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

politics

21931 readers
3734 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
[–] [email protected] 45 points 23 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).

[–] [email protected] 27 points 23 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

[–] [email protected] 19 points 22 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 21 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 22 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 22 hours ago

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”.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 20 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 18 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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 18 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 15 hours ago

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