politics
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
view the rest of the comments
I feel sorry that the Democratic party opted to cheat us out of President Sanders.
Contrary to the circles we reside in, most of the US despises any act of "socialism". It's ingrained in the culture after 50 years of waging a cold war against an entity that was associated with everything on the left because of propaganda. It will take a long time before enough of the people born before 1990 have died off before people will warm up to it again (I'm in this group too, being born 1982, but I wasn't politically aware enough care at the time, but some other kids' parents no doubt instilled this hate of socialism into them growing up. Millennials/Xennials, the generation that was supposedly the most left leaning in recent times, basically started 4chan, and look what it became).
We ARE in an echo chamber. I came to discover this when talking to young folks about Harris/Trump. Despite the enthusiasm I saw here for Harris, it did not translate to the real world at all. We have to come to grips with the fact that the majority of Americans suck.
Most of the US hates the word socialism, but if you pitch an actual example through a lens of saving money or creating jobs or something, they fucking love it. Just don't actually say the word and your golden.
Start using Social Democracy from now on, a way better term, since Democracy is part of it. Doesn't matter if its actually Democratic Socialism, just use Social Democracy anyways. Americans hear the word Democracy and they would accept it.
I think about this every time I talk to my "liberal" family and they don't even realize they're spouting conservative bullshit.
"I worked hard for my house, I deserve to live in it alone until I die" while their son who didn't ask for cancer or to not be able to afford his medications is on the verge of homelessness. I guess my hard work and being underpaid my whole life just doesn't count compared to theirs? I guess the fact that our country mercilessly exploited the rest of the world, preventing them from living such comfortable lives, to be able to achieve such comfort for ourselves, means nothing? Those people in other countries worked hard too and lived in multigenerational housing for, well, generations. But they don't deserve it somehow, they aren't American, and we're the best so we deserve it or some other fucking delusional shit I don't fucking understand it.
They don't get it and at this point I'm pretty sure they never fucking will because the poison of Individualism has gotten them and US citizens don't understand Collectivism or the sacrifices you make for society at all.
All the Boomers are just like Biden. No matter being the source of all our problems, they won't lift a finger to make a sacrifice at the end, because "they worked hard and they shouldn't have to." Sure, when all the queers are being lined up for the firing squad, I'm sure it will mean a lot to them that you just couldn't lift a finger to prevent it because "you worked hard" and "you deserved a calm end of your life" as if these other people being rounded up to be murdered didn't deserve that.
Biden could have done a fuckton for us on his way out, but not a single fucking person in charge is going to make a sacrifice for us. Not Biden, not Merchan, not anybody.
My immediate family is largely conservative voters, and they go on about what government should do, and it's all decently lefty suggestions, but try to point that out to them and they go nuts. Most people just seem very ignorant of politics in general.
Except younger.
Nah dude, Bernie was WAY more popular than you’re giving him credit for. That’s revisionist history. He won multiple states in the primaries. That doesn’t happen for a Reddit echo chamber candidate. He even won important states like Michigan and Wisconsin.
He really did shake up the Democratic Party, which is why they panicked and did everything they could to push Bernie out. Both in 2016 and 2020.
America's mainstream opinions on "socialism" were not caused by America's history of arms races, thermonuclear development, and proxy wars across the globe, nor do they persist because of it. Many Americans have experienced a rapid and shocking shift in opinion toward Russia - the great red enemy of the cold war. This is still happening despite Russia making no major political reforms in recent history, no significant revolution in government, and actively trying to reclaim soviet territories.
If this was possible within a single generation, it also should be possible for public perception to change on socialism. There is no need or purpose to wait for people to die - their ideas live on.
No, decades after the cold war ended, the cause of the hatred of socialism in this country persists for one simple reason: Americans have become convinced through a tremendous amount of propaganda that Government is bad.
Not just America's government as an entity - we could all find some common ground there if it were that simple. No institution in particular, not the Administration, the federal or state legislatures, or the town halls, or the mayor of the small village who's really just doing it as a part-time gig - no, all of these are but parts of the greater problem - Government itself is seen as bad.
Not the flashy boots on the throats of "radicals", not the ICE agents storming the hospitals - that's not governing, that's just violence. No, what's "bad" are the mundane, boring, tedious things the Government does because someone has to.
There is this wild knee-jerk reaction to governance itself that dates back to good ol' Reaganism of course.
"The most terrifying words are... I'm from the federal government, and I'm here to help." (Reagan, 1986, paraphrased)
Spoken by the man specifically in charge of the federal government.
America was supposed to have been founded for the people, by the people, and with the people in mind. But now the people believe not only that the government isn't here for them - it can't be.
They believe we shouldn't try to make things better through governance because governing can't be good. it's always "inefficient", it's always "stealing your hard-earned money". To them it's million dollar pens in space, and spraying cat piss on drunk rats, and paying for hormones and birth control and school "litter boxes" - in short, to many Americans, any money the Government spends is by definition theft and waste, especially if it's hard to understand.
Changing their minds on socialism involves first changing their minds on the government. Not the capital A capital G American Government, but the nature and purpose of governance itself.
But on the bright side, I believe our opportunities to change those minds are only growing from this moment. The hateful idealogies, the demagogues, the simple answers - they're all a net negative on society. But the fact remains that the government is being challenged and ripped apart both internally and externally. Institutions are crumbling as we speak, traditions are being broken, and precedents are being set and shredded left and right.
People have the opportunity to realize that government itself is malleable, and that if it can be changed for the worse so quickly and horribly, then it can also be changed for the better. We have the chance to convince them that we as a society can take all of this power and use it for our personal and collective good, if only the right minds and the right ideas take root.
Must be an interesting corner of Lemmy you found to have seen people who had enthusiasm for Kamala.
Most here we're as enthused as a kid taking that old school bitter liquid antibiotic.
Okay, maybe not outright enthusiasm. More like relief in the hope we weren't getting Trump.
How did they do that?
Not only was the primary rigged, but it was established in court that both, it was rigged, and that the DNC are fine to rig their primaries.
https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/
the term rigged is bullshit. What people have answered before is more accurate which I would describe as pushing other candidates to endorse and play ball and they would be rewarded. Your article uses the term rigged a lot but gives no explanation for the actions its considers to have rigged it.
We don't know if it was rigged because that was never actually addressed in court.
The DNC came in and said:
Their argument in court was that, as a private organization, they have a right to do that, and since they have that right, the lawsuit should be dismissed. Their argument was that as a private group, they can rig it if they want to and it's only their own rules that they are breaking so nobody can stop them. How can anyone take such an argument at face value? "We totally didn't rig it, but if we did, it was totally legal to do."
Have you heard that old saying?
This is the DNC pounding the law ("we're a private organization, that's not how this works") to be able to avoid fact-finding discovery.
People always focus on "pound the table" but I think "pound the law" should also be considered. Because there's a lot of bullshit ass law out there.
The DNC went well out of their way to avoid talking about the facts and to focus on the legal mechanisms protecting them from having to admit facts. They also flat out admitted that if they wanted to choose the candidate, they could, and nobody could stop them. It was literally their argument for why the lawsuit should be dismissed, that it was legal for them to choose the candidate without input from the party.
no because the accusation does not really fit what I would call rigged. which would be like changing votes or something. what they did was basically influence influencers.
Anything where an election is manipulated is "rigging" an election. You're just splitting hairs.
https://www.giantbomb.com/a/uploads/scale_super/3/33013/2638039-election%20rigging.jpg
Notice that the image I just showed is named "election rigging.jpg"?
The Definition for "rig":
rig: manage or conduct (something) fraudulently so as to produce a result or situation that is advantageous to a particular person.
Having literal media organizations promoting the idea that the Super Delegates were all in the bag for Clinton and emails that showed they actively tried to hamstring him all falls under "rigging."
Are you suggesting a video game as a source for a definition of election rigging? Was there a better quality source you could use?
but influencing is not really manipulating or if you believe it is then any promotion or advertising becomes rigging. I think again the big thing here is fraudulently and what that means to folks. For me again its like changing votes, disenfranchisement, and jerry mandering would fit but getting one guy to be on your side publically over another with promises. Thats always gonna be a thing.
Rigged is the correct term, in spite of you lack of curiosity.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/23/487179496/leaked-democratic-party-emails-show-members-tried-to-undercut-sanders
Don't forget they were DKIM verified to be real and unaltered.
But Assange was turned into the villain in this story because he didn't personally hack the Republicans and get dirt on them too, and because nobody did it for him, that's all his fault somehow. I'm still not entirely convinced of the story that he somehow had similar access to similarly compromising material on the Republicans and just chose not to release it.
Yet somehow...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/13/media/trump-campaign-hack-news-media-report-iran-wikileaks/index.html
Huh. Hmm. Interesting. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, there's a thing called "editorial discretion" something no one seemed to think Assange deserved. Let alone once again that I have never seen definitive proof that Wikileaks had documents on Trump in 2016 that they refused to release. We even had a massive internal leak of their chats and nothing about having Trump info that they were sitting on and not releasing.
Note: Assange is shown in the chat logs to be quite the sexist and to in particular have an overly glaring hate for Hillary Clinton. I'm not saying Assange is a good dude, I'm pretty sure he's a sex pest, and he has the sexist attitude to support it. But in this instance, regarding the DNC emails, I think he was unfairly maligned.
To quote Orwell apocryphally: "The truth is the truth, even if it comes from a scoundrel."
Assange is no hero here and clearly has/ had an agenda of his own. I think if anything it shows we shouldn't rely on personalities or tribes of one for necessary acts of public good. Its a good thing that the DNC emails were leaked, and more importantly, found to be unaltered. Anything about Trump also should have just been fully released. Its a bad thing that didn't happen. It would be better if Assange had no editorial hand in what did or didn't get leaked, but thats not what happened.
No it is not. Rigged implies making it impossible for the result. Like changing votes or otherwise just messing with the system like that. What was done was basically cajoling influential people. The voters could have still voted bernie in by giving him the majority of votes. Heck even trumps win is more rigged because of voter disenfranchisment and jerrry mandoring which is directly mucking with the process. Encouraging heavy hitters or influential folks to be negative about him or positive about clinton while being bs just does not fit with rigged. man its just like both sides kind of thing. its like yeah in the broadest terms, yes but folks take it way down to be like literally exactly the same and its like. no. by no means. in the details there is a massive gulf between them. details being things like no surprise billing or funding renewables and such. pretty big deal items. calling it rigged is disingenuous.
Since you are trying to rewrite history, I'm at least going to post this here so people understand the context of why we say, with out mixed words or a lack of emphasis, that the DNC rigged the primary against bernie.
This wasn’t incompetence—it was outright election interference. The DNC didn’t just favor Clinton; they actively sabotaged Bernie Sanders while pretending to be fair. The leaks confirmed everything.
No sources for anything and up to this point your only quoted source explains the flaws in your claim.
Maybe hold back on commenting about this further.
NPR didn't call it rigged. They quoted a tweet from Donald Trump calling about. Why are you spreading Trump lies?
Says the revisionist historian. What a crackup.
All right quote any revisionist history you like. Give me an example just for fun. Whether I ever did or didn't. At least I'm not quoting a fascist to be divisive.
You offer only negative value in these discussions.
Put your projection aside. Take Trump's words out of your mouth. And quote a single instance.
You are just a toxic, toxic troll kid. An apologist who is as much to blame for Trumps rise as Trump himself.
Lmao. Your projection is hilarious.
Try reading your own source as there is a whole explanation about why the case was dismissed that you need to read.
