this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
341 points (90.5% liked)

politics

18789 readers
2732 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 97 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Who the fuck cares if they're black white gay straight trans, just so the fucking job well. That's all anyone wants.

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 159 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Who the fuck cares

Aww, you’ve never met a republican, huh?

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 month ago

I have. And I'm telling them to get over it and not care. Even though I know they're too mentally unstable to accept the feedback.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We should stop selecting our candidates based on what Republicans think.

[–] GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.social 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The unfortunate reality is that there's plenty of older democrats, "moderate democrats", and independents that also have a negative perception of the LGBT community.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] finley@lemm.ee 21 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Oooohhhh, a lot of people reeeaaaally care. They shouldn’t, but they really do.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

So... No Republicans. Got it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] caboose2006@lemmy.ca 82 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I actually really like buttigieg, but he's wrong. A woman of color AND a gay man? I wish we lived in that country but we don't live in that country.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 77 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Sure dude, but no offense, I'm hoping for the war veteran, swing state astronaut. Strategically he looks like the best choice IMO.

[–] Mad__vegan@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I liked him too until I found out it would prompt a special election that Democrats could likely lose

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago (4 children)

He's a sitting senator of a red leaning state who won because of who he is. He has to vacate to run for VP, which is bad for keeping that seat. Losing the senate easily hamstrings any efforts a President Harris would bring, especially with GOP being the way they are.

Granted, that can be a problem for all swing state guys. Just isn't as terrible for governors (although that can screw with other things, like voting rights in a given state).

[–] spamfajitas@lemmy.world 54 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Senator Kelly's replacement would be required by Arizona law to be a Democrat appointed by the Governor (also currently a Democrat). The special election to replace the replacement wouldn't be until 2026. If he's the right one for the job, it might be worth potentially taking a hit 2 years into a Harris administration.

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

That's a good point. I didn't know it wasn't until 2026. The main point is to sure up Arizona, which is understandable. The guy from Pennsylvania might be good for that reason, too, but that's a little less iffy as it's a little more blue, especially since it sounds like Philly is loving the Harris hype.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Big_Boss_77@lemmynsfw.com 8 points 1 month ago

That resume is hard to top... isn't it? I keep reading other candidates but always find myself going "that's cool and all... but an astronaut?"

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 61 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Honestly, I’d settle for a good one. Gay or not. Because a person’s sexuality and preferences are entirely irrelevant to one’s ability to be a fair and hard working representative.

[–] lmaydev@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago (13 children)

Let's not pretend that people would refuse to vote for a gay candidate.

Whether we personally consider it an issue it has likely massively hurt their prospects as a politician.

Also representation is really important. Especially for younger people.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

...that's kinda what he's saying. He's saying there's enough people who agree with this now that the political backlash to it will be a drop of hate in a huge bucket of sensible sentiments.

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Is america ready for a competent president? Will voters accept an adequate candidate? Its hard to say, without knowing first which divisive and inflammatory categories they can be sorted into.

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 56 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

I love Buttigieg, would definitely vote for him, but this would make me anxious. We already have black woman running and there are a lot of people in swing states that have a problem with just that.

I just want to be sure that the fascist criminal will lose.

[–] massive_bereavement@fedia.io 18 points 1 month ago (7 children)

But he's a veteran. Would they vote for the cop + veteran ticket or the felon + coach fucker one?

Time to show their true colors.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It didn't work for John Kerry when he ran against a draft dodger. I guess being a combat vet wasn't enough? Having been a cop would tip the balance?

[–] massive_bereavement@fedia.io 8 points 1 month ago

Well, we all know that the salute-the-troops, thank-you-for-your-service crowd are just playing pretend.

We all saw what happened when their nominee insulted a purple heart recipient and past POW, and everyone just cheered.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 47 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They really are not. A gay candidate will guarantee a loss through the midwest and south. Generally all the religious votes.

You think PizzaGate was bad? Wait until you have a gay candidate.

[–] bibliotectress@lemmy.world 30 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

Honestly, I thought the same thing about Obama. I didn't think there was any way a black guy who'd been living in Chicago would win. But he did! You never know!

