I'm not really into politics
-
Does the US really not have any other political parties? Is there some sort of rule that says that there can only be two political parties.
I don't understand how there can be so much dissatisfaction with the current options, and that dissatisfaction has existed for so long, and yet there are been no other parties formed to take advantage of that displeasure and offer themselves as an alternative.
It's basically a mathematical consequence of First Past the Post voting system. Until we get Ranked Choice Voting or similar, we will always only have the 2 parties. And since we need at least one of those parties to support a new voting system, I'm not holding my breath to see a sweeping change there. Happily, a couple states have embraced Ranked Choice Voting, so maybe a change can occur in time.
-
Does the US really not have any other political parties? Is there some sort of rule that says that there can only be two political parties.
I don't understand how there can be so much dissatisfaction with the current options, and that dissatisfaction has existed for so long, and yet there are been no other parties formed to take advantage of that displeasure and offer themselves as an alternative.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Technically we can have any number of political parties and do. I believe I had candidates representing five parties running for my state’s auditor this last time.
However various conditions have always prevented other parties from building a competitive national presence. Things like name recognition and the vast amount of money spent in a typical election is very difficult for a new party. On the occasion when someone has reached the legislature, you can’t really do anything without a party behind you, so it’s tough to make an impact. People complain about the voting system, but it just means there’s no second place: each of the two will win different areas but very tough for a third party to break in since there’s no second place or third place.
-
Using inclusive language is part of the political process to change laws and get rights.
Meeting people where they are is a vital part of the rhetorical process. The bigots and oligarchs are speaking the language of the ordinary people and a lot of those people are making it clear that their vote is contingent on such things.
I get the value of inclusive language. I've been involved in trans activism for a long time and I've watched us go from "please stop referring to us with porn categories and dehumanizing language" to things that while I agree with definitely can come off as nitpicking.
You'll get way further telling someone that they're only able to not care about politics because there are a few heads in front of them on the chopping block and that the guy with an axe keeps telling them they're safe. You'll also get a lot further bringing others' needs into the realm of their concerns. Its why I'm a huge proponent of PFLAG. A lot of straight and cis people struggle to empathize with queer needs, but can readily see themselves in the shoes of our parents. The right has learned this tactic from gay activism while we've let it fall to the wayside.
-
The thing is, no matter who has the power nothing changes, so why care?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]More than just Trump, I’ve never seen such a contrast between what Biden tried to do vs what Trump is doing. Surely you prefer one or the other. Surely you can see such a humongous difference. Yet too many people didn’t get their instant gratification so decided to tear it all down.
Biden policies biggest problem was building a better country over a decade or more when he only had four years. The biggest issue is voters without an attention span.
Ive always thought it a good thing the country flip flops every four years. Constantly switching to a new direction quickly enough to keep us trending somewhere in the middle. But Biden demonstrated building solutions to modern problems is complex and takes a long time, while Trump is demonstrating how quickly you can tear it all down once you decide you’re above the law and you’re the only one who matters
-
Meeting people where they are is a vital part of the rhetorical process. The bigots and oligarchs are speaking the language of the ordinary people and a lot of those people are making it clear that their vote is contingent on such things.
I get the value of inclusive language. I've been involved in trans activism for a long time and I've watched us go from "please stop referring to us with porn categories and dehumanizing language" to things that while I agree with definitely can come off as nitpicking.
You'll get way further telling someone that they're only able to not care about politics because there are a few heads in front of them on the chopping block and that the guy with an axe keeps telling them they're safe. You'll also get a lot further bringing others' needs into the realm of their concerns. Its why I'm a huge proponent of PFLAG. A lot of straight and cis people struggle to empathize with queer needs, but can readily see themselves in the shoes of our parents. The right has learned this tactic from gay activism while we've let it fall to the wayside.
White liberals are too oblivious to persuade with fear. You have to persuade them by appealing to their saviour complex. They won't avoid apoliticism for their own sake, but you can convince them to be heroes to the trans community. It's positive motivation. The carrot, not the stick.
-
No. AOC and Trump are outliers on either end of the spectrum.
But as a whole the difference between how Democratics and Republicans do politics is nothing more they semantics.
Lobby money, bribery, insider trading, sexual scandal political controversy work just the same on either side of the aisle.
So, you find the outlier you like and help them.
