politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
a singular politician. he's going to die on the job, in the middle of an impassioned speech on behalf of the working class. indefatigable. not even Lincoln or Kennedy had a fraction of the perseverance and consistency this man has demonstrated. a true public servant.
Eh, I don't know. Lincoln was well aware that he was walking into a massively complex situation with nothing short of the future of the country 100% on the line. He knew he was doing it at great personal risk, and I am sure on some level he knew it could (and ultimately, would) cost him his life.
Lincoln's life was cut short so ultimately we never got to see what the next phase of his life would look like, but he persevered in the face of the greatest struggle this nation has ever faced.
Trump and friends may well create as dangerous of a scenario as the civil war, especially if Thiel, Vance, and the other tech authoritarians achieve their goal of radically overhauling if not outright destroying the country.
Three words:
A
O
C
In an ideal world, but haven't we learned that she's too female and probably not white enough for America? *I don't agree, but I'm being pragmatic
Let's do racism and sexism, not because we're racist and sexist, but because other people probably are. It may look like us and the bigots of unclear numbers are both having the same effect, but we're not bad people just because our actions proactively support bad things. We're just being pragmatic.
The entire point behind "Kamala lost because she's a woman of color, not because she wouldn't differ from her unpopular predecessor except to move to his right" is to shut out AOC in particular. The party is willing to hold back all women in order to stifle one person, and it's gross.
The fact is that many Americans wouldn't vote for a woman, and combining that with the ones who wouldn't vote for a person of colour is a bad idea, especially when the alternative for president is so dire.
I do think that the fact she wouldn't support Palestine/condemn Israel was a factor too, but if she had, that would have set Israel against her and lost more votes, especially due to all the media Zionists control and their lobbying power.
The Democratic president with the largest margin of victory in recent times was a black man and you're still out here saying we need to court voters that won't vote for a person of color in order to win. Maybe your read on the inherent unelectability of women is similarly flawed.
So long as a progressive is a possibility and not one femtosecond longer.
So we have to (and you get to) support genocide forever too!
Also signed a slightly hopeful American
Or Dems could run a serious candidate this time. That would be a refreshing change.
No... Voters need to vote left. Voting left in primaries will yield better candidates.
If only Democrats would run fair primaries. Or primaries at all.