this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2025
230 points (99.1% liked)

politics

20365 readers
3265 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
 
top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 4 points 14 hours ago

There is no such thing as "Trumpism". We are talking about Republicanism.

This is who and what they are. Bronzo the Clown is the latest face of it, and yeah, the mask slipped. But don't let the rest of them off the hook.

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 64 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Imagine the world we would be in now if it was Bernie back in 2016

[–] Jordan117@lemmy.world -3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I voted for Sanders in the 2016 primary. In hindsight, he would have been obliterated, McGovern-style. Clinton and Biden treated him with kid gloves, but in a general election all of his questionable past -- his unemployment, his wife's involvement with that college financing thing, his honeymoon in the USSR, the rape essay -- would have come out and been hammered relentlessly by Republicans (and a good chunk of Democrats).

[–] kablammy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago

his honeymoon in the USSR

Fuckin' ironic

[–] randon31415@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Or at the very least, Biden in 2016.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (3 children)

LOL, nah. Pretending people were too sexist to vote for Hillary and some white male neolib would've done better is nothing but a fantasy neolibs tell themselves to try to excuse their corporate bootlicking.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago

Frankly Hilary wasn't a good candidate, Elizabeth Warren would have been better, to illustrate it wasn't about her gender, but her specifically.

Hilary campaign was largely based around:

I'm a Clinton, remember us from 16 years ago, when my husband was president and I had nothing to do with policy, and mostly remembered as the woman who got cheated on? Clinton was remembered fondly enough I suppose, but that was 16 years ago, and any momentum from that had evaporated. The youngest voters were toddlers when that ended. If they wanted a bit of credibility by affinity to an administration, should have been Obama.

If you don't vote for me, you are a terrible person.

"I'm with her", which is just a terrible slogan that indicates a backwards relationship between a candidate and electorate. Even the megalomaniac asshole Trump managed to focus on "America" rather than himself with his slogan.

She didn't do much to energize anyone, and despite lacking substance she still managed to have folks dislike her candidacy. Whether it be by ditching her home state to go somewhere that would give her a government position or by pissing off the Bernie wing, or, as stupid as it is, I even heard some Democrat mad at her for embarrassing Bill Clinton by "making" him cheat.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well, and a preemptive excuse for shutting out AOC.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago

True! But also shutting out AOC is itself an example of said corporate bootlicking, so it's not so much of a "well, and" as it is an "including."

[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Biden won against Trump, unless you are part of the MAGA cult that believes he lost in 2020.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

Biden squeaked by only because Trump fucked up the pandemic so badly. That does not mean he would've won in 2016.

[–] boydster@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And the conditions in 2016 were markedly different than they were in 2020, unless you don't believe in the forward progression of time.

In other news, a tautology is a tautology.

[–] randon31415@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes, conditions in 2016 were markedly different. Biden was the VP of a highly successful president. Hillary had been demonized by the right for 2 decades and by the left for 1 decade. By the forward progression of time, Biden was weaker in 2024 than he was in 2020. Conversely, he would have been a stronger candidate in 2016.

Listen, every other "X could have beat Trump" is a hypothetical. Trump has only ever been beaten once, and I don't want to carry on a factual debate with a Qanon MAGA hat that doesn't believe in logic, just "feels", so good night.

[–] boydster@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Well clearly someone's emotions have gotten the best of them. Have fun wallowing in your hypotheticals and lashing out at people meaninglessly. After 8 years of Obama, America was not voting for Obama 2 immediately after. That is a crazy take.

Edit: Obama 2, now more boring and uninspiring!

I was there. Biden was not the solution then.

[–] Yodan@lemm.ee 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)

An authority that doesn't adhere to any laws ends up getting removed outside of the law. It ends with violence because the administration is stamping out alternatives. If you aren't allowed to protest or vote or disagree then the only outlet for change becomes physical and not via official channels.

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

This is exactly it. A lot of people will take a lot, but lots of people will take far less than what these dorks have planned.

When it happens, it'll be of their own making. They're currently blasting past all the offramps.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 48 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Trumpism has an unlimited amount of money to throw into its efforts. Elon Musk, the wealthiest man on earth, put more than $270m into Trump’s campaign, a tiny portion of his fortune. Other multibillionaires will join Musk in spending whatever it takes.

This is why neoliberals working with Republicans for 30 years to completely dismantle campaign finance regulations never was rationale.

The wealthiest will always side with the furtherest right party, doesn't matter if they give to both, the check to the right will always be larger.

We spent 30 years digging our own grave till that was possible.

With the Republican party in the House having only a three-vote majority we can defeat draconian, anti-working-class legislation if just two Republican members of Congress vote no.

I'd also like to point out that the "victory fund" shenanigans is defunding state dem parties (literally by design) and costing us a shit ton more than two House seats.

We're throwing everything at a presidential race instead of down allot races, and then when we did win the presidency, immediately said it didn't fucking matter.

If that's the case why didn't we spend that $1,500,000,000 on down ballot races?

That shit couldn't win 3 house races since Biden spent four years telling us presidents were powerless?

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 39 points 2 days ago

FUCK

It should have been Bernie!

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago

From an Ada Limon poem:

we are not unspectacular things. We’ve come this far, survived this much. What

would happen if we decided to survive more? To love harder?

What if we stood up with our synapses and flesh and said, No. No, to the rising tides.

Stood for the many mute mouths of the sea, of the land?

What would happen if we used our bodies to bargain

for the safety of others, for earth, if we declared a clean night, if we stopped being terrified

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] mortalic@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago
[–] Placebonickname@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I’m a government contractor. I work odd jobs cause i have a security clearance. I refuse to work for the Gov due to this new Presidential Administration. It’s all I can do to protest(except vote, which I did in 2016, 2020, and 20024), but I will not do any work for the Federal Gov. I know others can’t all do this, but if you turn down gov work in favor for private sector jobs it might have an impact if many contractor roles go unfilled for too long.

Other than stand on a street and hold up a cleaver sign, not sure what else i can do.

[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 days ago

I feel like people need to stop quitting or not taking these jobs and just do them very poorly to slow things down or interfere.

I'm talking nothing but meetings, no emails.

Otherwise it's a bunch of people who don't care about the rules speed running WW3.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

Good for you man. Thats a lot of sacrifice few would make these days.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 days ago

That's one of the ways, anyhow.