this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2026
41 points (90.2% liked)

politics

29032 readers
1599 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
all 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

primaries a bit disapointing here. very heavy machine type push against progressives. biss one against kat. its not that biss is so bad but kat would have been a huge message to the party. an old school bumped a progressive assessor out. quigley kept his seat. Thing is its not like the canidates are bad I just wanted more of a progressive shakeup.

[–] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I feel like I'm reading a bad Google translate. What does "biss one against kat" mean? What's a progressive assessor?

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 2 hours ago

sorry bis and kat were canidates running against each other in the primary for a house seat a progressive assessor was a non machine canidate who won last time but got pushed out by an old school family name in the area. He actually did very well considering its a period where assesments had to go way up. I almost thing the machine party types did not want to win for a term so that someone else could deal with it and then swoop in.

[–] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Meanwhile, here in California we've got so many Democrats running for governor, we are almost certain to have a MAGA governor of the worst kind.

[–] HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I thought spicy meant sexy?

[–] Klear@quokk.au 3 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)
[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Big deal. Knowing the voters, theyd just sit it out again then blame the party for shitty options.

[–] Quexotic@infosec.pub -1 points 14 hours ago

I didn't sit it out, but the loss was well earned. I wouldn't be surprised if we learn 50 years from now that the party, controlled by money, intentionally drove this country to the right.

[–] ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 day ago

shows that voters are being given a choice

Illusion of choice, the party will always get who the party wants. And the few that may find their way in will either be forced to comply with the party or be primaried