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'm not sure what I could take the wrong way. I think you were pretty straightforward.
I do think you're partly wrong about their pod though. They're pretty analytical. I find that they try not to take sides too much within the left, but they do try to understand and they're pretty honest when it's clear. When they do take a position on divisive wedge issues (within the Democratic Party) they tend to land progressive (not Leftist or liberal).
Calling them blue maga is some retarded shit though, FR. And I wish that's what neolibs were, we'd all be a lot better off. I think maybe you're just upset that they aren't completely radicalized?
You know its funny right. Because the only people who say that are the ones who take it personally.
For those not in the cult, it is a very useful and accurate term. Whoopi said she would vote for Biden if he personally shit himself on stage (on the view). She opposed removing him as the candidate to an audience of millions. How many people did she convince to vote for Biden with her perspective? And when we look at the kind of behavior, like insisting on running an obviously failed candidate well past the point of even being able to recover, an insistence on strategies and approaches that did not work in the past, that were not working then, and that obviously weren't going to work in the future: how can we classify such a movement as anything other than cultlike?
And PodSave, I mean they were that movements vanguard. And they pretty much lost the election for us. Blue MAGA as a movement, they precluded us having a robust primary because "of course we should just run the incumbent". They precluded us swapping out the candidate when they were' obviously floundering in the polls (ages before the meltdown Biden had on stage). They insisted we had to do almost every bad idea, because of their fundamental strategy: any blue would do.
But it turns out, any blue wont do. Candidates actually have to be grounded in the needs of the people they are asking to elect them.
And if you were / are Blue MAGA (which if podSave was/ is your primary source for poltiical interpretation, you almost assuredly are), sad day for you, and sad day for all of us.
Blue MAGA as a movement were wreckers who destroyed our ability to stop the death cult of the Republican party with their half-a-loaf, warmed over neoliberalism. On their insistence of decorum. On their wait your turn approach to leadership.
If that was you, the current state of things rests on your shoulders. Trump was as unpopular as Biden last election. And we lost because of Blue MAGA.
I think you're projecting your own frustrations about the Democratic leadership because most of what you're saying is wrong. There was a lot more discourse and a lot less defense than you're remembering.
I'm not sure what your definition of Blue Maga is. But if it's accusations against anyone that doesn't support whatever you think with undying loyalty, that sounds like you. I'm not saying that the absolute defense people doesn't exist, but that's not them. And your absolutism is just as bad as what you're complaining about.