345
US Senate to vote on Bernie Sanders-led effort to stop arms sales to Israel
(www.middleeasteye.net)
this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
345 points (98.3% liked)
politics
19103 readers
3094 users here now
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We don't need a new party.
We need to get the neo liberals out of leadership positions at the DNC.
We're the party of FDR, not billionaires and fossil fuel corporations.
We need to rebuild social capital. FDR didn't just happen by himself, he had a backing of growing labor movement, and a much more community-oriented, civically-involved America.
We have that...
Like, you don't need to convince voters that shit is broken, everyone is well aware shit is broken.
There's just not an option that will honestly try to fix the root problem fucking everything up:
When both parties are pro-corps and anti-worker...
The problem isn't growing a movement of voters, it's finding a way to get a candidate past the primary so they can win the general.
Every election there's two fights:
Fight the DNC moderates in the primary
Fight the Republicans and the DNC moderates in the general
If we don't win the first one, there's a very strong chance the candidate who makes it to the general won't be able to beat the Republican in the general. Because they're not what the politically disengaged want.
The good news tho is that there is very very few voters who would even want to pull another PUMA and vote R in the general if a progressive makes it. Some will 100% try it. And the media will shit their pants trying to convince us it won't work.
But it can still work just as well today as it did 16 years ago when they voted R instead of for a Black guy with a progressive campaign.
There's very few neoliberal voters, it's just the people running the party pretend that's the base.
We absolutely do not have that. We have a couch-dwelling population that hasn't been civically engaged in a meaningful way in fifty years and running. Social capital has atrophied since the 60s by every discernible metric.
Maybe with the people you spend time with.
But lots of people are putting work in, all over the country.
Just don't expect to hear about it from the party, or any of the big media organizations owned by billionaires for the express purpose of maintaining the status quo so they can keep their ill gotten wealth.
Quick edit:
Not sure why you're talking about the 60s like everyone was hippies...
The majority of the population back then was fighting school busing like Biden was to preserve segregation, or the ones screaming insults and throwing rocks at children for going to the school they were told to attend.
Like, it's important to understand the present, but you can't do that when you're obviously confused about the past...
If you're spending your time with a large amount of civically involved, mutual-aid-providing people in America, you're actually in the minority.
EDIT: Because I'm talking about statistical measures of things. Not feels and vibes like you're thinking. It's a well-studied subject, but I know nobody believes in reading or studying anymore.
Changing a party from the inside when its leadership is Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton is a tough ask. When push comes to shove every democrat falls in line for the center right candidate. Including the 'progressives'.
"Democrats" aren't enough to win. We need the people who normally aren't engaged, and the most common reason they give is "both parties only care about the rich'.
Dems continually moving to the right just depresses turnout and allows Republicans to win
Buddy, progressives hold their noses and show up to vote for the least worse option. Personally I've been doing it for decades.
Progressives aren't the problem, they're some of the most politically engaged people in America.
They just get blamed by the neo liberals everytime a neoliberal loses.
Because:
If the DNC wants wins elections, they need to start giving Dem voters what they want, not aiming for "slightly more than trump would do".
Doesn't matter that they should still vote D, the politically disengaged won't vote unless they want the candidate to win or the incumbent out of office.
When a moderate Dem is in office, that means Republicans win the election
It's very very important we finally learn this lesson. So I'm willing to put some time in to help you understand, even if it's incredibly frustrating explaining this for the millionth time.
I'm willing to put the time in help.
Rewarding Democrats bad behavior is what got you into this mess.
No, neoliberals and Republicans working together to destroy campaign fundraising regulations is what led us down this path.
The wealthy just buy both parties now in the primary so they don't have to even worry about the general.
Not holding our noses and voting for the least worse option just means the Republican wins the general. That won't make the DNC change the type of candidate they run, they'd rather lose to a Republican and keep their positions at the DNC.
So we try to fix things in the primary by getting a progressive.
If we cant then in the general, we still vote D to mitigate the amount of damage.
Like, that's not just what I do, it's what literally every progressive I know in real life has been doing for decades now.
What have you been doing if not that?
By holding your nose instead of organizing around alternatives you are perpetuating the crisis.
Or as Briahna Joy Gray worded more aptly yesterday;
The irony that you can't see she's saying the same thing I am is too much bub
If you really think me and her are disagreeing, then me repeatedly explaining this won't help anyone
My advice would be asking someone else for assistance, maybe how I'm explaining it is the problem. But I don't think it is.
Edit:
So no one else has to click on a twitter link:
When election day rolled around, she still did the same as me:
Advocating for mitigating damage when that was the only other option.
When talking about next election, she says we need a better candidate. Same thing I've been saying.
