46
top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] baronvonj@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

I think if all the non-voters put this much fervor and conviction into voting in primaries (all primaries, I'm not just assuming all non-voters would show up to vote left) we'd be much better off as a nation.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 47 points 15 hours ago

Oh I’m not fucking torn on it.

I think you should leave. You failed to rise to the occasion. You listened to your dipshit consultants and the party establishment and AIPAC and other moneyed interests instead of the people. There is no strike two. It’s one and done. Get the fuck out, Harris.

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 10 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)
[-] WraithGear@lemmy.world 14 points 14 hours ago

They are not alone in this thought.

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 9 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

These are clips from the show 'I Think You Should Leave'.

I'm being downvoted for making a pertinent reference to the original comment.

lol I know, idk dude 🤷‍♂️

[-] baronvonj@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

I guess the show isn't popular enough in the community for the reference to be recognized.

[-] aramis87@fedia.io 58 points 16 hours ago

If she's not going out now, fighting and making the case against and rallying the troops against Trump and fascism now, I'm not interested in her.

[-] VanillaFrosty@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

She was offering tax credits and small down payments to a population where 70% of people are paycheck to paycheck. While telling them everything is great.

She NEVER cared about the people

[-] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 14 hours ago

She's done nothing to help the people who supported her after her flop. I think she's cooked unless she comes back out of the grave in 4 years going "I'm actually cool now, right?!"

[-] meyotch@slrpnk.net 11 points 8 hours ago

A move we call “The Hillary”

[-] angstylittlecatboy@reddthat.com 52 points 16 hours ago

Walz and AOC are the candidates worth talking about right now, because they're the ones showing leadership.

Go away, Kamala. And Biden, along with plenty of others.

[-] Goretantath@lemm.ee 17 points 15 hours ago

I'm voting Walz, he was the only other reason i was voting harris besides preventing the dictator.

[-] thisphuckinguy@lemmy.world 22 points 15 hours ago

Stay the fuck home. You’ve had your shot and failed.

[-] ATDA@lemmy.world 28 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Just run a white dude. Sucks to say but that's where our imbecilic nation lays. A white dude that isn't 100 ffs

[-] deadkennedy@lemm.ee 5 points 18 hours ago

it’s sad, but true.

The only way we are getting a woman in the White House is when MAGA convinces Ivanka to run.

[-] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

This is such dumb rhetoric

How did Obama win? He ran on a platform of systemic change and healthcare reform. He made change his primary message and sent that down your throat. He didn’t deliver and he droned the shit of a bunch of kids, but that’s how he won

How did Kamala lose? Same way Hilary did. Not because they’re women. Because they ran shit neoliberal campaigns pandering to centrists and conservatives rather than trying to capture disillusioned workers who are desperate for change

Trump voters make up like 27% of voting eligible population

[-] prole 1 points 5 hours ago

Things have changed dramatically since Obama. Much of it in direct response to Obama's success.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 6 points 13 hours ago

"Women can't win" is just an excuse to shut out AOC.

[-] deadkennedy@lemm.ee 1 points 7 hours ago

Sure, if we ignore the historical data, a woman at the top of the Democratic ticket 100% has a real shot at winning the White House.

AOC is obviously one of the only people within the party who gives a damn, and is fighting - but putting her on the ticket isn’t going to end well at this moment in history. Voters are clearly terrified to not have an old white man in the Oval Office

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago

Sure, if we ignore the historical data, a woman at the top of the Democratic ticket 100% has a real shot at winning the White House.

During the past two times that a woman has run for president, it has been in a time in which people want change. In both cases, we've had a centrist candidate who represents the untenable status quo.

All the "a woman can't win" line does is hold back all women because democrats don't want a particular woman to be able to run.

There isn't anything more to it.

[-] deadkennedy@lemm.ee 1 points 6 hours ago
[-] NotLemming@lemm.ee 4 points 17 hours ago

Not even then. Magas are trying to kick women out of positions in their own party etc. Some of them are talking openly about how only strong white men can lead.

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 3 points 16 hours ago

She could win if she'd get more in line with Porter policies. And keep them.

[-] DoubleSpace@lemm.ee 3 points 17 hours ago

How about Buttigieg?

[-] akilou@sh.itjust.works 3 points 17 hours ago

White straight dude. Who isn't 100.

Secretary Mayor Pete would kill it but he could never get elected.

[-] CoachJZ@lemm.ee 3 points 18 hours ago

The sad thing is how right this is. It would take a tremendous amount of dumb luck for anyone other than a white dude to win in this political environment, as much as I'd like to see otherwise.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago

Do you want President Gavin Newsom, then?

[-] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 12 hours ago

Probably, look at the state of how Democrats are courting more republicans and giving every demand and cabinet pick to the Republicans.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 21 points 17 hours ago
[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 16 hours ago

No. What's going on, have you been hanging out with Hillary? Don't do more damage.

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 13 points 16 hours ago

How about some electoral reform so we can vote outside the 2 party system without a spoiler effect.

How about a god damned primary?

Is this a purity test to far? I guess i just feel entitled to democracy, what can i say.

[-] prole 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

I'm pretty sure there will be primaries... People just have to fucking vote in them for once.

[-] WraithGear@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

No party has a vested interest in bleeding political power to another. You have to take control of the Democratic party first

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 6 points 13 hours ago

No party has a vested interest in bleeding political power to another.

And yet democrats keep capitulating to republicans.

[-] HarkMahlberg@kbin.earth 7 points 17 hours ago

Hot take: Walz/Harris might have won, but Harris/Walz just never stood a chance.

[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 6 points 18 hours ago

for leader of the peoples of the earth or of the space colonies ?

this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2025
46 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22011 readers
4653 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