this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
164 points (96.6% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3668 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
 

It is important that Kamala Harris continues to define and expose Trump. But it may not be enough to secure a victory

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 43 points 6 days ago (2 children)

These are valuable policies. I believe, however, that her chances of winning improve if she expands that agenda to include popular solutions to the most important economic and political realities facing this country.

The American people want change, and that’s what she must deliver.

Here are just a few ideas that are not only excellent policy, but are extremely popular among voters across the political spectrum:

Not gonna copy all his suggestions but click the link and find out.

I've been saying the same thing for a while now though.

Everyone knows what trump would mean. It doesn't need to be the only thing Kamala talks about

We all know she's not trump, she needs to start giving voters substantial policy that voters want and the country desperately needs.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

But her corporate donors might get upset!!! /s

Better to let the media have the horse race it wants and cater to the non-existent "center." /s

The Democrats have learned fuck-all in 30 fucking years except who butters their bread.

Newt Gingrich was cheating on his wife with cancer while pushing investigations into Clinton for a blowjob (because all their other investigations turned up fuck-all so they had to try to catch him in a lie so they could say "see, he'll lie on the stand, you can't trust his word."). The fact that they've spent 30 years "reaching across the aisle" and learning nothing says everything.

[–] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I think America has been in a deep moral crisis since it's inception; should we be evil, or just a little evil. It's easy to get people to agree to just a wee bit of more evil and here we are 200 years later with the magic of compound interest.

[–] usrtrv@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Considering the entire 200+ years, the US is considerably less evil. Is there room for improvement? Yes.

[–] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 days ago

Definitely less evil, towards Americans. But they've made vast strides in outsourcing evil through globalization and the military industrial complex.

I suppose the tricky part is to craft policy positions in such a way that you don't alienate former GOP who were okay with Biden. I recall that when Biden won, a lot of folks voted an otherwise straight GOP ticket but Biden-Harris for president.

I suspect that's what it takes to ahead again.

Meanwhile, it's easier to risk alienating the base for Harris, since those folks def won't go to the other guy.

I like Sanders and I like the ideas in his post, but I'm hopeful that if Harris wins this year, the other guy won't be able to get nominated in 2028 (too old, twice failed, etc) and that will lead to a more normal election cycle. At which point, some of these ideas start looking better.

Of course, if Harris wins, Dems keep the Senate, and take the House, then there's the other option - (temporarily) drop the filibuster (setting the threshold to a bare majority) and then enacting the 127 DC states plan: https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21063591/modest-proposal-to-save-american-democracy-pack-the-union-harvard-law-review