1325
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] RiceBowl@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

A few posts down in my feed is a photo of children zip tied in immigration court and it is fucking disgusting. There would be other problems in a Harris admin. But maybe we wouldn’t zip tie little kids.

[-] Mallspice@lemm.ee 6 points 5 hours ago

She gave 10 mill to Beyoncé for an awkward rally and ignored a union to do so telling everyone she was a bad bitch. She is cooked and I’m so angry at the Dems for throwing away what should have been a landslide to please the rich idk how I feel about supporting those fools anymore. It’s just we’re in a first past the post party system which is easy to manipulate, may as well have managed democracy instead of anything good.

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago

DNC is an enemy of the people.

Sure, they might not be starting concentration camps and sieg heiling. but the actions they have taken have directly enabled the ones who are goose stepping down Pennsylvania avenue.

[-] FreeWilliam@lemmy.ml 6 points 10 hours ago

If she wasn't going to be participating in a genocide, then she maybe could have won

[-] CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.cafe 5 points 10 hours ago

It is perfectly fine, in fact it would be incredibly refreshing & welcome, to admit...she was a shitty candidate. Fuck, she was so terribly bad. And Tim Walz was a bad pick, too.

Everything was fake. Every day it unraveled more. She was caught saying things like, "I am different than Biden, I am not Biden, do not let his presidency reflect on me." What would you do differently? "Nothing, I wouldn't change anything." Okay....so....how are you different if everything Biden did was totally great & you wouldn't do anything differently?? 🤡 Heavily paraphrased, of course, the convos were more detailed (which only made it worse).

It's fine to say Kamala Harris was a cringe candidate. Completely unwanted, unelected, unqualified. Biden bowed out & the DNC shoved her in; there is no logical reason to continue to own her as your candidate & representative. You don't bring dead babies to Passover. This is an opportunity to rebrand the Democrat Party, to refocus on issues that actually matter. That is to say....if anyone still gives a goddamn about the issues that actually matter.

[-] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago

Yeah. The DNC either don't realise, or refuse to realise, that electing Trump is not in approval of him, but expression of disapproval of the Democratic Party.

[-] hark@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago

Kamala Harris just chooses whatever she thinks will further her career. She chose poorly. She's just lucky the party was stupid enough to have elevated her to vice president even after her debate performance was so bad that she dropped out before the 2020 presidential race even started. Then the idiotic party elevated her again after Biden (another opportunist piece of garbage who was elevated by the party) was forced to step down after his embarrassing 2024 debate performance was obvious to even deluded party insiders.

[-] burgerpocalyse@lemmy.world 16 points 15 hours ago

i hate the dnc but my perspective is mostly dont vote for the fascist

[-] hark@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago

That disqualifies democrats as well.

[-] LordWiggle@lemmy.world 16 points 17 hours ago

Yeah, but Trump does the same. Kamala had better taxes planned for the working class and the poor. Trump also has a very poor track record. You can blame Kamala for not doing it right, but imo the issue is mass disinformation and people being extremily dumb.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 27 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

I never felt Harris actually stood for anything. This is easily the first election where I felt all the decisions made by the DNC were hard wrong - and I already thought the DNC fucked everything up when the turned on Sanders - but this time they really chose every bad option they could. A senior citizen that was absolutely having problems (outside the debate performance) and choosing an inclusivity* candidate that really had a checkered past of making climbing the ladder a priority while having no real policy gains or stances. Even in the lead up to everything, the other candidates were all but brushed aside. No real debate over policy or where the country was going.

She said whatever middle of the road thing needed to be said to appeal to enough people while leveling mealy criticism at best for the real problems, from Israel’s shitty war to attacks worker’s right in the US. We went from a candidate that should have never run again to a candidate that hadn’t given anyone a reason to want her to run at all at the last minute. And that’s awful, especially to lose against trump.

  • I hate to even say it, but the fact is that the DNC wanted to run a black female. They banked on the (I can’t think of the word/name for it - people who want to do things for a minority community, but do so cluelessly, remove agency of the group, disregard the actual needs and culture of the group. Usually modestly wealthy white people making “programs” for minority communities) people to vote for the feel-good of voting a minority person up while not actually thinking that people would have needs and policy concerns that would influence their vote, or their willingness to vote at all. The DNC already had “protect the rich white people” as a top priority. They didn’t think people were smart enough to sense that, and everyone really had a feeling that the Democrats didn’t care about them anymore.

Edit: found it. It’s “white saviorism” or “white savior complex.”

[-] okmko@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago

Yeah. I don't know if there's a term for it, but the Alt-Right Book describes it too: https://youtu.be/wCl33v5969M

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Civil_Liberty@lemm.ee 11 points 17 hours ago

Lol.. it's because the electorate is a bunch of morons. The DNC knows this, but they underestimate to what extent. They figured they could just bypass the whole election process thing and slide Kamala into the final ticket, but they also figured that people were intelligent enough to know that fascists are bad. America is filled with morons, and this carnival ride is going to come to a screeching halt, crushing a significant number of the riders underneath its rusty undercarriage when it does.

