politics
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
view the rest of the comments
AOC 2028. Fuck the republican traitor filth.
Fun to think about, but American males are not ready for a strong female presence in their lives. They can't handle it.
I would love for AOC to show the world her fire and Americans some grace. Not going to happen with the lot in America right now sadly.
I don't know if American men are ready for it, but neither Harris nor Clinton were strong presidential candidates, and not because of their gender.
That's a bunch of bs. It was sexism, pure and simple.
Clinton was an accomplished lawyer and accomplished civil servant in her own right, having spent her entire life in service. As former first lady, she had exclusive access to the inner machinations of the presidency (I'm not saying that being the spouse of an elected leader alone qualifies one for that position (see Republicans' voting for dead candidates and swapping the deceased's spouse in after the election)), but rather adds to the cumulative total. She was also the head of the state department.
And because of a successful attack at a foreign embassy in a hostile nation, that became a millstone around her neck that trumpers bashed her for, capping off an otherwise stellar career.
Against that orange buffoon, on paper, she should have mopped the floor with his toupe'
Harris was VP, senator, Attorney General. She didn't have the cv of Clinton, but she was a woman, and she had a foreign sounding name. I worked as an election inspector (not the jackoff people who challenge voter's ability to vote, but the people who conduct the election at the local jurisdiction level). The election room as a smallish town hall, and many couples came in to vote together. The amount of people who were speaking loud enough to be overheard saying things like: "never vote for a woman" or making referring to "white pride" was shockingly scarry. They wanted to be heard.
Why, yes, I live in a racist, misogynistic hellhole - how'd you guess?
Personally, I don't think we should allow any men to be president. Just of think of how absurd it is. We keep electing a bunch of testosterone-addled rage junkies to be in charge of the nuclear button. Men are just too emotional to be president, or even leaders in general. They're just as likely to take off their pants and start waiving their dicks at each other as they are to come up with something that even meets the definition of "policy." Electing a man a leader is like electing a rabid inbred gorilla hopped up on PCP as a leader.
Men belong in the home. That's their rightful place. That way they don't have to spend too much time seeing other men, which only inspires rage reflexes in them. You let two men meet and they start beating their chests and trying to assert dominance over each other, usually while stripping off clothing and pulling out firearms. Men have no place in politics, business, or any field that really matters. Men should be kept in the home where they can't do too much damage.
But a man as president? Comically absurd. Literal clown world. How could such irrational, angry, emotionally fragile beings ever be elected a leader?
How can you trust someone who doesn’t bleed for their country once a month?
SeemsLegit.jpg
None of those people were ever going to vote Democrat
Both were trying to cater to people on the fence and lost the vote of people further left in that pursuit...
The cry of the Democrats addicted to losing elections
The idea that they lost only because of sexism is the most delusional shit I've ever fucking heard, oh my God
Please tell me these are bot accounts because otherwise wow I agree that is truly brain worms level stuff
Michelle Obama would have destroyed Trump. The dems chose to lose.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4753294-michelle-obama-donald-trump-joe-biden-democrat-2024-hypothetical-matchup-survey/
Clinton was part of the Clinton Crime Family and Harris was a cop. Terrible choices.
Clinton Crime family? Lmao. Clinton's are street thugs compared to the Trump Crime family.
Yeah but the Democratic base is less likely to turn out for criminals than the Republican base.
Oh I am NOT denying that hahaha
Male here. Hillary was probably the worst female option who's ever ran for president.
Kamala wasn't much better, and felt like a rush job to prevent Biden being an easy sweep.
Not that I'm advocating for trump in either case. I'm just saying its like the old south park joke of douche vs turd sandwich.
Only difference is that AOC is actually a good choice. Whereas Hillary and Kamala were never good choices.
I would fully support an AOC run. I would vote FOR AOC. Whereas with Hillary and Kamala it felt like it was voting against trump by selecting "whoever the opposition is".
