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.
- 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.
- 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
“Right now, Washington, D.C. is broken,” Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) said in a statement when announcing that she would not run for reelection. “[I]t is hard to get anything done.”
And whose fault is that?
Newt Gingrich
Steve Bannon
Rupert Murdoch
Lee Atwater
Karl Rove
David Koch
Charles Koch
The organized and funded the Republican Party to disfunction this way.
And all the rubes who followed them.
.. all the media 'personalities' that pump their agenda and fan the fire of hate.
You forgot to mention the 'greatest' of them all: Mitch McConnell.
What's amazing is that the party of Newt - who actively worked to divide America, explicitly, then cried about how "divisive" Obama was when he showed up. Because he was Black. And they do the same for Biden. Because he was basically tasked with fixing the mess that Republicans made (like Democrats always are).
To be replaced by worse people who will break it even more.
Who knew that the best choice always being the lesser evil could lead to candidates becoming increasingly evil over time?
Thirty House members — 19 Democrats and 11 Republicans — have announced that they will not seek reelection next year, covering a wide range of congressional seniority, post-House plans and reasons for jumping ship. Sixteen are retiring from public office, 11 are running for seats in the Senate, and three are eyeing other government positions.
Seems like a dramaticized headline
I wonder what the change in rate is. How many members generally do not run for relection and is this a significant increase or is it even a decrease.
Meaningless article.
FTA
The number of House members opting against reelection in 2024 is not necessarily unusual — 49 tapped out in 2022 and 36 in 2020. But unlike past cycles, when the exiting lawmakers have tended to tilt heavily toward one party or the other, depending on the moment’s political winds, the current departures are coming from both parties in a cycle when control of the House is up for grabs.
Of course it is. If they reported it in a factual manner, they wouldn't be able to stoke fear.
Stop surrendering to the crazy...
Frustrated lawmakers run for the exits: ‘DC is broken’
What do you expect when you campaign on the premise that our government is broken, and when elected you do your best to break it?
Stuff their pockets, screw over working class and flee. Sounds like a politician.
Yeah, honestly this just seems like the smart ones getting out now that labor is organizing again and consequences for corruption aren't unthinkable.
You're the fuckers that broke it. Now you're trying to get outta dodge to avoid the blowback? Fuck off.
the kleptocractic fascists and the out of control capitalists broke it on purpose.
It's textbook destabilization. We just aren't used to seeing them use the tactics at home.
"politician" should not be a career.
No. It definitely should be a career. I for one prefer political experts to do their jobs instead of random millionaires who buy their way in on a lark because they're bored. I want my lawyers to be career lawyers, my doctors to be career doctors and my politicians to also know what the duck they're doing and be career politicians. It's ridiculous how politics is the only important job where people want amateurs.
Political experts are making policy decisions about things they are not knowledgeable, let alone experts in. This is a problem. Healthcare, privacy, infrastructure, defense, right to repair, isp monopolies, etc. I don't want actors. I don't want celebrities. I don't want career politicians. I want people who actually understand problems working in government to get those problems solved for a brief time, not in place of being engineers, scientists, educators, and tradesmen.
I want people who understand government working in government. Because government itself is complex and requires experts to run it correctly.
I would prefer an engineer make engineering decisions, a doctor make medical decisions, and a teacher make education decisions and not someone who’s good at playing the government game.
Our founding founders were first architects, engineers, scientists, and inventors. The government being complex is a result of who is running it. Lawyers and politicians. Want a new law? Repeal 2 others.
Want a new law? Repeal 2 others.
Mindless platitudes like this accomplish nothing but to trivialize the legitimate complexity of the large scale organization.
What does that even mean?
sortition.
Absolutely fucking not. Random assignment is ridiculous. All it'd take is one or two bad assignments with crackpots to ruin the country forever. Imagine if enough Trumpers got assigned by chance. We'd have a dictator the next day.
Not to mention no one would ever trust if their methods were accurate as everyone would call foul.
And with people who are mostly not wealthy and only serve a single term the ability to totally bribe would be a foregone conclusion.
Absolutely fucking not. Random assignment is ridiculous.
Don’t we basically use this process for juries?
Even that's not purely random. Voir dire is a process to ensure the jury is selected intentionally by prosecution and defense attorneys (ideally to have an unbiased and effective jury).
Granted, but it’s miles away from having professional narcissists who campaign and accept lobbying money to be full time jurors for 30 years.
There's lots of problems with the current system, I agree, but unless we can have a body of people who can act as national fiduciaries to "voir dire" the randomly selected politicians, I don't see how it would offer any improvements over the current system.
It would get money out of the initial political process, but it wouldn't necessarily create substantively better lawmakers.
It would come with a different set of problems, but they don't seem any more difficult than those we already have. Not that it matters today, it's perhaps more of a concern for some future society that has the courage to devote itself to democracy.
...it's perhaps more of a concern for some future society that has the courage to devote itself to democracy.
Oh. You're one of those people. Nobody here is interested in your accelerationist bullshit.
I'm just a passing pleb who apparently wandered into the angry part of lemmy. Sorry to intrude.
If I mischaracterized you, then I apologize, but accelerationists and naive anarcho-libertarians have been trolling Politics with points exactly like yours for weeks. They think allowing fascism to happen now is the only (or at least inevitable) solution, and they imagine some future revolution will allow a better society to rise from the ashes, some "future democracy" for those "courageous enough" to make some kind of ideological stand now.
Nevermind they have no plan to get there except "burn it all down," and there's no way to know with any level of certainly what comes after that.
Oh right. I just meant it's a pretty far-out idea and not really relevant to practical politics right now, interesting though it may be. Thanks for the explanation.
Again, apologies. Hope you have a lovely day.
He said nothing about allowing fascism to happen now, though.
People who support an unsustainable status quo tend to interpret all discontent as support for the worst outcome.
The bad-faith commentors rarely do, until pressed. This one appears to have been commenting in good faith, however.
I like sortition, and I appreciate you bringing it up. If a position has so much power a random person could screw things up that bad, that position of power needs eliminated or divided.
It's a perfectly reasonable career. The fact that you're even saying this just shows how successful the American right's undermining of the government has been.
Hiring non-profesionals for a job is not a recipe for successful execution of that job's responsibilities.
Yes, this. I want to see the people decrying expertise in governance sign up with a non-expert to have their teeth drilled.
Why not?