this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
557 points (93.9% liked)

politics

19243 readers
1905 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
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] steeznson@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

As an outsider it seemed more like they had an image problem than an issue with their concrete policies. Obviously it could be both but I got a sense people believed the dems were out of touch.

[–] llama@midwest.social 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

A cracked brick wall is more visible than a sinking foundation.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] zenitsu@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (7 children)

We're gonna just continue to blame the Dems while ignoring that a massive online propaganda campaign brainwashed enough morons into voting again for a convicted felon who tried to steal the last election, and already had a dogshit first term? Even if you "fix" the dems, the propaganda will still paint whoever is representing them as worse than the fascist puppets on the other side, and the masses of dimwits will swallow it while thinking they're enlightened centrists.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If the electorate consisted of 9 people who were doing fine, and one person that wasn't, we would have 9 no votes and one person that voted to destroy the system that allowed the 9 to be doing fine.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl 6 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Look, this chap has all fair points and your favourite deity knows I’d be the first to “put an end to” neoliberalism, but again, it’s all opinion. I haven’t seen anything telling us:

  • who voted, and for whom
  • and why
  • and whether leopards are already eating faces

Best we got are some anecdotes about some Latino voters discovering that Trump considers them brown people too, but I’d be far more interested in actual hard numbers. Anyone who knows some?

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 6 points 4 weeks ago (7 children)

Next time there should be a populist movement to write in a progressive candidate. Why couldn’t a populist candidate overrun the DNC like Trump did with the RNC?

[–] eskimofry@lemmy.world 9 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Because it's hard for actually intelligent people to worship a moron.

Edit: actually you're right.. we could have had Bernie.

[–] reddit_sux@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago

Because Trump does represent a lot of the policies that Republican party support. Christian nationalism, low taxes for the rich, white supremacy.

It was apparent when the Alaskan governor ran for VP. (I forgot her name.) It consolidated behind Trump because he was a buffoon who could be manipulated to get their main aims to be fulfilled.

None in the DNC would want anyone other than a establishment candidate to be theirs. This was true when Hillary was nominated, when Biden was nominated and also when Harris was nominated.

Biden would have lost too if not for the previous 4 years of Trump. With Harris promising to continue putting finger in her ears and walking the same path which might have given respite if people could have let it continue 4-8 years. But who knows if they would have lived to see those days.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

They should stay in their current path and fade off into obscurity

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›