this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
430 points (98.6% liked)

politics

23401 readers
4737 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
 

Trump's officials are quietly concerned about his "blatant criminal behavior." What took them so long?

It is time to stop examining the chaos and time to do something about it.

I have a source inside the Trump regime who feels, in their own words, “a little disillusioned.” This person says they signed on to the Trump team because of “DEI going too far” and because “woke culture was dividing the country,” but is now concerned about the “blatant criminal behavior” of Donald Trump. Really? His last administration didn’t show you that? Well, OK.

This source first approached me by saying, “I can provide you bonafides to show you I’m serious.” That impressed me because I didn’t think many people inside the Trump regime knew what bonafides were, let alone how to be serious.

This source’s concerns about Trump are indeed legitimate, and deserve to be heard. “Not all of us are buying everything he says,” this person told me. “We understand the problem, but we see no solution. You guys in the press, with very few exceptions, are not trustworthy. Congress can’t be trusted and the judiciary so far hasn’t been able to stop him.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AnalogNotDigital@lemmy.wtf 9 points 13 hours ago (5 children)

Two extremely qualified women both were defeated by the worst candidate in our countries history.

I love AOC and her policies, but this country has proven it'll vote for literally the worst encapsulation of boomer greed than vote for a capable and competent woman. Twice.

The Democrats are morons if they pick a woman to run next time. Simple as that.

Let AOC kick Schumer out and take his senate seat. She would be much more effective there.

[–] TripleIris@lemmy.wtf 8 points 10 hours ago

Clinton won the popular vote, and Harris lost because of her last minute hard-right turn alienated everyone.

[–] Bongo_Stryker@lemmy.ca 3 points 9 hours ago

That worst candidate didn't win by a landslide either time, so I don't think it's fair to say America will never vote for a woman. Lots of Americans did vote for a woman. According to CNN: "More Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than any other losing presidential candidate in US history."

People forget that aside from the email bullshit, it was widely reported that Clinton received something like 26 million dollars for speaking engagements, behind closed doors to bankers and American robber barons. Some parts of her speeches were leaked, but she never released any transcripts. I think that fueled voter apathy and "both sides the same" feeling for a lot of people, including two-income families struggling to make ends meet.

You think if a man had done the same, no-one except Bernie Sanders would care?

As for the second strong capable woman, I voted for her, despite her seeming support for the ongoing genocide. I'm not convinced that election was legit.

[–] turtlesareneat@discuss.online 6 points 12 hours ago

We need someone who looks like John Fetterman and thinks like AOC.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

You have to blame media for its part in it.

Social media played a heavy hand in artificially inflating trump with its complete and blatant refusal step in and curtail any of the deluge of manufactured bullshit, fake AI controlled accounts, troll farm posts, blatant misinformation, etc, etc, etc.

broadcast media as well, for being so thirsty for ratings and another trump presidency they basically sanewashed every thing he did, when they could bother reporting on it at all, because they knew if he got elected it'd be 4 more years of people desperately turning in every day to see what fresh horrors trump was unleashing, which would drive ratings and revenues to the stratosphere.

[–] AnalogNotDigital@lemmy.wtf 1 points 1 hour ago

I totally blame the media for a massive part of it. Biden has one bad debate and the news talked about it for over a month.

trump literally did the handjob dance and stood there doing nothing for 40 minutes, and it was out of the news cycle in 24 hours.

The news is why he got elected both times. Which is why I refuse to watch news anymore.

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone -3 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

...2 mildly qualified women. Certainly not extremely

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

A former senator and secretary of state counts as extremely qualified by most standards

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 3 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

What is extremely qualified for that job by your standards? Like, name a person.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

Bernie Sanders. AOC would make a good vice president for him, and after 8 years make a run of her own.

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Bernies would've been a good example, no longer as he's too old. Pritzker would've been. Anyone who doesn't bend to the establishment.

People who follow security procedure would be pretty great too.

Hillary is so establishment entrenched it's ridiculous. Harris did not have a spine enough to run her own campaign right. Those are what I feel make them less qualified for the office.

I don't exactly go around looking at politicians to see if I think they'd be good as presidents ....

[–] AnalogNotDigital@lemmy.wtf 1 points 1 hour ago

You think the guy who could never form a single coalition to pass any major legislation is a good choice?

No offense but that's dumb.

Bernie has good politics but he's a horrendous politician. Standing off to the side saying the right things, and never getting any legislation passed, is not being a leader. Part of politics is getting people on your side.

He tried to come in and tell everyone he wanted to be the team captain, while never playing a single inning for the team he was wanting to lead.

Are you shocked that people who played on that team didn't want him to be the leader?