this post was submitted on 17 May 2025
-50 points (20.9% liked)

politics

23526 readers
2319 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
 

We tried to warn you

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] piefood@feddit.online 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Well, I think being a terrible candidate that ran on unpopular platforms and alienated voters, all while trying to be as similar to a highly unpopular president might have also had something to do with it. I don't think being a woman was that big of a factor. The fact that we tried to warn you is highly relevant. Learning from your mistakes is how you stop making them, but the Democratic leadership keeps refusing to do that.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world -1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

What unpopular platforms did he run on? Pausing federal student loan repayments? Boosting the irs's funding to help catch tax evaders? Reduce Healthcare costs? Help funding for service members who suffered from exposure up toxic burn pits? Halting federal executions? Investing in climate change initiatives?

We tried to warn you would be relevant if he was elected, which he clearly wasn't so no it isn't relevant. Look the dnc is a fucking joke but this fake outrage is silly

[–] piefood@feddit.online 1 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Well, I was talking about Harris, not Biden, but if you really want to know: Backing Genocide. Bad economic policy. Increased military spending. Half-assed fixes for healthcare costs. Half-assed fixes for policing. Half-assed fixes for climate-change. Just look at the polling at the time. It was clear that Americans didn't like him or his policies.

It is relevant, because the DNC telling everyone that their clearly cognitively impared candidate wasn't cognitively impared. That disenfranchised a lot of voters who gave up on the Democratic party after that. Harris had to spend her campaign with Biden and his legacy dragging her down.

You may think that the outrage at a clearly corrupt organization that handed the election over to fascists is silly, but a lot of people find that pretty important.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Half-assed fixes for healthcare costs.

That's generous.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 0 points 4 hours ago

Backing Genocide. Bad economic policy. Increased military spending. Half-assed fixes for healthcare costs. Half-assed fixes for policing. Half-assed fixes for climate-change. Just look at the polling at the time. It was clear that Americans didn't like him or his policies.

Yet it got trump elected, so maybe these policies are more widely accepted than you want to believe

You may think that the outrage at a clearly corrupt organization that handed the election over to fascists is silly, but a lot of people find that pretty important

Right cause that's what I said? Keep making up strawman.