Oh, oh. It gets soooooo much better. Search the article for the word rigged. There's one instance. Where they literally link to a trump tweet or truth calling it that. And I dunno about you. But if the only sources I can find to support my opinions are DT. I'm changing my opinion fast! 🤗
Yes those were the rules the Democrats had used for the last 40 years. It wasn't actually rigging. It wasn't very democratic. But when you're abiding by the rules that were set up. That's not called rigging or cheating. them's the rules. That's why I voted for sanders. Because even though he didn't win the grand prize he won concessions to change those rules and actually make it more democratic. Before those rules. We didn't even get to vote publicly in the presidential primary.
It’s been rigged for 40 years to keep candidates like Bernie Sanders out and push shitty candidates forward. Controlling the rules is rigging it.
“ On August 25, 2017, Federal Judge William Zloch, dismissed the lawsuit after several months of litigation during which DNC attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to select their own candidate. “In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true—that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent,” the court order dismissing the lawsuit stated. This assumption of a plaintiff’s allegation is the general legal standard in the motion to dismiss stage of any lawsuit. The allegations contained in the complaint must be taken as true unless they are merely conclusory allegations or are invalid on their face.
The order then explained why the lawsuit would be dismissed. “The Court must now decide whether Plaintiffs have suffered a concrete injury particularized to them, or one certainly impending, that is traceable to the DNC and its former chair’s conduct—the keys to entering federal court. The Court holds that they have not.” The Court added that it did not consider this within its jurisdiction. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing ‘only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.'”.”
Im not sure that means what you think
The DNC colluded to push Clinton/Biden, giving Bernie's challangers more publicity and promising other candidates positions if they drop out and endorse Clinton/Biden
The DNC actively worked against his campaign in both primaries. There was ample info in the WikiLeaks drop in 2016.
And in 2020, there was the conspicuous action of every other candidate suddenly dropping out and endorsing Biden. We didn't get the same inside view as the previous primary, but it's pretty plain to see that there machinations by the DNC again to push for this.
And we pretty much had a similar move this last election, not allowing for any sort of primary.
I don't think it can be a serious position to deny that wealthy, powerful interests control the DNC, and therefore actively work against candidates who threaten their wealth and power. It's not a hidden secret (donors, PACs, politicians getting rich, etc). And of course the same is true with the GOP too.
Why this worries me most is that I think it's a losing strategy by the DNC. AOC is clearly a preferred candidate for a future election, but if she runs, I fully expect the DNC to do everything they can to sabotage her campaign in favor of a milquetoast politician who won't upset their donors. And the GOP would win again (presuming we have elections anymore).
Also presuming the DNC decides to bother with primaries.
So help me understand. When Obama faced the exact same pushback and bias against him was he also cheated? Because he got the exact same treatment. The exact same treatment as most other people who ran in a Democratic primary for the last 50 years. I absolutely agree that the Democrats primary rules were ironically not very democratic. But no one got cheated. They all signed up knowing the rules. Better yet unlike all the ones before him. Sanders despite losing one concessions to make the primaries more democratic.
So why was it only cheating or shenanigans when Sanders was involved?
Obama was cheated, but he caught the DNC off guard. They learned their lesson from that and prepared more for Hillary's coronation that Obama disrupted.
Obama was also an insider, so they didn't fight back quite as hard. But they used a lot of the same dirty tricks, stoking racism against him and accusing the opposition of sexism.
You're arguing on a very narrow definition of "cheated." If you agree that the Democratic primaries were not democratic, then it's just a matter of semantics. The DNC had rules on their charter to conduct primaries impartially. They did not abide by those rules, and flat out said they didn't have to. That's conducting a supposedly impartial primary fraudulently in order to give advantage to their preferred candidate. It's not criminal fraud, but it is the definition of rigging. They did do it to Obama and he overcame it, they did it to Bernie learning from their mistakes and Bernie couldn't overcome it.