A little late.
this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2025
192 points (97.1% liked)
politics
23928 readers
2360 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
192
Sure, but we can't be picky. If we refuse any late arrivals we've handing the world to trumpism forever.
Better late than never.
This guy has been against Trump for a while, at least.
At some point, progressives need to excise themselves from the democratic party. I don't share anything policy wise with Joe Walsh. He can go fuck himself.
I don't know the guy's whole history, and his prior support of the GOP is GIANT red flag to me. However he's saying a bunch of the right things I would want to hear from a reformed GOP:
"I’ve opened my eyes and listened to people who don’t think like me," he said. "And by doing so, I gained a greater understanding of and appreciation for LGBTQ issues, structural racism, the need for empathetic immigration reform, the dangers of climate change, and the role government must play to help care for the neediest and most vulnerable among us."
- support for LGBTQ? - check
- recognition of critical race theory? - check
- seeing the need for immigration reform? - mostly check, I'd need to hear more on his views before I give him a pass on this one considering what little I know of his past
- admission of climate change dangers? - check
- support of a government that helps the weakest among us? - check
He could be a lying bastard, so I don't trust him yet, but these match a whole bunch of my political positions, so I'm hopeful we might have yet another person trying to fight for them. So no free pass, but time will tell.
He could be a lying bastard, so I don’t trust him yet
He is a lying bastard and we should not trust him yet, or probably ever, but he might be a useful tool in getting more open minded conservative voters to take stock and reevaluate their positions. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend, but they can still be used to attain your goals.
Its obviously a digression from the main point of your comment, but that isnt what critical race theory means.
The existence of structural racism is just a political-sociological fact. Critical race theory is specifically a field of legal study that examines structural racism within the legal system exclusively. The “theory” aspect comes from the more debatable points of to what extent explicit racism in the law that has since been rectified (by civil rights laws or whatever else) still impacts the modern legal system.
Technically I suppose you could say any recognition of structural racism is still critical, and it would be called critical social inquiry in any capacity, if youre talking from an academic perspective. But the main point is that admitting structural racism exists =/= “critical race theory”
I don't trust a word he says.
Yeah I don't trust this guy. He's got no moral backbone or real ideology other than a desire for power. I seem to remember him being very vocal against Trump at points, then backing away from criticisms at important times during Trump's first term. Putting a D next to his name now definitely doesn't make me trust him. Even fucking Trump would have stuck with being a Democrat if he thought it would have made him rich and powerful.
If Walsh actually wanted to help this country he'd run as a Republican, but be vocal against Trump. Or better yet, just remain an independent. This country needs to start electing 3rd party candidates, especially with name recognition on his side, he might have a decent chance with the positions he's taking.
We don't need more people like Fetterman weaponizing the title of Democrat to keep putting a "bipartisan" spin on Republican policy, and move the party more towards the right.
If that's where the Democrats really believe we should be headed then yeah now is the time (before we get any closer to midterms) to decisively say we're going to need a new party for left candidates.
No Republican with any common sense or shred of decency would have this take: 2012 Republican Joe Walsh: abortions to save mother's life never necessary
People can change, and I applaud him if he has genuinely changed,... but we also need to stop pretending like an older conservative with name recognition, is somehow the best way forward for the party.
There are younger progressive candidates who actually have the drive to make this country better than it was in the first place, instead of just returning us back to normal, only to keep compromising, and losing the little ground we managed to get back over and over again.
Unless the US adopts some kind of proportional representation system (or even at the least discards FPTP), doing that would only ensure that no progressive voices are heard in the government.
The better and more practical option is to take over the democratic party. That is unless you want to have no control over the government.
And the party will keep moving further right…
Exactly. All of the rats fleeing the fascist ship they created will now promote the same cancer in the D party "as a Democrat".
Welcome to the illusion of choice in the corporate dictatorship. All roads lead to fascism.
If leftists don’t vote for the candidate furthest to the left because they “aren’t left enough”. Then the party will replace those votes by appealing to those to the right.
Implying they've done anything other than run to the right and ignoring voters on the left?
Well if the left doesn't turnout to vote. If course they're going to go right to try and get the voters who actually vote. And it seems the right votes more consistently then the left.
The right has the option of 2 parties, of course they vote more than the ones without a party
Election results have proven that leftists aren’t the majority. Politicians are beholden to the voters not leftists.
Yes that's why the dnc does their best to always avoid or force out any left like candidates.
When has the dnc run or allowed a leftist candidate to run?
That’s not how it works. Leftists won’t be “allowed” to take over the DNC. Voters will need to create the political will to run leftists. There hasn’t been enough demand for leftists candidates. There are enough examples of leftists wining primaries and losing elections to prove that.
Prove it then. Don't just say it can be done, do it.
Citations please
Like Kamala did?
The Dems would rather wait until enough Republicans get fed up with the MAGA Nazi incompetence enough to vote Democrat, than actually be a true opposition, or leftist, party.
The majority of voters chose Trump. Unfortunately that’s how a democracy works.
Character is more important than 100% ideological parity. Republican Party politicians have no values; it's a party organized around mutual benefit for the worst humanity has to offer: opportunists, morons, abusers, bullies, grifters, liars, rapists, and authoritarians. Their leader somehow embodies every single one of those qualities. Not to say Democrats are perfect by any means, but I'd rather someone own up to their mistakes and right the ship late than never at all. I'll happily count Walsh as an ally for that reason.
I mean, the Tea Party was largely funded by the Koch brothers to fight to remove taxes on them. Many Libertarian movements only exist for those sorts of reasons.
Koch eventually went Democrats because he wanted open borders because the cheap labour reduces wages for everyone.
So it makes sense that Koch related followers are doing the same.
How is Koch going democrat?
He died.
His surviving brother still seems pretty Libertarian.
They didn't, they just supported illegal immigration because it gave them low wage workers that they could exploit in their pollution factories. To some shallow political thinkers, that's the equivalent of a Democratic position, and if you have one Democratic position, even if it is blatantly self-serving, it means you're a Democrat.
There's a bunch of articles about it, he's talked about it. He donated to them, and opened his networks up to their usage/advertising:
Charles Koch says he'd work with Democrats who share his values
Sure, he'll support Democrats as long as they have Republican values.
🙂
As the Republican party has become the Nationalsozialistische Amerikaner Arbeiterpartei, The democratic party long ago became the Republican party.
And though Joe has been a critic of trmp for a while, he is still an R through and through.
Since the green party is home to Russian plants, what choices does the non right wing US citizen now have to represent them?
Since the green party is home to Russian plants, what choices does the non right wing US citizen now have to represent them?
The same as we've always had, none.
And the march ever rightward continues.
How about you take the opportunity to just shut the fuck up, Joe? You don't have to be in politics, you know?