-
You don't have to be "into politics" to hate the state of current situations. We can all feel left behind when infrastructure fails, society piles on, prices skyrocket and basic homes are out of reach financially.
That’s fine. Just don’t waste anyone else’s time complaining about that stuff if you’re not going to exert the minimal effort to do anything about it.
-
When your choices are Democrat or Republican, it makes sense.
I know you won't accept this. But I want to say it anyway, on the off chance that it lights some light bulb in your brain.
Not seeing a difference between Democrat and Republican is a privilege. It means that you are equally affected by both of their policies. Not everyone has that luxury.
If you could spend just 5 minutes considering those who are negatively impacted more by one of those parties, it should hopefully be clear that not voting hurts those people.
-
This post did not contain any content.
If you live in society with other humans, politics will involve you because it literally means things that concern everyone. People not wanting anything to do with it just means democracy isn't working.
-
I know you won't accept this. But I want to say it anyway, on the off chance that it lights some light bulb in your brain.
Not seeing a difference between Democrat and Republican is a privilege. It means that you are equally affected by both of their policies. Not everyone has that luxury.
If you could spend just 5 minutes considering those who are negatively impacted more by one of those parties, it should hopefully be clear that not voting hurts those people.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]That's everyone's favorite aspect of Democratic Party politics: the finger wagging.
My parents are eighty years old and drive for DoorDash, because if they don't, this country will gladly render them homeless. This is true whether Democrats or Republicans are in charge.
Maybe save your sermon and support candidates that actually demonstrate some actual intent to change things. Democrats' last presidential candidate said publicly they wouldn't do anything different, and a lot of struggling people heard that.
-
If you live in society with other humans, politics will involve you because it literally means things that concern everyone. People not wanting anything to do with it just means democracy isn't working.
democracy isn’t working
Nailed it.
-
Does the US really not have any other political parties? Is there some sort of rule that says that there can only be two political parties.
I don't understand how there can be so much dissatisfaction with the current options, and that dissatisfaction has existed for so long, and yet there are been no other parties formed to take advantage of that displeasure and offer themselves as an alternative.
Does the US really not have any other political parties?
We do, but they've been institutionally ostracized since the 90's, and very few people vote for them. The two ruling parties have the backing of the billionaire class and the national news media, so likely many aren't even aware of other options to begin with.
-
More than just Trump, I’ve never seen such a contrast between what Biden tried to do vs what Trump is doing. Surely you prefer one or the other. Surely you can see such a humongous difference. Yet too many people didn’t get their instant gratification so decided to tear it all down.
Biden policies biggest problem was building a better country over a decade or more when he only had four years. The biggest issue is voters without an attention span.
Ive always thought it a good thing the country flip flops every four years. Constantly switching to a new direction quickly enough to keep us trending somewhere in the middle. But Biden demonstrated building solutions to modern problems is complex and takes a long time, while Trump is demonstrating how quickly you can tear it all down once you decide you’re above the law and you’re the only one who matters
Surely you can see such a humongous difference.
I think 'humongous' is being charitable.
What we got under Biden was significant inflation and drastically reduced spending power among most of the poor and working class. Under Biden it became a meme that food staples were becoming cost-prohibitive, and while that wasn't wholly his fault, he clearly didn't do anything meaningful to change it. That Biden supported a genocide just alienated more voters who wanted real, substantial change.
How likely are you to vote for the incumbent when you're working three jobs at upwards of 100 hours a week and you still can't afford to feed your kids?
In exchange Democrats offered excuses, and as you're watching Donald run roughshod over the Federal Government, you can plainly see that Democrats had all the power they needed to make real change when they controlled the White House and Congress.
Then, when Biden's condition was no longer possible to hide, they gave the voters a huge 'fuck you' by crowning a candidate who stated publicly she wouldn't do anything different.
-
That's everyone's favorite aspect of Democratic Party politics: the finger wagging.
My parents are eighty years old and drive for DoorDash, because if they don't, this country will gladly render them homeless. This is true whether Democrats or Republicans are in charge.
Maybe save your sermon and support candidates that actually demonstrate some actual intent to change things. Democrats' last presidential candidate said publicly they wouldn't do anything different, and a lot of struggling people heard that.
Too bad your parents aren't trans. Maybe then you'd care.
-
Surely you can see such a humongous difference.
