this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2025
207 points (95.6% liked)

politics

26471 readers
1996 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
[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What job exactly would that be? To do the bidding of the oligarchs or to actually represent the electorate?

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm asking what you mean, so feel free to add details. Let's just use Kamala Harris as an example.

Who would be better suited to do the bidding of the oligarchs? Trump or Harris.

Who would be better suited to actually represent the electorate? Trump or Harris.

Who would be better suited to get the vote of fickle progressives? Trump or Harris.

Your answers will help me determine what your comment meant. Let me know if you were thinking of someone other than Harris who that was and if your answers would be any different.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wait, what? Trump is running for the Democrats now?

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I was reading into your original comment that you thought in the past Democrats have put forth candidates that are "even more ludicrously unsuited" than their Republican opponents. I assumed, regrettably, that you were basing your remark on historical evidence.

You can clear this up pretty quickly by just explaining what you meant. Here's your comment:

Vance is an absolute dud of a candidate but I'm sure the Democrats will manage to come up with someone even more ludicrously unsuited.

Why do you think that? Did you find Harris more unsuited than Trump? If so, for what? If not, what do you mean?

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works -1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Did you find Harris more unsuited than Trump?

She lost. If the topic is "unsuited as a candidate", we have our answer.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

That could be an answer. Unsuited to win. But that's a little hard to judge ahead of time.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 1 points 14 hours ago

Ludicrously unsuited, though? Perhaps Harris was by this measure. Biden 2020 was not. Clinton 2016 was only moderately unsuited, since she won popular vote. Same with Gore 2000. Kerry 2004 was ludicrously unsuited to be the nominee, I guess.