this post was submitted on 21 May 2026
255 points (97.0% liked)

politics

29844 readers
2693 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Democrats don’t care if they lose as long as donations keep coming.

Right, but that's exactly why I assumed that the autopsy was accurate and on-point - because it found fault with things the DNC not only was but still is deliberately doing solely to keep the soft money rolling in, and in spite of the fact that those things will likely lead to a loss. That's the reality they don't want the voters to become (more) aware of.

But since it's just a mealy-mouthed whitewash, it seems like they might as well have released it as promised.

[–] Sunforged@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The report only confirms that and they were trying to avoid being called out.

That or this AI slop of a report, with factual errors on almost every page and a blank conclusion section, isn't the real report and is just fodder hoping to ignore the issues they don't want to address.

Either way we can draw the same conclusion about party leadership.

[–] WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 day ago

Either way we can draw the same conclusion about party leadership.

True that. The names may have changed but the policies and strategies are the same now as they have been since at least 2016 - pimp the pro-corporate/pro-zionist "moderates" no matter what the voters want, at least ignore if not actively campaign against the progressives, again no matter what the voters want, and most important of all, don't do anything that might cut into the flow of soft money.