this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
306 points (95.3% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2060 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
 

Summary

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez addressed Trump’s election win, urging Democrats to move past infighting and post-election rancor to focus on preparing for potential impacts of his presidency, such as tariffs, mass deportations, and censorship.

She criticized some Democrats for blaming the loss on “identity politics,” despite Trump’s campaign centering on white racial grievance and calls for white men to turn out. Ocasio-Cortez pointed to moderate voices like Reps. Tom Suozzi and Seth Moulton, who argued that supporting trans rights hurt Democrats, as misguided.

She encouraged people to engage in direct communication and join physical communities to combat despair and build resilience.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 76 points 1 week ago (4 children)

She's talking about "moderates" who are trying to blame it on defense of LGBTQ....

Because surely what the Dem party needs to do is move further to the fucking right and abandon the Dem voter base.

Despite the fact that Trump ran a campaign steeped in white racial grievance and the fact that MAGA influencers were literally calling for white men — specifically — to get out to the polls, some commentators have resorted to tired takes about Kamala Harris losing because the party leaned too much into “identity politics.”

The Democratic ticket didn’t actually lean into identity politics, but some in the party have settled on that line of thought as well — such as Reps. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., and Seth Moulton, D-Mass., who suggested that Democrats’ support for trans people’s rights helped spell their doom this cycle.

We can't keep electing "moderates" just because the wealthy, corporations, and foreign governments like Israel keep giving them hundreds of millions of dollars

Shit, if anything that should be a reason we don't vote for them.

This a class war going on, and the only side fighting it is the wealthy.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Unfortunately where I'm from (the self centered shithead part of NY) moving to the right is EXACTLY what they want... I've had no shortage of people tell me they only voted for Kamala because she dropped the progressive stuff and was taking on Republicans in her cabinet. Of course the propagandists have done a wonderful job this cycle associating progressives with antisemitism so that did wonders for us too....

I think we just need to accept that America is a far right country and we're the miniscule minority that wants change... I was already depressed about the result but then hearing just how many selfish bootlickers are out there made it even worse.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So your idea is to keep ignoring the third of the country who never votes because "both parties are the same"...

And you think a better strategy would be to continue to drag the Dem.party right, even tho when we try that the result is always depressing Dem turnout, Republican turnout staying the same, and Republicans winning the majority of the time?

I just don't see how that's a logically sound plan that has any chance of stopping fascism.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I just don’t see how that’s a logically sound plan that has any chance of stopping fascism

I don't see any way of stopping fascism in America. By some definitions we've been living in fascist America for a long time we just haven't had an authoritarian leader yet. The state uses the violence of the police force to crush leftist protest. The media enforces all belief in corporate interests depending on the media product you're consuming. Some still toss a bone on occasion by pointing out wealth disparity but always denigrate policies aimed at correcting it.

I don't want the Democrats to move right yet again, but if that's what people want then we aren't the majority. I want a party that isn't Democrats. We're not moving them from within, that hasn't worked at all.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I don’t see any way of stopping fascism in America

My suggestion would be spending less time telling people it's useless to try, and more time listening to people with plans to stop fascism then.

I don’t want the Democrats to move right yet again, but if that’s what people want

Good thing it's fucking not then...

It's what Republicans want so that even if they lose they win.

The problem is when the DNC tries to look at what voters want, they look at polling for all voters

Which include the half of voters who will always vote R.

So if 51% of voters want a border wall, and 50% of those are always going to vote R, that's 1% of voters who could potentially be convinced to vote D who want Dems to support a border wall.

Chasing that 1% pisses off the 49% of voters who don't want a border wall, and they're literally the Dem voting base

So while you "can't see a way to stop fascism" to me and a shit ton of other Americans the solution is staring us right in the face.

Hopefully this helped you understand, if not please spend less time telling people fascism is unavoidable because that depresses turnout and makes it harder to fight fascism

And that should be even more obvious than why the Dem.party needs to stop moving right

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

We're not moving them from within, that hasn't worked at all.

We've barely tried. No one shows up to the primaries. The existing leadership has continuously coasted because they don't have any pressure whatsoever in the primary. I cannot even count the number of progressive candidates that lose in the primaries because the ones who show up are conservative Democrats.

If we want change for the Democratic Party, it's going to take people actually participating. We straight up have not seen that yet.

[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

abandon the Dem voter base.