Though I agree that the risk would be crazy high to run a black/Indian female president with a gay vice president. Maybe not this psycho election.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Obama is literally the most professional and well spoken president since Clinton or JFK, possibly FDR. Like people he knew when he was younger were impressed with his ability.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago

As a Massachusan I applaud your description of JFK as being well spoken. Too often does our nonrhotic profanity laiden dialect end up being maligned. It's a wicked fucking tragedy.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 42 points 1 month ago (9 children)

I'm a member of the queer community and absolutely do not think this is a wise idea for this cycle. Maybe next time around Pete.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] pastabatman@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I've read this article twice and nowhere does he say the words "America is ready for a gay vice president." He says being gay has not been the detriment to his political career people assumed it would be. He's not going around telling reporters he thinks he should be VP. In the one quote that he is asked directly whether he would do it, he dodged the question.

[–] pastabatman@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I vote for policies not people. I don’t care if the candidate is a green-skinned genetically-enhanced three-year-old clone of a dead woman from Ohio, with a biotech computer in her brain. As long as she supports equal rights for all humans, I’m on board.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 28 points 1 month ago (5 children)

As someone who was unfortunate enough to have grown up in Indiana, I'd rather Buttigeg stay there and keep trying to drag that state into the 20th* century.

*Not a typo, that state is just that far behind.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 month ago

Yeah, we are... but it ain't you.

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I'd caution against Pete specifically. Given the meme-state of modern politics and sheer stupidity of the average voter, it'd be a terrible idea to run a gay man whose name looks like 'buttplug'.

...and I'm not making a joke right now - collectively we're 100% dumb enough to throw an election over that.

[–] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Lest we forget this exists

I know posting ben garrison is cheating, but this was years ago. They'd definitely latch on to the name as a tool to degrade him.

Hell, they've been trying to make the word "kamala" derogatory. Sorry Pete, even though you'd be as good a candidate as any, you've got butt in your name

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Pixlbabble@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Redfugee@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Such a disingenuous title. He never said voters were ready for a gay VP, his quotes were in response to a question if he thought voters were ready for a black woman. But I guess nobody reads the article and just throws in their 2 cents on what they think of Pete as a VP.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (2 children)

But, are they ready for a VP that has only been mayor of a small town and a cabinet member four years?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Pete doesn't actually get things done, and he's a PMC McKinsey dud... Nothing wrong with who he loves, he's just a real bummer as a politician.

Also there's a reason the VP shortlist are milquetoast white males... Grandma in Ohio might be able to vote for a woman of color, but these frightened bigots need a "safe" feeling backup plan in VP. Win the battle, take the win if Kamala can break that barrier. She wouldn't be my first choice generally, but she has the momentum and now seems like the time. I'm supporting her full speed

[–] lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee 10 points 1 month ago

What I love about him though is how he talks to Republicans. He just has a way of making their hypocrisy obvious to them and you can literally see their brain short circuit and do a hard reboot before they respond. He's given some great interviews on fox news. But besides that I could take him or leave him.

[–] Tom_Hanx_Hail_Satan@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

1000% agree. I'm not stoked about, most likely, not voting in a dem primary for 8 years. Harris wouldn't be my first choice but I don't wanna deflate the hype train at all. Hoping for a super majority in congress, that would be the big win. Really hope true progressives can accomplish as much as possible with that. Last time it happened for dems we got the ACA, that should be the minimum benchmark.

HARRIS/ANONYMOUS GENERIC WHITE GUY 2024!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Until ~##,### voters don't decide an entire presidential election, no. No, they aren't...

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 1 month ago

The question is how many of those voters would vote on a Democratic ticket led by a black woman in the first place. One of the most common errors in politics is trying to go after the core voters of the other side - usually framed as going after the moderates - instead of mobilising their own base. One of things that makes Trump dangerous is that he makes no such mistake.

[–] nokturne213@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

As long as he does not fuck couches.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Pete is way too easy to hate. I don't personally hate him, but he's just not very likable.

Mark Kelly is still my top pick. He's a great fucking dude, he's a fucking astronaut, and I just can't see anything Republicans throw at him actually sticking.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›