this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
1040 points (97.0% liked)

politics

19145 readers
2275 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said the reelection of former President Trump would be the “end of democracy” in an interview released Saturday by The Guardian.

“It will be the end of democracy, functional democracy,” Sanders said in the interview.

The Vermont senator also said in the interview that he thinks that another round of Trump as the president will be a lot more extreme than the first.

“He’s made that clear,” Sanders said. “There’s a lot of personal bitterness, he’s a bitter man, having gone through four indictments, humiliated, he’s going to take it out on his enemies. We’ve got to explain to the American people what that means to them — what the collapse of American democracy will mean to all of us.”

Sanders’s words echo those President Biden made in a recent campaign speech during which he said that Trump’s return to the presidency would risk American democracy. The president highlighted the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol in an attempt to cement a point about Trump and other Republicans espousing a kind of extremism that was seen by the world on that day.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, makes a lot of sense.

FWIW, the divergence I guess stemmed from me saying: Yes, absolutely the bulk of the Democratic party is corrupt. I don't see much of a way it would ever get better other than to try to improve the existing Democratic party. I don't see it so much as, the establishment Democrats holding the voters hostage (although in a sense they are), as much as: As bad as the situation is, helping the Republicans is also going to make things worse, so spending the effort putting real pressure on the Democrats to do better seems more productive than just waiting until election day and then not voting for them.

And yeah, I agree with a lot of your sentiments about wanting to help. Like I say, aside from voting and talking on the internet, I haven't been doing squat. I'm starting to feel pretty bad about that and that I should be doing something.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

FWIW, the divergence I guess stemmed from me saying: Yes, absolutely the bulk of the Democratic party is corrupt.

No the divergence was that your whole previous comment didn't mention the subject of Biden running a second time when the Democratic party clearly doesn't want to vote for him a second time, and how that will affect the vote outcome, and who would be responsible for a loss to Trump.

Instead you replied challenging me/people in general about how active we are in the voting process and what we do to improve the system, our responsibilities.

I don’t see it so much as, the establishment Democrats holding the voters hostage (although in a sense they are), as much as: As bad as the situation is, helping the Republicans is also going to make things worse, so spending the effort putting real pressure on the Democrats to do better seems more productive than just waiting until election day and then not voting for them.

Well, it truly is the Democratic Party's responsibility to put up someone that people would want to vote for, so if they don't vote, its not the voters fault, its the party's fault.

Overall, I used to think the same way you do, but the problem is that that technique of pressuring via guilt gets reused over and over and over again over the years as a control mechanism. So at some point you just have to push back against it, no matter what the cost, or else you'll never be able to choose your own votes. You can only take so many "hits for the team" before you have to do something about it.

Like I say, aside from voting and talking on the internet, I haven’t been doing squat. I’m starting to feel pretty bad about that and that I should be doing something.

Well for a start be sure to use the Congress app (or equivalent web site) and track/pay attention to how your elected officials vote on things, and hold them accountable (by contacting their office and letting them know, and if that doesn't change things, by changing your vote) for how they vote.

Do research (takes me about twoish hours per election) on people who are on the ballot for those small offices (comptroller, judge, etc.), and make sure you vote in the 'right' ones (aka the ones that fit your preferred world view).

Also, try volunteering from time to time, for people who are running that you think fit what you want to get done in Washington/state office.

And finally, consider running for an office yourself, try it on for size, see how the sausage gets made, etc.

Metaphorically speaking, you got to tend to the Democracy garden, or else the flowers/plants will die.