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
If we're just talking general population, then yeah most people just wanna check a box and not think about it. If you're talking about the people actually advocating voting Dem, I think my perspective is much more representative.
Who is out there saying that the Dems are great and we need to vote for them because they're actively good? The vast majority of people I see advocating Dems are very candid about it being a harm reduction strategy. It seems weird to assume that "most people" mean the opposite of what I see them actually saying.
I'm much more worried about the people finding idealistic reasons to criticize harm reduction strategies.
Almost all mainstream media that isn't intended for right wing audiences. Every person who has knocked on my door, sent me an email, or called my phone to talk to me about Democratic candidates for the last 25 years. 80% of the people I have had political conversations with in the real world who aren't Republicans. Calling it millions of people would be a conservative estimate as best as I can tell. The only people I hear saying what you're saying, which by the way isn't too dissimilar to what I have been saying for the last decade, are people in niche online communities like Lemmy and the occasional outlier politician like Bernie Sanders.
I'm all about harm reduction. I think it's a great strategy that most people can get behind. However, when I say harm reduction I don't just mean slowing the rate at which shitty things happen. I mean reducing the amount of harm in the world. So the question is, do Democrats reduce the amount of harm in the world or do they simply slow the progress of shitty people?
Now, I understand that a lot of people think slowing the progress of shitty people is it's own reward, and in a vacuum I think that's true. That being said, are we actually slowing it down indefinitely or are we simply delaying it while at the same time making it inevitable? There is a difference. Biden slowed MAGA down for sure. While he was President they could not actively pursue their goals to the same degree that they could with Trump in the White House. However, I think Bidens policies in general but especially his refusal to go after Trump in a serious manner have made our current situation more likely, not less. The only way to prevent what we have now was to clamp down hard on Trump's lawlessness and executive overreach when we had the chance or to improve the lives of the average American significantly enough that they would not fall for Trump's lies about the economy or immigrants or whatever else. Biden could have done at least the first pretty easily. Instead, he decided to mostly maintain the status quo and hope Americans made the right decision in the end. Well, given that Trump's 2016 win was, in my opinion, largely a rebellion against the status quo, that seems like a bad move. Further, giving Trump four years to strategize and consolidate power within the Republican party led to worse outcomes in 2025 than would have been possible in 2021.
There's a lot more to say here and I feel like I've been going on too long already so let me sum it all up like this; I believe that putting Biden in the White House in 2020 on the basis of harm reduction was worse than a Trump win would have been. Biden didn't do anything significant to either disqualify Trump himself or materially change the conditions that led to his election, which made Trump's eventual reelection both more likely and more dangerous because Trump and his cronies had four years to plot out their strategies. In the end, aiming for harm reduction actually increased harm.
I mean, I wasn't counting people whose job it is to promote the Democratic Party.
Weird, most of the non-Republicans I know think the Dems suck but they're better than the Cons. At best they think the Dems can be pressured into some civil rights here and there. I can't say I've encountered many fans of the Dems outside explicitly political events.
It's not like he wasn't on trial for lots of the lawlessness, he's just actually really good at dragging out trials. Mishandling that could've sparked civil war, it had to be ironclad. Clamping down beyond the proper channels wasn't a better option.
They actually did get a surprising amount of decent stuff through, but no improvement is going to make people stop falling for lies about the economy and immigrants. That's just how people are, I'm sorry.
I doubt it, the Heritage Foundation had this shit drawn up decades ago. They didn't need the extra years to plot, if anything it threw off their timing.
They already consolidated power by 2021, the Republican party was MAGA . They already had their people in their stations, they would've been more effective if the cabinet didn't have to transition out and back in.
Oh and COVID definitely would've been way worse overall too. That could've been a much bigger disaster.
So no, I don't think Biden was worse than Trump would have been in 2020. It's on us for not doing anything with those 4 years.