[-] Deflated0ne@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago

The Schumer Strategy. They just can't give it up no matter how many times it fails. (they will try again)

[-] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 20 hours ago

I see a lot of these postmortems and I don't know what combination of them is the actual truth, but I wasn't the slightest bit surprised when she lost. As soon as she got the nomination I thought it was likely.

For what it's worth, here is my take on her as one Californian that's had to deal with her since before 2010 when she ran for attorney general:

  • Even before she ran for attorney general, I was constantly hearing about all kinds of awful stuff the SF district attorney's office was doing under her leadership even though I'm not from SF county.
  • I was very disappointed when she got the nomination for attorney general because I didn't want her policies applied statewide. I voted against her in the primary but of course I held my nose and voted for her over the R in the general.
  • I don't recall who I voted for in the 2016 primary for Senate but it wasn't her, or blue dog Sanchez. I think I barely tilted toward Sanchez in the general but I honestly can't remember. I was so disappointed in those choices that I didn't really give a shit. I thought we could do better in California than two conserva-dems, especially with the top-2 primary system.
  • Never even considered voting for that cop in a presidential primary.
  • Didn't like that she was the bottom of the ticket in 2020 especially considering Biden's age, but the alternative was clear.
  • Of course, due to the alternative I voted for her in 2024 but without one iota of enthusiasm. I think I may have been more enthused to vote for John fucking Kerry, but that was a long time ago, it's hard to remember my feelings for a block of wood.

A small silver lining to her losing is I'll never have to hold my nose and vote for her ever again.

She lost because she just sucks. Whether an individual's reason for thinking she sucks and not being excited about her was based on misogyny, racism, her record of public service, her policy goals, or her personality doesn't matter. I didn't know anybody excited to vote for her. I knew some people excited to vote for a WOC, but not her as a person. A little enthusiasm was what was needed to turn the tide in the three states that mattered this time.

As soon as Biden dropped out too late for an actual primary, we already lost.

[-] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

LMAO drop the act, you and all Dems know that if they run her again you WILL VOTE for her, no matter what

Until the Dem party tells you to vote someone else

[-] blarth@thelemmy.club 4 points 10 hours ago

I would vote for even your overused waifu themed cumsock over any MAGA candidate, so yes. Yes I would.

[-] Naevermix@lemmy.world 30 points 21 hours ago

Billionaires chose Trump, so Trump won. That's how US politics works

[-] xenomor@lemmy.world 68 points 1 day ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

I’m pretty far left of Harris ideologically and never really liked her or thought she was worthy of these powerful offices. I also never really expected that much from her. That being said, I was passionate about dropping Biden and supporting her campaign even at that late hour, given the immense implications of electing trump for a second term. I donated money, and rallied friends and family to get on board. Then she did that DNC speech and talked about the ‘strongest military’ yadda yadda yadda. All of that energy and enthusiasm instantly evaporated. Nothing she or her campaign did after that motivated any active support from me and I had to really fight off the urge to not vote for her. I’m entirely done with the Democratic Party as run by the current regime. Unless that party reforms, the US is absolute toast.

[-] 4grams@awful.systems 15 points 23 hours ago

Well said, I had the exact same thought experience, and I am at the exact same conclusion.

[-] Snowclone@lemmy.world 21 points 21 hours ago

She tried to dance to the middle when Trump had a stranglehold on his cult of voters. Really stupid.

[-] ganryuzt@lemm.ee 18 points 19 hours ago

The middle? She was cavorting with Liz Cheney!

[-] drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world 5 points 19 hours ago

Voters don't get to decide where the middle is.

[-] kreskin@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago

I'm pretty tired of people nagging voters to follow the rules the framing they set forth. Trolley problem, "voters dont get to decide where the middle is", etc.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] GoodOleAmerika@lemmy.world 7 points 18 hours ago

I blame on dnc. They should not exist. We already have republican party if we need to vote for a party that works for billionaires. Unless AOC or Bernie, this country is doomed.

[-] QuarkVsOdo@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

She is a black women : Minus 500 Points for Gryfindor.

She walks in in a businessdress and looks as intimidating as the mortage lady from the bank: Minus 600 Points for Gryfindor

Her Party is made up from literal Fossils that won't give up power, even past 80, won't stop Making money from what seems like Stocktrading on privileged information: Minus 50 Points for Gryfindor.

She is as charismatic as Porridge: Minus 100 Points for Gryfindor.

Seriously fuck the bitch ass american racists and the democratic party that can't find a good candidate when so much is on the line.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 11 points 23 hours ago

Yes, the Democratic Party is more subtle in regard to their support for oligarchs and corruption. With exception to Senator Sanders, the old coots should fucking retire. The election loss proved the AmeriKans are sucking down the Orange Kool-Aid and want the US Constitution to burn.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 May 2025
1325 points (100.0% liked)

politics

23679 readers
2321 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