this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
449 points (95.9% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3684 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
 

"According to FEC filings, the Synapse Group has worked for Republican Governor Doug Burgum of North Dakota, who ran for the GOP presidential nomination this cycle, as well as GOP candidates for Congress. Synapse has also been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for field and canvassing work by America PAC, the outside spending group started by allies of Musk that has spent millions of dollars this election cycle to boost Trump and oppose Democrats."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Gee, wonder why Democrats have a likability issue. You don't need to alienate people for them. Unless you hate them? It's always so hard to tell with you all

Most people I speak with, most average Americans, have a HUGE problem with the two party system and are open to things like approval or ranked choice voting. Go to any bar and talk to anyone. In terms of democracy, that's majority voters. Since I'm not authoritarian or fascist, I think it's important for representatives to hear issues like these and represent their people's wishes.

Both parties benefit from preventing progress. That's why we are hashing out abortion issues from the fucking 70s. We're arguing about child care, something Republicans wanted originally in...again, the 70s.

Democrat politicians are NOT making this a central talking point because they benefit from ignoring their base. You're right that they enjoy bypassing their civic duty as representatives of everyone. If they wanted to, they'd all be talking about it at every campaign to make it a theme/rally cry. They choose not to and to use old talking points that you can hear more eloquently said from the original trials and speeches of the 70s. It's a niche issue in the media. It's intentionally ignored by Democrat leadership. It's desired and known by most people.

Unfortunately for you, I'm aware of the power I have as an individual. I will keep talking and keep advocating.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

More goalpost moving. Let's go back to the original argument about whether or not legislation is being pushed for, maybe?

Again, I agree with you for the most part lmao but you are doing such a bad job of coming off as intellectual. You straight up sound like someone who would get posted on r/iamverysmart.

Jesus christ.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Lmfao that's NOT the original argument. Look again. The original argument is mine, the parent comment. Saying Dems should always be bringing up approval choice voting.

Democrats should combat this by advocating for ranked choice or approval choice voting which is a fairer voting system and won't allow for "spoilers"

The other commenter then unraveled in their efforts to lick Democrat boots by saying it was simultaneously wanted by "most Dems" in legislation, while being too complicated for the average Dem voter base. Go read again. Notice how I never specified Dem voters or Dem politicians? That was on purpose. I meant the whole party, both voters and candidates. That's why the 1 bill isn't refuting my point and it's why the other person gave up.

Then they posted 1 Dem's bill, saying it was by 'some of the most senior Dems,' and saying 'most Dems would support it,' then also got upset I suggested we talk about it more. Btw paraphrasing/summarizing isn't a strawman lol.

1bill being introduced a few times was never the debate. It was never the original issue. Read again, kiddo

For the record, if you agree then you are only doing this to be abusive. You're delivering this abusively. You could choose to 'yes, and.' You seem to enjoy abusing the only openly woman commenter here. Creepy of you.

You straight up sound like someone who would get posted on r/iamverysmart.

Projection on your part. I have never cared about my ego and "appearing smart." But you've brought it up a bit. For no reason except your own embarrassing hubris

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

HOW DO I SEEM TO BE ENJOYING THIS I AM SIMPLY INFURIATED BY YOUR DELUSIONAL BEHAVIOR

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

I'm not interested in talking with you