582
Biden reacts to pro-Palestinian protesters: 'They have a point'
(www.nbcnews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
582 points (100.0% liked)
politics
23359 readers
3106 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
no such evidence is possible: you can't prove a counterfactual. you can't know who the worse evil would be. further it's not clear that so-called "third party" voters actually impact elections at all unless their candidate wins.
No, we can. 3rd parties have been around for decades and won nothing and only exacerbated the goals of said parties by undermining the only party that has tangible results.
You prove my point.
it's impossible to prove a counterfactual. you are either unfamiliar with the scientific method or you are deliberately lying.
no, i don't.
this simply isn't true and reflects a myopic view of history. so-called third parties have been with us almost since the inception of the us, and have accomplished things inconceivable to modern politicians.
It simply is true. Even the longest serving Independent in congressional history caucuses and ran as a Democrat.
But do tell what any third party from Libertarians to the Green Party have accomplished, relative to Democrats for the working class.
Have you even heard of Nader or Perot?
yes, and i also know that their candidacy had nothing to do with who won the two elections they are (erroneously) credited with spoiling.
They're (accurately) credited with spoiling said elections and it is yet another example of the complete toothless value of 3rd-parties.
any amount of research will show that, in fact, perot's candidacy decreased clinton's margin of victory, and gore won that election.
Any amount of research will, in fact, show that Perot did not win and 3rd-party groups routinely spoil elections without remotely advancing their own agenda they claim to care about.
perot's campaign had a significant impact on the politics of the 90s, transforming the democrats from a party (accused of) supporting welfare to a party of ... well... the fucking clintons.
Bernie had an effect on the party too, except he did it in a way that didn't backfire for progress.
Bernie understands it's far easier to take two steps back under Republicans versus maintaining what we've got, let alone making progress.
if by that, you mean progressing the party to the right, you're correct. he hasn't reversed the course of the democrat party at all.
He hasn't? I'm pretty sure universal healthcare is more popular than ever among Democrats; and things like tuition reimbursement would've been inconceivable merely 10-years-ago.
There is ambiguity in your argument of them creeping to the right.
that's not leftist.
It's never left enough; just like the overton-window of the right.
leftists are communists and anarchists. communism is a stateless classless moneyless society. what you're calling leftists is actually fascist.
no, they don't. i reject the entire narrative of "spoiling" elections, as it presupposes that one party or another is owed (or owns outright) the votes. they do not. they must earn the votes, and if i so-called third party candidate earns the votes, tehy are not spoiling anything. they are doing what politicians are supposed to do: earn votes.
Historians, scholars, political-scientists all disagree. I won't argue with the proverbial-equivalent of flat-earthers, for that's just a denialism too far gone.
no, they don't
Yes they do.
its the subject of serious debate in scholarly sources.
this is pigeonholing. you are trying to group me in with a (n unrelated) group of people and dismiss my valid assertions. it's yet another mark of intellectual dishonesty
It's an apt comparison, reflective of the non-sequitur you're engaging in. Lacking any substantive rebuttal or sourced rebuttal, it's a reflection of what I see in flat-earthers.
i have done no such thing.
the prohibition party got a constitutional amendment passed. the republican party completely usurped the whigs.
Damn! You had to go back over 100 years practically to the Whigs!
as i said, so-called third parties have been with us much longer and have accomplished things modern politicians could never conceive.
"never conceive"?
Tell me, did a third party pass the Civil Rights Act?
That was pretty inconceivable for the time.
As was legalizing same sex marriage.
the civil rights act was not the work of the democrats or the republicans. it was the work of dedicated activists and, yes, other parties such as the black panther party. they exerted pressure onto the parties in government, and the parties in government acquiesced.
Welcome to what parties are —coalitions of groups, including activists working under a united banner — in this case, the Democrats.
The Black Panther party wasn't in Congress; they did not vote on it. They are not a "third party," in a governing sense.
But to answer the question directly: Yes, it was the Democrats who both supported and are primarily responsible for its passage.
... in congress. but they would have never proposed it if the writing weren't on the wall, if the people in the streets had not made it a matter of import. giving the democrats credit is like giving bank tellers credit for financing bank robbers' lifestyles.
I'm all for people demanding things in the streets. That's not the same as what you've been suggesting, which is to vote third-party. These two things are two entirely different things.
Black Panthers didn't hold legitimate Congressional power like Democrats. So again, thank Democrats in Congress for passing it. Something you risk spoiling by letting Republicans get into office.
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/9217095
where?
nethier the civil rights act nor the legalization of same sex marriage is as concrete as a constitutional amendment, which is itself part of the constitution, and determines whether other laws are constitutional.
so? that doesn't prove that so-called third parties are impotent. it shows that one person made some questionable decisions.
"Questionable decisions," said the individual who had to dig back 100 years to find an example of any tangible progress made by such a 3rd-party...?
I think I'll go with the party that actually has a track-record of progress this half-century.
this is all just posturing and rhetoric. none of it speaks to the issue at hand.
Clear, substantive tangible records speaks nothing to the issue at hand that is discussing whether third-parties actually do anything...?
Huh?
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/9218081
you will see that the issue is the provability of whether so-called third parties can achieve anything, and whether it's provable that voting for them has supported a "greater evil". i have demonstrated the success of so-called third parties, and its prima facie impossible to prove a counterfactual.
I have proved both of these things. Both With Nader and Perot, as well as showing the difference in actual progressive advancements between third-parties in Democrats is so great that there is little point in supporting a third-party — especially when the FPTP system mathematically goes against them.
But any time you want to make a bet a 3rd-party candidate winning versus one of the two primary parties, I'll happily take that bet on money.
you literally cannot prove a counterfactual, so claiming you have reeks of intellectual dishonesty
It's a fact that 3rd-party lose universally all of their elections while often spoiling elections for the primary party that most-closely shares their interests. This is not a counter-factual; this is not Ad Ignorantiam.
no it's not. only a single counterexample is necessary to disprove this. but that's not even what's at issue here. what's at issue is what the greater evil would have been. we cannot know what the losers of elections would have done had they won.
this is a red herring and doesn't address the substance of our disagreement at all
It's not really a red-herring; it's simply putting money where your mouth is.
It's putting weight behind your words, and it proves my point.
it's unrelated to the crux of the argument. it's a distraction.