I'm Ok with that at this point. The Dem voting base is just liberal Republicans at this point. It's time for something else.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 54 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I do think a lot of liberals are spending far too much time trying to score cheap political points...That criticism actually extends to one of Ocasio-Cortez’s top allies in the Senate — Bernie Sanders — as well.

America is silly. Because of our first-past-the-post electoral system, we are a de facto two party state. As a result, Americans have come to believe that there are only two political or ideological possibilities: liberalism and conservativism. Therefore, everyone is either a liberal or a conservative, and everyone who isn't a conservative must necessarily be a liberal, and vice versa.

I am not a conservative, but I am also not a liberal. I don't agree with either ideology. Yes, generally, I might agree more with the liberals than the conservatives, but that doesn't make me a liberal. It doesn't even necessarily make me a liberal ally. Stop calling us liberals. We are not liberals, stop trying to make us part of your group. Stop with the, "hey, we're all liberals, guys," no, we're not.

Bernie Sanders is not a liberal. If he were a liberal, he would be a part of the liberal, Democrat party. He is not, he's an independent. He often joins with the liberals, because, again, the liberals are nearer to him than the only other party, the conservative Republicans, but he nonetheless remains an independent. Stop calling us liberals.

[–] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 26 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Martin Luther King Jr identified this roadblock some 60 years ago: The White Moderate.

Particularly salient point, 53% of white women just voted for Trump.

https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

[ I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured. ]

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with.

I just wanted to highlight this statement. He's absolutely right.

[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

53% of white women just voted for Trump.

Well, I'm not distinguishing between myself and the liberals based on skin color, but ideology. Liberalism is not an ideology that is exclusive to people with light skin. There are plenty of liberals who have darker skin. There are also many people who are left of liberals who have lighter skin, myself included.

[–] MentallyExhausted@reddthat.com 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

American political lexicon is stunted (probably deliberately). I volunteered my time and donated my money for Bernie’s campaign, and prefer to go by “progressive” since it hits the main points and has an actual caucus in Congress.

The conservatives I know call me a liberal (if they’re feeling nice), but they also know it’s not accurate, they’re just trying to sow chaos on the left.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 48 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Next cycle she better be in the fucking primary.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Next cycle

Bless your heart.

[–] Allonzee@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Relax

There will be another cycle.

There will be "elections."

You know like the kind they do in Russia.

[–] Goodmorningsunshine@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And defenstrations? Good lord will there be defenstrations.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sudo@lemmy.today 9 points 1 week ago (7 children)

While I do think she has gone against the grain of the broken system and would be a great choice, thinking another woman and especially a woman is color will win over the racist misogynistic US populace, I think you'll be disappointed.

But who knows what will come of an actual fair primary if we even have elections in the future.

[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 24 points 1 week ago

Obama won, with record turnout and vote count. Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, despite her severe unlikeability and controversial history.

While it is important to recognize the role that white supremacy and misogyny have, it has demonstrably not been a hard ceiling.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago (2 children)

What if the US populace is not misogynistic. Perhaps Clinton and Harris were just bad candidates.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

It's always "it's not all women, just not this woman" when it comes to presidential misogyny.

I think the best bet for getting a woman in the white house is to have a major TV show where a popular actress plays the president, and then have that actress run for president afterwards. Americans are so unimaginative that they probably need the visual example, and then some are probably stupid enough to think they're voting for the incumbent.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

To illustrate your point. Americans would vote for Oprah.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Dear gods no she gave us Dr Phil it's the tv version of the clap

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

It worked for donvict after he was given that GD game show - a whole lot of people think he's a businessman, and a successful one at that.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Clinton still won the popular, and Harris had the background of inflation. I think if AOC had similar circumstances, she probably would have lost, too. Even though I would looooove to see her as President.

Now, maybe, if she runs after 4 years of donvict fucking all kinds of things up....hard to say. She'd probably be running against "JD" "Vance" who is a white guy, so....

[–] Maiq@lemy.lol 20 points 1 week ago

I don't think gender or color is as big a barrier than who the person is. IMO Harris was a better choice than Clinton, still a piss poor choice, not even close to someone I would choose to vote for. If I had a choice that is. Pick a woman of any color that has the fight in her and the policies and fortitude to follow through on an actual populist agenda; I think she would succeed.

I think we've had enough of the "we hope we might be able to give you the change that you mandated but we're not really gonna try and if you point that out FUCK YOU!" candidate the dems always push on us.

