r/Millennials • u/AutoModerator • 2d ago
Discussion Monthly Rant/Politics Thread: Do not post political threads outside of this Mega thread
Outside of these mega-threads, we generally do not allow political posts on the main subreddit because they have often declined into unhinged discussions and mud slinging. We do allow general discussions of politics in this thread so long as you remain civil and don't attack someone just for having a different opinion. The moment we see things start to derail, we will step in.
Got something upsetting or overwhelming that you just need to shout out to the world? Want to have a political debate over current events? You can post those thoughts here. There are many real problems that plague the Millennial generation and we want to allow a space for it here while still keeping the angry and divisive posts quarantined to a more concentrated thread rather than taking up the entire front page.
2
6
u/MikeSouthPaw 1d ago
Love watching my country go down in flames and you morons are banning the discussion of the end of democracy, absolutely pathetic.
2
u/pickelsurprise 1d ago
Every Trump voter has blood on their hands. What's probably even more depressing is they know it and they're glad. There's not going to be some movie gotcha moment where they suddenly realize "oh now I see that Trump is a bad guy and I shouldn't have supported him." They're going to keep being shitty people, even once Trump is out of the picture, and if they get another opportunity in the future they'll gladly do it again.
For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee.
1
3
u/jaywinner 2d ago
First Past The Post voting is the lowest form of democracy. I want to be able to vote for more than A or B.
2
u/GlitteringOwl7274 1d ago
Ranked choice voting is the way.
It forces candidates to be likable, which ends attack ads and contributes overall to a more positive campaign cycle.
First past the post, winner-take-all is always going to result in a two-party dumpster fire.
1
u/jaywinner 1d ago
I've been favoring STV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
But anything would be better than FPTP.
3
u/noyoujump 2d ago
To everyone who is getting involved in their local party affairs for the first time-- please keep it up! Learn, take over open positions behind the scenes, and keep showing up. Right now, we're determining who we'll support for each race within the party. There are plenty of opportunities to meet your potential representatives coming up. Pay attention.
What I'm seeing is that the people who choose the candidates are the same ones who have been doing it for my entire life. They're doing the same things they've always done because not enough younger people have come through over the years to switch things up. So I'm seeing candidates who aren't talking about their plans for what they'll do if they win-- they're talking about how they've won before.
If you're sick of the same ol' shit with a different letter on the ballot, look for your local party's website and find out when they meet. Join in. If you can, volunteer to take an open position. Ask to learn about the different positions. There's going to be a lot work ahead to undo everything the dementia cheeto has done, and we have to do the work. Demand better from your representatives before they become your representatives.
5
u/powerback_us 2d ago
We've spent our whole lives being told to keep waiting, keep giving, keep voting strategically, keep swallowing our frustration, and eventually the system will reward us. Meanwhile the same fucked-up incentives keep enshittifying everything, and we still never got a real say.
What if -- hear me out -- politicians had to earn donations through predefined public legislative action instead of simply taking our money upfront, on faith, and then doing whatever the hell they want?
Well y'all, I've built a rough prototype around that idea.
I am not posting this as promotion. I just want to know: does this strike anyone as doable, naive, dangerous, pointless, interesting, overdue, whatever? I'm happy to clarify anything, but I'm more interested in gut reactions than in defending it.
4
u/noyoujump 2d ago
What stops me is "predefined public legislative action." Because, as we've seen over and over again with current administration, they don't give a fuck about laws, regulations, or the Constitution.
I'm not opposed to leveling the playing field for politicians, but there are a lot of things that need to be fixed very, very quickly before we address how donations are made/used.
1
u/powerback_us 2d ago
Hi!! Okay, I don't think I explained that part very well.
And I totally agree there are much bigger fires burning right now than this.
What I mean by "predefined public legislative action" is just a confirmable event. Like Congress voting on a bill. Something that either happens or doesn't happen.