I think 'humongous' is being charitable.
What we got under Biden was significant inflation and drastically reduced spending power among most of the poor and working class. Under Biden it became a meme that food staples were becoming cost-prohibitive, and while that wasn't wholly his fault, he clearly didn't do anything meaningful to change it. That Biden supported a genocide just alienated more voters who wanted real, substantial change.
How likely are you to vote for the incumbent when you're working three jobs at upwards of 100 hours a week and you still can't afford to feed your kids?
In exchange Democrats offered excuses, and as you're watching Donald run roughshod over the Federal Government, you can plainly see that Democrats had all the power they needed to make real change when they controlled the White House and Congress.
Then, when Biden's condition was no longer possible to hide, they gave the voters a huge 'fuck you' by crowning a candidate who stated publicly she wouldn't do anything different.
significant inflation and drastically reduced spending power
Yet that was mostly a consequence of preventing a pandemic recession. This is back to needing the time. It did work itself out by the end of Biden’s term. People still suffered with the accumulated inflation but current inflation was under control. We needed more time with inflation fixed we’d eventually grow out of it.
And the egg thing is so ridiculous. A temporary consequence of trying to prevent bird flu from becoming the next epidemic or affecting the entire food supply at once. Yeah it sucks but I don’t want the alternative.
-
significant inflation and drastically reduced spending power
Yet that was mostly a consequence of preventing a pandemic recession. This is back to needing the time. It did work itself out by the end of Biden’s term. People still suffered with the accumulated inflation but current inflation was under control. We needed more time with inflation fixed we’d eventually grow out of it.
And the egg thing is so ridiculous. A temporary consequence of trying to prevent bird flu from becoming the next epidemic or affecting the entire food supply at once. Yeah it sucks but I don’t want the alternative.
In exchange Democrats offered excuses
-
In exchange Democrats offered excuses
Maybe, but if the Biden platform persisted for four terms like Roosevelt, you’d see results almost as transformational.
So the bigger question is how to show results within one presidential term when the goal is building infrastructure, building industries, transforming energy use and environmental impact ? Dems certainly need to get better at messaging, Need to get better at taking credit, but the transformational changes we need will take time.
-
Everything is political. Trans people need you to talk and act like it is, so politiphobia can't be used for transphobia. Engaging in politiphobia is a microaggression against trans people.
If you believe that more people being into politics will help the trans, we don't have the same experience.
In my experience, the people that approve of trans people are all politically active. The people that aren't politically active don't tend to like trans people.
-
You seem very emotional about their word choice. So how about I reframe it.
Avoiding voting is a luxury because you're not going to be killed by either administration. And failing to vote is a passive attack on those who will.
I'm emotional about the fact that there's a portion of the population in this country that seem to think they have any sort of say over what types of medical care another portion of the population can have, where - or even if they get to use the bathroom, or - let's just be honest here - breathe, live; Ya know, little things like that.
This is why it's sooo fucking frustrating for me to see all these people shooting themselves in the foot. I dunno if any of y'all paid attention or not, but there was a pretty big election recently that got handed to a racist, recognized by the courts as a rapist, felon who is (and long has been) expressing blatant signs of dementia running on a platform that largely centered around kicking the brown people out of the country indiscriminately.
Your opposition here is fucking big, loud, nasty, violent MACROaggressions, and yet I still see people like you guys on here doing... what? Chastising people (who might actually be on your side already, mind you) who express signs of frustration/displeasure with the people who you need them to be upset with for being so fed up or whatever prompts their "I'm apolitical" statement? Not just chastising, even, but calling it a 'microaggression'? Which, aside from just sounding like the whiniest thing you can say, immediately paints them as the adversary, putting them on the defensive. And - for those of you playing along at home who might recall - since we've already established who your opposition is (or should be, rather), now that you've put our theoretical "apolitical" person into defense mode too, well... If the enemy of my enemy is my friend then...
Hmm... Maybe making people feel like they're just as bad as the racist fuckheads because they perhaps don't grasp that everything has something of a political component to it isn't the best strategy, as it turns out.
-
If you believe that more people being into politics will help the trans, we don't have the same experience.
In my experience, the people that approve of trans people are all politically active. The people that aren't politically active don't tend to like trans people.
The myth that there are people who aren't into politics is dangerous. People use that myth to harass trans people.
