this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
515 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3058 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
 

The former president has always considered himself to be the ultimate disrupter. But this time, the disruption is on the other side.

Through the weekend, there were an awful lot of questions that were going back and forth from people in the president’s tightest circle, and one of the questions that kept being asked was whether Joe Biden was going to endorse Kamala Harris or not. And the question didn’t revolve around whether he wanted to or not, but whether people in her camp thought it would be better for her to fight for it, win it on her own, and not be seen as somebody who was tapped by President Biden and so, in her own way, have a fresh start going into the campaign.

So the timing seems to be about as good as it could have been to end what has just been one of the craziest two or three weeks in American politics in quite some time.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ABCDE@lemmy.world 29 points 3 months ago (2 children)

They need this energy to make people want to vote; not just to vote apathetically or to perhaps not bother because they don't feel like it makes a difference, but to get out and do it with purpose, energised to tell others to do it. The VP pick is going to be a crucial part of this, with some actual policies/promises to back it up. The Republicans have shown fuck all, so here's hoping for a progressive campaign which speaks to people.

[–] qprimed@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

here's hoping for a progressive campaign which speaks to people.

there is a very real possibility that it may actually look progressive-ish. a victory and subsequent appointments will tell us alot, but I have a ~~minutiae~~ minutia of hope for something tangibly better than the mean average the past 40 years has given us.

[–] quicklime@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I mean this all friendly and not as a 'gotcha': the singular form of minutiae is minutia.

[–] qprimed@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago

thank you, internet friend.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Other than Palin, who was an epically bad choice, I really don't feel like the VP moves the needle all that much or injects a lot of energy. That being said, another woman on the ticket would be an interesting flex, and there are some good choices.

[–] Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

AOC might be a good pick if you really wanna get more of the left crowd.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 6 points 3 months ago

I like AOC. But I think she can still do a lot of good where she is. You have Katie Porter ready to go and she might be my top pick. Whitmer limits out in two years, and might be willing to be called up, but I'm really happy with her here in MI and I'm afraid to shake things up too much or risk losing our blue trifecta here. Either of them might be better strategic picks, but what do I know.

[–] Drusas@kbin.run 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

America is still too misogynistic to let a ticket of two women win.

Edit: I like the optimism of the people downvoting me. I'd prefer they engage, but I still like their optimism.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 8 points 3 months ago

I'm not going to say you're wrong, but a pair of women on a pro-choice platform would fucking energize some folks. And I don't think a token man on the ticket would make a difference anyway.

Also, none of the men whose names I've seen put forward excite me the way some of the women do. (I know... bad phrasing...)

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

Women would turn out for them, a hugely underestimated group.

[–] Drusas@kbin.run 1 points 3 months ago