this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
613 points (96.8% liked)

politics

19223 readers
3793 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
 

Summary

President Joe Biden touted his administration’s economic recovery efforts, citing job growth, reduced inflation, and infrastructure investments, as he prepares to hand off a strong economy to Donald Trump.

Biden criticized Trump’s proposed steep tariffs on imports, warning they could harm the economy and reintroduce inflation.

Trump plans tariffs against China, Mexico, and Canada, raising concerns about trade disruptions similar to those seen during his first term.

Economists caution that such policies could quickly reverse recent economic gains and weaken the U.S. economy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 34 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

Unless your idea of a good candidate is George Clooney or Oprah than this isn't a problem that can be fixed with 'better candidates'.

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 35 points 6 days ago

Those answers make me unreasonably angry. The absolute stupidity is astounding.

[–] Lightsong@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

'Believe in Christ'? How the fuck do people see that?

[–] yarr@feddit.nl 1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Those aren't my idea of good candidates either. My idea of a good candidate would be someone ethical, that wants to improve life for our citizens, that values constitutional values and the rule of law. I am not sure such a person exists in the US that is capable of winning the presidency.

In your picture above, just because a few morons vote for silly reasons doesn't invalidate the value of having actual good representation.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

There's value in good representation, but it's just not going to help us win elections so it's moot.

The most ethical, constitutional, kind of loving candidate in the world is worth jack shit if they can't win an election.

[–] yarr@feddit.nl 4 points 6 days ago

Sorry, I would not prefer an unethical, unconstitutional, unloving candidate to win. Actually, I think that's exactly what we did get.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

The people in that image voted for Trump. They're describing Donald Trump.

Your idea of a good candidate is useless when Voters are morons that think Trump is the good candidate.