60
top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Tronn4@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

No daylight

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 6 points 4 hours ago

No, no, no. It's all the voters' fault and we need to move to the right even harder to pick up the votes of the chewing tobacco set.

Or at least that's the justification. Democrats know damned well that moving to the right doesn't work but they keep doing it anyway because they want to.

[-] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 hour ago

Wanna bet how long until the Lemmy Libs still blame the voters/progressives/anti-genocide/Latinos/whatever boogyman still?

When their own personal saint of Neoliberals admits he sucked at his job at stopping Trump, do you think they will or think he's been "Tainted" by Russian bots too?

[-] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 11 points 9 hours ago

He's right, but for the wrong reasons.

He never should have been running against HitlerPig. On the day after his Inauguration, he should have had HitlerPig and his henchmen rounded up and sent to Guantanamo Bay for extensive interrogation. We knew then how much he was involved with Putin, and that alone would have been enough reason.

But then there was also the Insurrection, which was enough justification. Then the stolen documents and the False Lectors Scheme would have been uncovered, and more people would have been arrested.

Then they could have had congressional hearings about the 14th Amendment/Section 3, and officially identified those involved with the Insurrection, including spreading The Big Lie that made it possible, and at least 50% of Congressional Republucans would have been rendered ineligible to hold office, and many of them would have gone to jail.

Instead, Biden appointed the weakest Republican in existence to go after them, and he dicked around for months, giving HitlerPig a two year head start in running out the clock. They continued to treat HitlerPig's open criminality like it was a legitimate political difference, when it wasn't. It was full-blown treason, and he was allowed to get away with it, simply because he was rich, and because Democrats are even more cowardly than Republicans.

IF there is another election (which i highly doubt), the Democratic candidate needs to put punishment of HitlerPig and his criminal gang as their top priority. MAGA must be crushed and purged from our government. It can't be allowed to fester, and poison the efforts to return America, and the world, back to normal.

[-] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago

I'm confident there will still be a 2026 election just as I'm confident that the Democrats will recapture the Senate OR the House but not both.

[-] turtlesareneat@discuss.online 4 points 4 hours ago

Democrats still playing like this is a football game, while the other team is up in the stands, ripping out the PA system and setting fire to the scoresheets. Garland was a joke and we are the punchline.

[-] TommySoda@lemmy.world 34 points 19 hours ago

You are also partially responsible for not doing a god damn thing to prepare the government or the country for what was coming before you left. You just fucked off since the election and coasted into to the sunset while covering your own ass. I'm not saying he was the worst, but man, he could have done so much fucking better in the end.

[-] kevin____@lemm.ee 9 points 18 hours ago

Don’t stop there. Let’s hear what you think he should have done so we can evaluate your argument on its merits instead of the strawman you’ve constructed.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 11 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Well, just to name a few:

  • sack Garland after it became apparent that he was not fit for purpose. Better yet, he shouldn’t have even picked him
  • sack DeJoy (do not give me that bullshit about how “his hands were tied” - that’s demonstrably a matter of interpretation)
  • GOP wants to lean into the maximalist interpretation of executive power? Maliciously comply.
  • pack the court

I can go on, at length, but I’m sure you’re starting to get the point.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

sack Garland after it became apparent that he was not fit for purpose. Better yet, he shouldn’t have even picked him

Garland did the job he was hired to do. He slow walked the investigation so biden could run against trump again.

Better yet, he shouldn’t have even picked him.

Did you skip that part?

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 40 minutes ago

No. He shouldn't have been picked. I just said what the bad reason for picking him was.

[-] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 hour ago

Crab is on your side, he thinks Garland was the worst choice for actually stopping Trump. Garland was put on for slowing the court system to allow Biden to defeat Trump twice.

[-] Guidy@lemmy.world 12 points 12 hours ago

He should have ensured in the four years he had that Trump was prosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced to federal prison for his part in January 6th.

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

Amazingly, yours is the only answer that backs up OPs original claim and you’re not the OP.

[-] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 8 points 14 hours ago
[-] kevin____@lemm.ee 1 points 6 hours ago

You’re right it’s worse. “Fucked off since the election”. As in, it’s just absurd nonsense that ignores any of the good things Biden tried to do like wiping away student debt which was life changing for the people that had debt wiped away. Doesn’t mean Biden shouldn’t have done more, but my point is the comment is weak af and lacks substance.

[-] ijedi1234@sh.itjust.works 3 points 16 hours ago

I've got one: Biden should've legalized DMT. It is a beautiful substance that the government is suppressing because they fear the good it offers.

[-] chase_what_matters@lemmy.world 17 points 17 hours ago

I wish these people would just take their free ride into irrelevant oblivion. We all want to forget about them, but they keep coming back to say the most annoying shit.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 14 points 18 hours ago

"he should have done more to "advertise" his agenda, including accomplishments that he said could bear results years after he left office."

Yeah no. An accomplishment that maybe kinda sorta happens 4-6 years from now isn't actually an accomplishment and everyone knows that.

"Look, I know we don't have EV infrastructure NOW, but man... in 2030..."

No. It doesn't work like that. You threw billions at the project and accomplished fuck all. That's not a win.

$7.5 billion for charging stations.

0 built 2 years later.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/05/congress-ev-chargers-billions-00129996

Or maybe it's 7 in 4 states?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2024/03/28/ev-charging-stations-slow-rollout/

Would you believe 214 in 12 states?

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-electric-vehicle-charging-stations-75-billion-buttigieg-1ddcd6ee193fc1847e5401c95c016ec3

Or, you know, Trump just shuts it down:

https://www.npr.org/2025/02/07/nx-s1-5289922/trump-transportation-department-ev-charging-halt

[-] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 hour ago

Every time Democrats do something good, its always 10+ years away from actualizing, enabling Republicans to either remove it when they gain control, or claim it's their success for the media.

Every time Republicans do something evil, it happens within the month they wanted to do it. Fucking maddening.

[-] Linktank@lemmy.today 21 points 20 hours ago
[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 19 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

I mean duh. But so is Harris.

But far, far more importantly than either of them were their defenders/ apologists in media, both social and traditional, who were the real barrier to moving these candidates to better more popular positions that could have gotten them elected.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

But far, far more importantly than either of them were their defenders/ apologists in media, both social and traditional, who were the real barrier to moving these candidates to better more popular positions that could have gotten them elected.

Let's be fair here. The candidates just didn't want to espouse better more popular positions, and neither of them could run on anything democrats ran on in 2020. Not after democrats wrecked their credibility by reaching across the aisle to help republicans block BBB and the minimum wage increase.

[-] salacious_coaster@infosec.pub 13 points 20 hours ago

Thanks Joe, I feel better now.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 19 hours ago
this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
60 points (100.0% liked)

politics

23397 readers
3425 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