this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2024
764 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19118 readers
3091 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
 

American gen Z voters share how they feel about Kamala Harris’s presidential bid, why they like or dislike her as a candidate and whether they think she could beat Donald Trump, as the vice-president races towards winning the Democratic nomination for November’s election.

‘I think she’s just what we need’

“I think [Kamala Harris] is the only one that makes sense. She will get the votes Biden couldn’t. She could get the Black, Asian, Latino, women’s, LGBTQ+ and youth votes. She stands more for progress and equality than an old white dude and if she wins it will be historic. The Democrats need a bold move and I think she’s just what we need.

“I hope the Democrats realize what an opportunity this is for them.” Will, 22, construction worker from Portland, Oregon

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 151 points 4 months ago (8 children)

This is why I keep repeating "vote for the administration, not the candidate". Just look at the damage the Trump administration circus did futing the shit show that was his term. Now look at the good that the Biden administration has done in its term. Harris would likely keep a large portion of the team.

The only real deep blemish on the Biden administration has been its support of the Palestinian genocide. If Trump was president, he would has encouraged Netanyahu to be far more brutal. You can also kiss Ukraine, human rights, and democracy goodbye under a Trump second term. But sure...don't vote.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 55 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Vote for the administration AND JUDGES!

we've had a front row seat to what happens when idiots don't vote (for Hillary because butterymales or whatever) because they're too focused on the personality of the candidate... Who picks the judges matters!

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 32 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Alito and Thomas have both signalled that they'll retire if Trump wins. I find forcing them to either remain in a job they both clearly dislike or get replaced with a judge who'll reverse the harm they've done to be pretty motivational.

[–] aniki@lemmy.zip 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Hope they fucking croak from the stress of being investigated by the DoJ.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

My hopes aren't specific about cause of death.

[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

As long as it's at the end of a long, painful, emasculating blight that visibly withers them every day for all to see. They deserve to be turned into the ghouls they are on the inside, right in front of the public.

Like morphing into Palpatine from shooting all that sith judicial ruling lightning.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 14 points 4 months ago (1 children)

For sure. I throw judge selection under administration. The President doesn't know any of these judges, they are presented to the President by the team the President put together.

[–] slickgoat@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This is how it is done in Australia by our High Court. A judiciary panel shortlists the candidates and the Government usually takes the first on the list - conservative or liberal government, doesn't matter. The selection isn't politicised - the most qualified gets the job.

Our high court has a reputation for annoying governments from either side.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 10 points 4 months ago

I wish... Our system is the heritage foundation chooses whatever judges align with what they want to accomplish, spend 2 decades calling liberal appointed judges "activist judges that want to legislate from the bench" and then hand the Republican president a list of activist judges who will legislate from the bench because everything Republicans say their opposition does is projecting what they actually intend to do...

I hate that it works... They do it first so when you push back on what they are doing it looks like the childish "no you!" argument so it immediately defuses any resistance...

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

Yep. Trump pulled his judge picks right off the wish list of extremist judges the Heritage Foundation hand-picked for him. It's sickening how many judges he got to appoint, on top of getting to choose 3! 😭 SCOTUS justices (one of the seats was stolen by McConnell).

Of course one of those judges was Aileen Cannon who after delaying the classified docs case against him as long as possible, finally went ahead and tossed it out completely on the ridiculous grounds that there shouldn't have been a special prosecutor for it.

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 32 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

As a professional circus performer, please don't bring us down to their level. Most of us are bleeding heart communist hippies, and circuses take a TON of coordination to run.

[–] Infynis@midwest.social 25 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The only real deep blemish on the Biden administration has been its support of the Palestinian genocide.

Definitely the biggest, but not the only. Two others that stand out to me are his breaking of the rail strike, and his border policies.

But of course, this all comes with the caveat that all of this, under Trump, would be unimaginably worse

[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 30 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Biden got the union workers their largest demands after ending the strike. People are stuck on the headlines immediately after ending the strike and apparently missed this fast follow a few weeks later IIRC

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It doesn't matter what happened after. The optics of breaking the strike set unions back decades. That damage can't be undone just by doing then a few favors later.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

It doesn’t matter what happened after.

It absolutely does. The administration fought to get the workers what they wanted. That's more effective than a strike.

Unions have not been set back decades either. In fact, they're more powerful than they've ever been. UAW brought auto manufacturers to their knees. SAG joined forces with writers to get their due from Hollywood and secure worker protections against AI.

This is what a pro union administration emboldens. Let's not pretend that the rail strike was a simple black and white issue. It could've caused delays that would make water undrinkable in cities, prevent electricity or heating in winter, and delay crucial medication shipments.

[–] absentbird@lemm.ee 25 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Congress broke the strike with a veto-proof majority, Biden didn't have much choice in the matter.

At least Biden was able to negotiate and apply pressure to get most of the demands met for the rail workers after the strike was prevented. The unions were largely grateful for the administration's efforts on the issue.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 months ago

my emotions in this chain have been so far:

  • outrage
  • pleasant surprise
  • outrage again
  • confusion

I think I'll settle on the idea that whatever Biden did, it was at least better than what Trump would've. Then again it's this exact same blind logic that Trump supporters say about Biden.

[–] Hawanja@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If Trump were pres we'd probably have troops there helping with the genocide.
We definitely would be helping out Russia against Ukraine.

[–] ours@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

The sad truth is no US president can go against the Israeli lobby unless some major changes are made.

But I agree with you, Trump would have happily and loudly complied with Bibi's Government.

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

These people are voting. Biden is no longer the candidate. You no longer have to lecture people into voting for him.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 10 points 4 months ago (3 children)

These people *are* voting.

These people are saying they are going to vote. Everyone needs reminding of the consequences of a second Trump term. Also, the "Kamala is a cop" narrative is also in full swing.

[–] JackiesFridge@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

I'm sure that will get balanced out by all the "back the blue" conservatives lining up to support her, right?

.....right?

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

the "Kamala is a cop" narrative is also in full swing.

Good for attracting Republicans?

If Trump was president, he would has encouraged Netanyahu to be far more brutal.

I can't imagine there is a higher level of cruelty than what is currently occurring right now. They're being denied food and water and being shot for fun.

Rest of your point aside,as far as Gaza is concerned it's already at "worst".

Sure we can imagine hypotheticals but bibi is doing whatever he wants already.

[–] someacnt_@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

But muh inflation /s

[–] Zetta@mander.xyz -5 points 4 months ago

Ahhh while Biden has generally supported Ukraine he has handicapped them and extended the war by the constant wishy-washy support.

"You can have these weapons but not these better ones that you actually need" 6 months later they get the weapons they actually need anyway

"Okay you can have the good weapons but you can't use them inside Russia" a year later they can use the good weapons in some areas of Russia

Constant weak minded actions like this from Biden are a big problem.