Which for the record, isn't a gender thing. Biden was also "not trump" on the ballots in 2020. You didn't vote FOR Biden. You voted AGAINST trump.
Hillary likely would have made a great moderate president. She was a "bad choice" only because Fox News attacked her for 20 years.
Downvotes but she was a cool hippy chick once. Neoliberal was the game she chose to play and it might have worked if she played more on the radical side
People are downvoting you, and as much as I would like it to not be true, you are right. There's too many male dems I've talked to that didn't vote for Kamala because she was a woman. It was shocking, and disappointing to say the least.
So I can't, in good conscience, downvote you, because you're not wrong, as much as I don't like it.
Hell, plenty of American women aren't either.
My brain has a conniption whenever I try to see how women could vote against other accomplished successful women, their own interests, and instead for a misogynistic ugly orange rapist. Like I’m done trying to understand the stupidity. 🙄
The same way poor people keep voting for right wing parties
Stupidity in some cases, but indoctrination in a lot of cases.
You need to rephrase that as “falsely ex-MAGAt American males who will immediately vote Republican next election despite claiming they were moving a sub from it for our sympathy and so they wouldn’t face the consequences they deserve” aren’t ready…
This misogynist BS is soooo tired. Michelle Obama would have easily crushed Trump. But the dems serve capital better by losing.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4753294-michelle-obama-donald-trump-joe-biden-democrat-2024-hypothetical-matchup-survey/
Disagree. I think that the failure of Harris and Clinton have a lot more to do with campaign and messaging failures than they do with the fact that they're women. We're living a populist moment, and the democrats want to rise to that with "noooo lmao everything's fine, you're not actually struggling at the grocery store shut up lol. Nooo we can't offer a real policy platform to vote for, just vote against Nazis for the rest of your life and hope we never lose (we will, and we'll blame you)."
They're GOING to fuck this up in 2028 if we even have elections, and they're not going to let anyone stop them from fucking it up, not even AOC or David Hogg. Right now, Gavin Newsom is leaning hard into giving himself a republican-lite glow-up so that he can run the Newsom/Pence ticket in 2028 and try to peel off a whole six moderate republicans. Their campaign platform will be:
Bulldoze the homeless (now with BIGGER dozers!)
shut up, don't worry about it, just keep voting against Nazis for the rest of your life and hope we never lose (we will, and we'll blame you)
This take is SO dumb, did you completely ignore that Hilary won the popular vote?
Congrats? Still didn't win the election, which is all that matters here.
What a sweeping generalization!
She's great- but she's not the revolutionary leader you need to do what's necessary. She's the person you need AFTERWARD to pick up the pieces.
Why not?
I like the fantasy and I wish that's where we were at, but please just give me a boring middle aged white guy. The people who love AOC the most apparently just aren't going to show up at the polls in numbers. It's a problem we've been talking about since I was the one not voting and we were blaming it on the way they treated green party candidates (I know, probably even longer). There's a new excuse every few years, but there always is one and it doesn't look like it's changing any time soon.
Please, let's throw the old people a bone and give them an easy choice so we all don't have to suffer again. I hate having to think about 'electable' too, but let's just do that astronaut guy they were pushing for Harris' running mate, they'd love that guy.
Cite your sources here
We just had a boring middle aged white guy and he spent his entire abandoned campaign pushing for genocide. Dems never learn basic humanity.
I feel like those people are never going to vote though. The communists and socialists will be too busy going on about bourgeoisie this and that and won't be satisfied unless Marx himself is running because no one else is good enough. And the anarchists will go going "why should I take this opportunity to fight fascists if I'm not getting my perfect anarchist utopia out of it? Don't vote, it'll go against your perfect idealism." Just like they did this last time around.
I think that Bernie Sanders showed us that people who don't have ideological sticks up their asses will be willing to vote for something better that gets us all a little bit closer to utopia, even if it's not perfect yet. And as a non-American, I think AOC has that same infectious energy. But of course, as a non-American, I might also be underestimating how much Americans hate women and brown people.