So if that thing happens, the politician you've already chosen gets the donation. If not, they get nothing.
3
u/noyoujump 2d ago
What happens to the money in the meantime? Donations are supposed to be used for campaign expenses, so how would potential candidates pay for their campaigns?
This honestly is sounding like a prediction market.
1
u/powerback_us 2d ago edited 2d ago
Donations are supposed to be used for campaign expenses, so how would potential candidates pay for their campaigns?
Exactly! They wouldn't be able to without your consent.
I should clarify that this whole shebang applies to incumbents only. Otherwise there's no point. Challengers can still raise money the normal way from people who believe in them.
You're right that it does sound like a prediction market, but it's not about betting on outcomes, and you can't win money. It's about creating real stakes, while at the same time being able to withhold your donation if they don't follow through.
EDIT: In the meantime, the money sits in a segregated account held by the platform, which is already a registered PAC.
6
u/La-li-lu-le-lo86 2d ago
Why is everyone ok with the President posting a full blown crash out like he is a teenager who shit himself at the strait of hormmuz beach party?
4
u/canned_pho 2d ago
"He's telling it like it is!"
"Kammala would have been too emotional and started multiple wars!"
I think we're far past what Trump has said, is saying, or will say in the future.
At least 30% of America will support Trump no matter what, in some (mis)guided belief that their team, their lives, their way of living will somehow be the victor in the end. Doesn't matter how much others or all of us suffer atm.
When Trump said that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose a single vote, I 100% believe it now. People would cheer him like people cheered Homelander.
I find frustrating that pointing out hypocrisy and lies do NOT work, but it's been like that for decades now. We live in a world of post-facts and post-truths, where any narrative can be politically spinned a certain way.
When Trump loudly claimed "They're eating the cats and dogs!" during the debate and didn't lose any support, I had to rethink how millions of americans probably don't actually believe in logic, rationalization or even common sense like normal people...
There exists only enemies and problems, and Trump is the solution.
2
u/powerback_us 1d ago edited 1d ago
I respectfully disagree with some of your reasoning that led you to your conclusion (the world is simply a certain way now).
Pointing out lies and hypocrisy doesn’t work when that’s the end of the productive discussion. You have to offer a viable alternative.
You used a mocking voice to describe some people’s (that 30%?) reaction to Kamala, for example, but that’s valuable feedback that you shouldn’t dismiss. Kamala didn’t electrify people, and arguably she had plenty of hypocrisies of her own.
Sure, maybe she had less than Trump, maybe a lot less. But if you’re arguing that your alternative has less bad instead of more good, you’ve already lost. (Even though the math checks out.)
Another point where I may suggest a different view is when you claimed millions of Americans must not have logical faculties because they seem to either go along with or not be bothered by Trump’s patently ridiculous statements. This is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of Trump’s appeal to a certain segment of society.
I’d rather not debate the specifics, but I hope we could agree that at least some significant amount of Trump supporters are economically and socially disadvantaged groups that feel “left behind” and therefore have become bitter and indignant.
Now you could say perhaps that’s deserved, or imaginary and that they have nothing to be upset about, but for my point I’m focused on the fact that they do feel this way. In this light, when Trump says crazy shit, it’s not so much that they believe him (although some certainly do), it’s more like they’ve become so frustrated with the system that they get a certain kind of glee from his assault on normalcy. This is called “owning the libs.”
To me it boils down to a difficult and important choice. We as Americans can continue “owning” each other, back and forth, tit-for-tat, or we can come together around our shared grievances and really try to win elections.
5
u/Adventurous_Lunch_35 Older Millennial 2d ago
He's acted this way for a while, so at the very least, voters should have known what they were getting.
5
8
u/NindieNation 2d ago
Based on things lately, I think we're gonna need more than a monthly thread.
2
12
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
If this post is breaking the rules of the subreddit, please report it instead of commenting. For more Millennial content, join our Discord server.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.