this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
509 points (94.7% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2621 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

This stupid topic again

But sure

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Kelly, Duckworth, Whitmer, Newsom, Buttigieg, Warren, Franken.

[–] anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 4 months ago

I would legit take time off and drive to a battleground to campaign for Franken...

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Whitehouse would be solid as well. AOC would also be a fine pick if we got party unity behind her.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

AOC would also be a fine pick if we got party unity behind her.

Centrists would vote for Trump.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think you misspelled conservatives - nobody sane would vote for Trump.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Right. Like I said. Centrists.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

AOC could unify the party behind her, but she'd need to do it with a primary. The Biden delegates and/or the party establishment aren't going to make a wild swing-for-the-fences play like that with an appointment.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago

I don't disagree. I think she'd be an excellent choice and absolutely trounce Trump but it'd be a hard fucking sell to the DNC.

She's got more name recognition than Harris though so the "Harris is the only one voters would recognize" bunch can get fucked.

[–] Crisps@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

AOC would be a better VP pick than top of the ticket. Let her ascend later when she is more experienced.

[–] Seraph@fedia.io -3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You legitimately think the Democratic party will get behind any of these nominations enough to defeat Trump? I'd say most are considered more controversial than fuckin Hillary was.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I legitimately think that this was what you intended to reply with regardless of what I said, and I very much doubt you actually bothered to read it.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Seriously. This is a pretty mild list of semi-proven politicians with national recognition. Warren (or maybe Franken) are the only ones I can see being potentially controversial and even they're both still broadly liked within the party.

Also, how does someone who's not familiar with Kelly or Duckworth have a strong opinion about who's controversial in the Democratic party? They're not superstars, but you weren't exactly digging up no-names.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 1 points 4 months ago (3 children)

It is extremely notable to me that the "get rid of Biden" is so HUGELY emphasized over "let's figure out who instead"

It makes me look suspiciously at what would initially be the pretty sensible idea of subbing in someone younger

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 4 months ago

That continues to be a piss poor rebuttal because the two questions are separate. Many people literally don't care. And anyone who thinks this is some sort of ratfucking is either detached from reality or doesn't actually know that many Democrats. The calls to step down (and frankly depression) have been coming from across the party right from the night of the debate. The gaslighting is just the worst possible response to an already bad situation.

[–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

until he's gone, every other name is moot.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You look suspiciously at anything but blind unthinking worship of Biden.

If you're gonna call me a bot, come out and say it instead of hiding behind vague language like a coward.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No one is calling you a bot.

We're calling you a right wing agitator.

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

Right. You can no longer call people bots, so you found another unfounded accusation to use because you don't have defensible positions.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You're way too intelligent to be a bot, no one ever called you that. That I ever saw, at least.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

I don't like genocide, and this is lemmy. Of course I've been called a bot.

[–] Seraph@fedia.io -4 points 4 months ago

Incorrect, I actually looked up both Kelly's and Duckworth's backgrounds as I wasn't familiar - I see why they were first!