Like, I understand that we agree, but trying to get you to understand that has been insanely frustrating
And how do you suggest we do that?
The same way the Tea Party primaried out moderate Republicans.
Show up and vote.
Democrats protect centrist incumbents and ONLY centrist incumbents. When they have primaries at all.
For who you're ordered to and didn't have a say in.
The RNC saw moderates kicked out by voters in primaries, and candidates made sure to run.
Why can't the DNC and progressive voters do the same?
Because the DNC is structured explicitly to prevent progressive challengers.
There are many examples, but one big one is the DNC vendor banlist. The DNC says that any vendors who work with progressive primary challengers will be banned from any future work with the party.
This means that progressive challengers often cannot find vendors to do basic things like print flyers and signs, and finding experienced staff to hire is nearly impossible. And of course, "centrist" candidates have not been bothered by this.
And then at the top of the DNC you have hundreds of superdelegates and party officials who are overwhelmingly center right or rightwing. These people cannot be voted out directly.
Because the moderates running the DNC would rather keep control of the party with a republican president than let a progressive into the general.
If a progressive wins the general, they get to nominate DNC leadership, and if the DNC fights it, that's four years for the Dem president to start a new party in retaliation.
08 Obama was a wake up call for the DNC. Unfortunately what they learned wasn't how to win an election, it was what they need to do to keep their position as leaders for the only other viable option besides fascism.
And unfortunately for everyone living in America, for them to hold party control, it means every four years a fascist gets elected, and when a moderate Dem does win, they don't actually fix anything.
But when the DNC lets foreign governments, billionaires, and corporations throw millions into primary campaigns supporting both a D and R to guarantee they always win regardless of general results...
Why the fuck are you still blaming voters?
Because that's who chooses the leaders.
I vote in primaries; a lot of you online progressives aren't there voting with me. I voted for Katie Porter for senator in California, but the managerial class that actually shows up to vote wanted Schiff and so they got him.
EDIT: I find it hilarious that people advocating against showing up to vote in every other case always show up to downvote my comments.
LMAO
Good one bub.
Until we get dirty money out of at least the primaries and an actually non biased DNC, it's not voters deciding.
It's donors who flood primaries to ensure they don't need to worry about who wins a general.
For fucks sake, NH didn't even get a presidential primary this year, because they keep voting more progressive than the DNC wants.
How the actual fuck is trump their fault?
My state votes so late that the DNC calls the primary months before we vote... How am I supposed to have an effect?
If you want to blame primary voters, blame the handful the DNC allows to vote first (or at all) before they call it over.
But it would make a hell of a lot more sense to blame the DNC for all the rat fuckering they do.
You aren't getting "dirty money" out of politics from your couch or by making a post about it on Lemmy.
I show up to vote progressive during party primaries and you and yours leave me lonely at the polls. In some states, such as my state of California, we have jungle primaries. The "DNC" certainly didn't force the general contest for CA senator to be Schiff versus a Republican...the voters did.
Everyone talks a big game online about how popular leftism is, but I have yet to see it where it actually counts: at the fucking polls.
Oh...
This is one of those things where you're replying to a lot of my comments at once wanting to have the same argument in multiple places at the same time...
Most people will just ignore you or block you once they realize what's happening.
Sometimes you just have to wait for someone to reply.
Hope that helps you in the future.
What are you even talking about?
Enjoy trying to get money out of politics through magic.
AOC and the squad got in there. Some of them got voted out during primaries because progressives were no shows. If progressives can't show up to vote during primaries, I don't know how we're expected to take a general election.
We need to build an actual movement.
I mean I’m not happy about it but Trump might purge a good chunk of them
I don't think they'll get filled with progressives if Trump does that.
FDR was the 10th wealthiest President in history, and T. Roosevelt was 4th. They were the neo-liberals of their time, even if they did some things to improve the working class.
Source
At this point it would be easier for the progressives in the party to show they don't approve the status quo (hahahahaha) by forming a new party (even if it means giving the keys to the White House to the Republicans) instead of trying to change the existing party from the inside.
You know why it won't happen? Because they don't mind the status quo as long as they get elected.
FDR was the internment camp guy, right?
Found a policy of his that you actually like?
...
That's how progress works...
When someone is talking about a progressive from literally 80 fucking years ago, hopefully there's some stuff they did almost a century ago that modern society finds distasteful
If there isn't, that likely just means society hasn't made any progress in the almost century that's gone by.
I truly hope that makes sense, if not please let me know what's still causing confusion. This is an important point that comes up regularly, so I'm willing to put some time in to clear this up for you
like today's democrats, fdr ignored the constructive criticisms that would have prevented such a painful episode; the democrats back then are more alike than unlike to the democrats of today.