this post was submitted on 30 May 2025
1350 points (98.0% liked)

politics

23703 readers
2731 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (6 children)

I never felt Harris actually stood for anything. This is easily the first election where I felt all the decisions made by the DNC were hard wrong - and I already thought the DNC fucked everything up when the turned on Sanders - but this time they really chose every bad option they could. A senior citizen that was absolutely having problems (outside the debate performance) and choosing an inclusivity* candidate that really had a checkered past of making climbing the ladder a priority while having no real policy gains or stances. Even in the lead up to everything, the other candidates were all but brushed aside. No real debate over policy or where the country was going.

She said whatever middle of the road thing needed to be said to appeal to enough people while leveling mealy criticism at best for the real problems, from Israel’s shitty war to attacks worker’s right in the US. We went from a candidate that should have never run again to a candidate that hadn’t given anyone a reason to want her to run at all at the last minute. And that’s awful, especially to lose against trump.

  • I hate to even say it, but the fact is that the DNC wanted to run a black female. They banked on the (I can’t think of the word/name for it - people who want to do things for a minority community, but do so cluelessly, remove agency of the group, disregard the actual needs and culture of the group. Usually modestly wealthy white people making “programs” for minority communities) people to vote for the feel-good of voting a minority person up while not actually thinking that people would have needs and policy concerns that would influence their vote, or their willingness to vote at all. The DNC already had “protect the rich white people” as a top priority. They didn’t think people were smart enough to sense that, and everyone really had a feeling that the Democrats didn’t care about them anymore.

Edit: found it. It’s “white saviorism” or “white savior complex.”

[–] okmko@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Yeah. I don't know if there's a term for it, but the Alt-Right Book describes it too: https://youtu.be/wCl33v5969M

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This guy's videos are one of the few things on youtube (other than music videos) I'll watch sometimes.

[–] okmko@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah it's pretty well researched. It's kind of jarring viewing these videos now because they describe a time when fascists weren't nearly so overt.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)