this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
352 points (97.8% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3742 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
 

There was One (very) Angry Man at the Georgia State University Convocation Center last Saturday. Donald Trump had harsh words for everyone. He insulted his general election opponent, “Crazy Kamala” Harris, for her “low IQ,” and jeered at President Joe Biden for “choking like a dog” during the debate that started the campaign to convince him to step aside for Harris. Trump slammed several Georgia Republicans, including “disloyal” Governor Brian Kemp, who Trump said should “get off his ass” and do something about Atlanta murders. The GOP nominee even went after the host university itself for not letting more people into the at-capacity stadium to see Trump.

That’s a lot of grievances to air at an event meant to rally supporters of the former president as he seeks another term in office. And it’s understandable why Trump—who has appeared flummoxed at times over how to handle a head-to-head campaign against Harris—would go back to his old, winning 2016 playbook: Insult people and groups of people. Blame immigrants, city-dwellers, Democrats, and insufficiently loyal Republicans for the ills of the country and the world.

But anger, a driving force in 2016, is a weakening tactic, eight years after Trump shocked the world by defeating Hillary Clinton. Enough voters were tired of politics as usual that election that they were willing to see if a blunt talker could be better. Biden prevailed in 2020 because voters wanted to turn on the TV and be bored by the president.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 52 points 1 month ago (6 children)

surprisingly united Democratic Party

I'm very skeptical of her support for any progressive policies, and really frustrated that opinion pieces are already encouraging her to abandon progressives to win, but I'm still going to vote for her far more enthusiastically than I did Biden (and I would have voted for Biden) because that's what you do when immediate dictatorship is the alternative.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 66 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Agreed. Fuck sources like CNN telling her to drop cabinet heads like Lina Khan, just because daddy business doesn't want to pay taxes.

It's strictly a donor thing as even in super conservative idaho, I've never heard negative things about the more progressive positions. It's only business owners that hate it.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 17 points 1 month ago
[–] morphballganon@lemmynsfw.com 42 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Walz as VP pick suggests an openness to progressive policies.

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 12 points 1 month ago

I'm so damn happy she picked him over Shapiro too. Means she's not slipping her values to satisfy the majority but actually going further and trying to actually change things.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We're being pragmatic. Hopefully, with a Harris presidency, we can fix what broke. Trump needs to face the charges for J6. I haven't read enough about what's happened but if jeopardy has already attached then he needs to stand trial for everything connected to it.

He cannot die before being brought to trial because the whole thing of "Presidents can't be charged" needs to go away.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The important thing is to keep up progressive pressure after the election. The big mistake of 2008 was progressives thinking "we put Obama in there, and now we can relax and let him take care of it". The administration wore itself out pushing a health care bill that managed to be both overly complicated and weak at the same time. A highly astroturfed Tea Party then wins in the midterms, and Obama doesn't have the opportunity to do anything else.

Celebrate wins and keep pushing this enthusiasm. It can't end in November or January.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

The important thing is to keep up progressive pressure after the election.

My impression is that Bernie and AOC were putting pressure on Biden even during the 2020 runup based on articles I remember seeing at the time. (I'm sure "putting pressure" doesn't mean exactly the same thing when it's POTUS and you are a fairly new representative, but you know what I mean) I hope that the same is going on here and/or that they and others have already established a relationship with Kamala during the previous years that will be of benefit in that regard.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It all depends on what she does.

If she wins she appoints the new leadership of the DNC, if she really is progressive then that alone could be huge.

Or she could let the same people run it and nothing will fundamentally change.

But who she appoints as DNC leadership is going to be the first real sign of what she'll be like in office.

[–] broton33@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We got some good and necessary changes to delegates after Hillary's failed coronation. Now we'll likely see required primaries due to Biden's almost disaster. I do hope Kamala and Walz make changes to incorporate a truly diverse coalition for democrats. Including leadership for core demographics.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Primaries are already required.

[–] homesnatch@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I read somewhere that her voting record in the senate was the closest to Bernie Sanders of any senator.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago

I read that too, but I also read an analysis that I'd struggle to find now which essentially said "that's not as indicative of progressive policy opinions as you might think" based on what differences did exist.

And there's also this article about her record before becoming a Senator, which if you don't want to read the whole thing sums itself up pretty well in the last couple paras. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/kamala-cop-record/596758/

To be clear - I'm voting for her, and fairly enthusiastically. But I'm no more than cautiously optimistic that she's going to even attempt to kick over any of the apple carts that Bernie or AOC would given the chance, and I'm hoping she doesn't pull anything in a direction I'd consider as backwards. It would be great to see her ram through some police reforms - that would be a pretty good litmus test when considering the particulars of her past that concern me. I'm a believer in personal growth and change - so I'm holding my breath to see what if any there has been.

[–] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago