this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
3 points (100.0% liked)

politics

23188 readers
2734 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
 

This stupid topic again

But sure

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (4 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

AOC isn’t even in the conversation though. I think she’d face fierce opposition to even getting the nomination. She’s a pretty divisive figure.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

She's not old enough anyway, need to be 35 to be president, she's 34

Downvoted for stating facts lmao

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Why is he being downvoted for providing the correct answer?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

As damning as it is to the US, the best bet for winning is a good-looking, smooth-talking white guy who will look presidential when compared with Trump.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Jon Stewart. He adamantly opposes the suggestion he run, which is exactly what we need. He's got decades of experience in global politics, he's likeable, got name recognition. And to your suggestion he's a smooth talking attractive white man

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

He’s got decades of experience in global politics

It's hilarious that people genuinely believe this.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

He made the right call on a whole bunch of foreign policy issues that the Very Experienced Professionals were assuring us they had a handle on. Just because he doesn’t have the relevant real skills, doesn’t mean the establishment candidates have any of it, either.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (4 children)

I'd prefer Buttigieg simply because he is such an effective communicator. Other than that I'd prefer someone much more leftist than him.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Really? I’ve always smelled “80’s guy” on him. “Don’t you worry about blank, let me worry about blank.”

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

She acts like that's a bad thing. It's the truth, and it's not the "elites," it's most democratic voters, donors, and a sizeable percentage of political elites, i.e. senators and congress people. Don't look now, AOC, but you are one of the elites.

Trading Biden for Harris is just allowing Trump to campaign against the same administration and trading a guy too old to effectively communicate for someone who is just ineffective at communicating.

I don't want Harris only slightly less than I don't want Biden. They're both losers, but not in the vague insulting sense: in the sense that they're both likely to lose to Trump.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›