this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
262 points (93.4% liked)

politics

21931 readers
3682 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
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 44 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

“Didn’t allow her” what does that even mean, in the context of the campaign? What the actual fuck was she doing listening to ANYTHING from Biden at that point? He was a clear looser. He stepped back from the campaign (after he was forced to, but he did nonetheless). That was an incredibly obvious opportunity for Harris to openly and cleanly split from policies she thought were wrongheaded - but nope, can’t have that. Jesus tapdancing christ.

Biden’s hubris put us here, I guess. What an unmitigated fucking tool. He sold us down the river and expects to be remembered fondly by history? Fuck that. The title of his subsection in history books will be “The President who Couldn’t Keep the Republic” (a pointed reference to Ben Franklin’s quip at the original constitutional convention).

[–] arrow74@lemm.ee 26 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

The pressure the DNC seems to exert over it's canidates is insane. There was probably a lot of pressure on her to toe the line. I heard they reigned in Walz quite a bit too.

Maybe one day the DNC will learn

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 19 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

I don’t expect the DNC to learn, because I don’t expect the DNC to exist when the next presidential election comes around.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 16 hours ago

It's fucking bizarre that Trump "randomly" ran as a Republican in 2016, and I can recall the fact that the RNC was trying to keep Jeb and Ted Cruz because they thought they would be a better/saner choice, until he had enough votes from the primaries.

He just kinda came from under their noses until they realized "Wait we like this, he is a dipshit we can buy and he does shit on camera for free press! Free advertising for fascism, score!"

I wish I had a portal to look at another timeline to see if someone in the DNC just didn't bother kneecaping Bernie in 2016 and had the general magnetizing force of him looking for all working class people, including those swindled by Republican brainfuckery. Might have been in a better place for America, even for one term.

[–] gndagreborn@lemmy.world 8 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

^, I am both interested and terrified to see what the next few years bring. It's only the beginning, and the ride continues to get even more wild in all the worst ways.

I am living the next 6-12 months with a very sharp eye on the answer to the question “how quickly can I permanently get the fuck out of the country”.

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

The last time that happened was 2000 with Bush v Gore. The longstanding notion was that the VP of the current administration should not really "break ranks" with the current administration. It was seen as undermining their boss essentially.

This was in less fucked up times, mind you. But that at one time was how it was "supposed" to work. Personally I'm a firm believer that "that's how it's always been done" is fucking stupid.

[–] nickhammes@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

It's good to understand why things have been done that way. Sometimes there's wisdom in the way things have been done, and lessons learned by people who paid real costs to learn them. Sometimes the reasoning is so bad that doing things differently for its own sake is a reasonable decision. You don't know unless you dig deeper, and not digging deeper on things that matter seems pretty dumb

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

It's good to understand, but if the only answer you get is "it's always been done this way" odds are it's bad. If there was a good reason, that's the reason you'd get.

[–] nickhammes@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

Yeah absolutely, not providing a good reason is really easy to do when there isn't one

[–] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 45 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

I can believe this. She seemed frustrated when she spoke about the Palestine situation, and I picked up a strong subject that she wanted to say more about her objections over Israel's actions than she did.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 41 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

Yeah, but that didnt bode well for her as a president...

She was the candidate, crowned with zero primary weeks before the election, with zero threat of being replaced.

But she stuck line by line to what Bidens team said

Buden's team that was Hillary's team, and before that Bill's team.

Kamala would have been an empty suit for the same neoliberal machine and she would have appointed the DNC chair back to that faction so they could influence the primary in four years.

If Kamala literally had to say exactly what her advisors said when she was literally irreplaceable, she would have been a president in name only.

Don't get me wrong, I held my nose and voted D like always, but I knew she was fucking it up, and long term that might have been for the best.

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 27 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Tim Walz came out swinging, and they instantly sidelined him.

That alone was enough to say that the campaign was fucked.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 16 points 17 hours ago

Quick, hide Tim Walz, he's too popular with voters!

-Neoliberals apparently

I still want Ken Martin to publicly commit to ending the Victory Fund bullshit tho.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Loduz_247@lemmy.world 16 points 18 hours ago

Kamala was somewhat of a Zionist, but not enough to justify Israel's bombings. Because she wants a two-state solution, and if she had been president, she would probably criticize Netanyahu for his actions damaging Israel.

A strategy to avoid AIPAC considering you a threat.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 15 hours ago

I don't know if I can buy that when the DNC refused to let anyone with even a hint of background from the middle east get a platform, and when a protest at a speech happened, she said "I am speaking." Not listening, speaking.

[–] WatDabney@fedia.io 19 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

I'm calling bullshit on this.

There's no possible way that Biden or any of his people could let or not let Harris do anything. They had no actual control over her campaign.

The only outsiders who had any control over her campaign were the DNC and the party establishment - the same pieces of shit who torpedoed Sanders in 2016 and 2020,.

I'm 100% certain that this narrative is coming from them, trying to dodge the blame they so richly deserve by pinning it on the senile guy.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Absaroka@lemmy.world 16 points 17 hours ago

Just another example of how the Democratic party is only slightly less fucked than the Republicans.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 20 points 18 hours ago

This is hilarious, because of Biden's "I'd have won if I was the candidate" bullshit. More like "Harris might have won if I wasn't hamstringing her", but okay, sure, Joe. Let's get you to bed, now.

[–] BertramDitore@lemm.ee 13 points 18 hours ago

Harris was the candidate, not Biden. Being his VP should have been a boon to her, but instead she turned it into her own biggest obstacle. It was ultimately her decision to follow Biden’s directions on this.

It’s not like the sitting president can order a party’s candidate to take certain policy positions, even if that candidate is the sitting VP. Biden deserves a ton of the blame for our current situation, but Harris was the candidate and she decided to follow Biden’s terrible advice. He’s just the stubborn geriatric who cared more about his legacy than the peoples’ future.

[–] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 12 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

horseshit

she had multiple chances like at the DNC convention

[–] thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 18 hours ago

"they puppeted me poorly"

[–] halfempty@fedia.io 11 points 18 hours ago (6 children)

Her position regarding Palestine and Israel cost her the election. Many Dems could not vote for her, so they didn't vote.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 11 points 18 hours ago

The woman who refused to against what a Man said would have made a STRONG Leader!

[–] alkbch@lemmy.ml 6 points 17 hours ago

I don’t buy that. Harris has made her choice.

[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 8 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

As usual the democratic party fails because it's trying to be both progressive AND cater to wealthy donors. Those two things just don't go together. Either abandon the upper class, or resign yourself to diametrically opposed rhetoric that will NEVER win an election for the Dems.

[–] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 18 hours ago

It's not remotely trying to be progressive. It's cosplaying as caring while raking in them donor dollars.

[–] meangreenbeans@lemmy.world 6 points 17 hours ago

Could’ve, should’ve, would’ve

[–] dudinax@programming.dev 6 points 18 hours ago

Huh? He couldn't have stopped her. This is nonsense.

[–] thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 18 hours ago

Smells like bullshit to me

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›