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

She doesn't need to win over the racists. If there's anything we can learn from the last few election cycles is that you win elections by convincing your existing base to go out and vote, and to do that you need to give them something to believe in and something to vote for.

I think AOC would absolutely kill that.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I certainly can't prove this and it may be me being optimistic but I don't buy the "it's just misogyny" claim. Clinton and Harris represent the two furthest right candidates that have ever run for president on the Dem side and I think their spectacular failures owe more to that than anything else.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

That’s the whole point of the primary. To find out. We had no primary for Harris.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago

All trump voters can choke on a fat syphilitic dick and die slowly.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 week ago (4 children)

"You go high, we go low"

There's a reason why the right manages to spread its message, it's because they know the left won't do shit about it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] zenitsu@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Guys guys, I know the country is getting taken over by criminal fascist scumbags, but let's please tone it down online.

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 week ago

Let's keep it friendly and civil while the MAGA police is dragging you out of your apartment because you made fun of the orange emperor

[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (3 children)

She needs to go Independant and start a new party. It's time.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

We don't need a new party to begin with. Just start by going independent.

It's the same thing that we needed to be employed this election cycle, but at a larger scale. The Blue MAGA/ Any blue will do/ "Trump bad, you have to vote Blue" is the precise reason we lost this election, because the gave the did not ask anything of the candidate, which gave the candidate cover to not have to shift to more generally popular positions that would get them elected. Blue MAGA threw the opportunity, when Kamala was on a trajectory to be in the mid to high 50's in October, by effectively making the argument that we can't demand anything if this candidate because Trump is too great a threat. But the reality of that is that the demands laid down on a candidate serve the important function that they drag a candidate into more generally popular positions.

Kamala had no real economic plan, and when she said "I would do nothing differently", she's telling Americans, 60% of whom are living paycheck to paycheck, that this is what her policy is going to be.

So if we're going to blame voters for a failure this election cycle, we need to be clear that the voters to blame are the ones who accepted less and little, and who abused and defeated those who wanted the candidate to move on specific policy positions. It was rampant and structural on Lemmy, and I've heard that it was similarly bad on Reddit. Extremely biased moderation here turned communities like c/News, c/Political_Memes, and c/politics into echo chambers where any pushback against an obviously failing and now obviously failed political rhetoric was basically site sponsored. And that needs to be called out and addressed. It literally cost the Democrats this election, and some of the most prominent names in Lemmy were responsible for it. Now obviously Lemmy is tiny and the impact was microscopic, but the same pattern was repeated for much larger platforms like reddit.

It started a couple months before with a tiktok video that got basically repeated regarding "strategic voting". The problem, however, is that the strategy outlined is completely half baked. It doesn't actually work because it keeps candidates unaccountable for having to "go to where their voters are" and get their votes. The result is that the candidate is afforded the opportunity to maintain policy positions that are broadly unpopular because they don't think they need to move to get voters. It's not good strategy, and both 2016, and 2024 offer direct evidence for this, while 2020 offers the counterfactual (Biden did shift in policy, effectively handing over the platform to Bernie, and he gathered the necessary coalition of voters to win as a result).

Going independent is what Democratic voters needed to do in this election to force Kamala into more popular positions. She didn't feel the pressure to do so and lost in a frankly, almost unmitigated disaster of a campaign. And she was afforded the opportunity to do so by voters who demanded nothing for their votes. Going independent takes those votes of the table and makes it beyond clear that they are simply not yours to begin with.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What does that preparation look like? Ocasio-Cortez said she’s still taking a moment to process her plan. But she said she’ll personally be “doing a lot more direct communication” — i.e., methods other than social media, which can be overrun with unverified claims and outright propaganda.

“I think I’ll be planning on using my email list to give a lot more thorough and specific things about what’s on my mind and how to prepare for things,” she said. And she encouraged her followers to get out of their online bubbles:

I was going to point out that nobody reads those, but then I realized I'm a fucking weirdo who blocks all that shit with extreme prejudice. So maybe it'll work because normal people apparently read every email they get in detail.

[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Most people I know either obsessively filter and delete junk like this so their inbox is always empty, or they have 30k emails, all unread, and this'll just go in the pile.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I will never vote for a democrat who opposes trans rights. I’ll encourage my friends not to as well. They want these stupid games they can have the prizes that come with

load more comments
view more: next ›