this post was submitted on 25 May 2026
432 points (96.8% liked)

politics

29883 readers
2011 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

archive article https://archive.is/hXQTC

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] VoidMentat@lemmy.zip 29 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I would vote for AOC in a heartbeat. I am tired of old men ruining the country, and tired of Israel making us their errand boy.

As far as "experience", when did that really matter? Obama didn't have much foreign policy experience either and he was 1000x better than this current troglodyte pedophile.

To me the whole foreign policy angle is a non-sequitur. Unless an candidate has been a senator/congressman for several terms, it doesn't really apply. And how many presidents were that? Some of the best presidents had zilch in foreign policy experience and weren't an elected official for much before they became president.

Obama (one half-finished term as senator). Clinton (Arkansas AG and gov...hardly a place that had any need of foreign policy). Bush Jr (gov of Texas). Reagan (gov of Cali).

Not to imply all were great, but they definitely had, at least from our current perspective, a rational viewpoint where they thought from their POV that they were doing the right thing for the country, instead of this chaotic, narcissistic, demagogue, corrupt stupidity.

At this point a gerbil with schizophrenia would be a better option than Trump.

[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

As far as "experience", when did that really matter?

It stopped mattering to me when I considered myself smarter than the president. And I'm an idiot.

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago

And I'm an idiot.

Yes, but you're also self aware of it, which further differentiates you from the Oranguturd Chumpanzee.

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

At this point a gerbil with schizophrenia would be a better option than Trump.

Same was true the last two times highly qualified women lost to Trumpism.

Trump MAY not be on the next ballot, but Trumpism will be.

[–] mattyroses@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago

Neoliberal women who were significantly to the right of the party.

Kamala was not "qualified" to be the nominee - she's literally never won a single delegate in her life.