean, here's the DNC chair talking about this race two weeks ago...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9Nk7RcZh7k
But you didn't hear about it.
The DNC rallied hard against Bernie. They’re really quite insidious.
I think the attraction for many voters isn't that these candidates are progressive, it's that they are NOT a thousand years old.
So as an outsiders, what I see most voters doing is what happened in 2020. Not everyone is terminally online and as plugged in to politics as we all are. So after 4 years of Trump enough was enough and more people went out to vote. You need hard times for this to happen.
But after 4 years of good, all those people thought things would carry on regardless not thinking, or that they don’t need to as it’s a home run no one would want to return to Trump. But you get enough people thinking they don’t need to vote, combined with apathy and voter intimidation and manipulation etc and you get trump back.
So now all the people are forced back out again.
I grew up in the '80s with Reagan and Bush. When Clinton won in '92 I breathed a sigh of relief and stopped paying attention to politics, thinking everything was going to be OK for a very long time. November 2000 was a rude shock when it became apparent that the world didn't work the way I thought it did. Far more of a shock than 9/11 was.
For that matter, even the Clinton era was not what I thought it was at the time -- although it was certainly much better than the current era.
Go TX!
Just waiting for them to come up with a version of this bill that keeps all these same restrictions but which adds an alternative of using digital identity verification processes administered by third parties. Then they can just approve Xitter and the like as verification partners, making the easy route available through platforms their side controls, all with no transparency or accountability.