this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
658 points (94.3% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3482 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.
  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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kaboom@reddthat.com 25 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I have exactly one. Is Biden trying to lose?

[–] HerrBeter@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It make sense that if corporations control both parties, and Boden has done good work for workers rights, they'd hamstring the "not-super-evil" party and push for the other party.. It's a conspiracy theory but billionaires want Trump since he promises tax cuts, relief, and loopholes. For the rich.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Most labor friendly president in US history = protecting rail corporations from a stike?

Standards are low.

[–] HerrBeter@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

There's been a union "surge" in the south directly because of Boden policies

[–] Pilferjinx@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Trump brings with him chaos. He's going to use those presidential immunity powers to murder people. I don't see how that uncertainty will bring profit.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yeah, I gotta say that making the election a referendum on Trump personally seems a whole lot more likely to be successful than making it a referendum on the federal AWB. That wasn't a political success story for the Democrats.

But, I dunno. Maybe his team has some kind of angle, like they're trying to move some critical demographic that they think that they can influence.

EDIT: I gotta say that aside from the question of whether it's a good policy or whether it's a good move politically, every time it sounds like a ban is proposed, it sets off a massive wave of firearms sales, so I'd guess that firearms vendors are going to have a good time.