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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
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
Why do Americans keep putting such old people into power? Trump and Biden. Why not someone young like Obama?
When you consider monarchies that have come and gone, it's not really a new phenomenon. People are drawn to brand names.
It was insane that it was Biden vs Trump again in 2024 for a while. Both of them are older than Bill Clinton and trying to get the job that Clinton retired from ~24 years prior to that.
Because the US decided money = speech. All the old people have all the money. Young people are subsisting on starvation wages after Regan, and we saddled them with debt slavery from student loans. So, when you have all the money, you have all the speech. So, old people get elected.
Also, corporations control politics. They view politicians like warehouse equipment. The dollies don't get replaced super often to maximize ROI. The same applies to politicians.
You think the rich would tolerate such a risk? He got elected and then started talking universal health-insurance. The rich dumped truckloads of money against that. So, we ended up with Romney care relabeled as Obamacare. You think they'd tolerate such a risk to their profit margins in light of what I explained above?
I wish you were joking but 65 is basically juvenile in our politics.
During the campaign leading up to the last election many were referring to Kamala Harris as a young candidate.
She was 60.
God damn, I don't think I even realized that she was that old. It's hard to call someone old when you're comparing them to someone with one foot in the grave.
It'd be nice if our electorate was, on average, of an age where they still have a future to worry about.
wealth/influence distribution across age cohorts. There is a fairly big percentage of the population that are quite old, and most of the wealth and influences is concentrated with in those older cohorts.
Younger candidates are ether sycophantically aligned ethos the interests of those older cohorts to gain the support of that wealth and influence, thus making them extremely unpopular with younger cohorts, or are opposed to those interests and thus have a huge amount of wealth and power arrayed against them and attempting to undermine them.
Older candidates who directly have control over wealth/influence/connections in that cohort can break that mold and actually do politics without having to fight that “radical”/sycophantic” dichotomy.
Basically, wealth inequality favors old people.