this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
-20 points (33.3% liked)

politics

19159 readers
4771 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (3 children)

The American vice president has only two important constitutional roles: to break tie votes in the Senate, and to sit on presidential death watch. This latter task will be more important under a second Biden presidency than it has been at any time since FDR’s fourth term. Should Biden be re-elected, there is a one in three chance of his vice president taking his job before January 2029. And roughly half the electorate thinks that Harris is not up to the demands of that job.

if trump has taught us anything, its that any idiot can technically function as president. i dont see harris being some terrible temporary president. i see a lot of racists kinda freakin out at the possibility though.

'i dont know why i dont like her. shes just not ready'
ha, whatevs. we dont need a rockstar, we need a placeholder... and we got it.

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

And yet no other name was put forward as an alternative.

[–] Veedem@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I’d be interested in Buttigieg, but I’m also not sure how much experience he has in brokering deals.

Also, replacing Harris with Pete is going to affect the number of votes from the Black community, most likely. Additionally, in a year where reproductive rights are going to be a huge topic of conversation, replacing a female running mate seems short sighted. Even my conservative mother in law is fired up over the need to protect abortion rights.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

I would not be interested in him. Buttigieg is a McKinsey shill. I highly recommend you watch John Oliver's segment on McKinsey. It's on YouTube.

I do agree with your second line though.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

If Biden was considering replacing Harris, Pete would already be thanking him for the nomination.

[–] littlebluespark@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

Username checks out. Please do ASAP.