this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
165 points (97.1% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2605 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
 

It is important that Kamala Harris continues to define and expose Trump. But it may not be enough to secure a victory

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 43 points 2 months ago (2 children)

These are valuable policies. I believe, however, that her chances of winning improve if she expands that agenda to include popular solutions to the most important economic and political realities facing this country.

The American people want change, and that’s what she must deliver.

Here are just a few ideas that are not only excellent policy, but are extremely popular among voters across the political spectrum:

Not gonna copy all his suggestions but click the link and find out.

I've been saying the same thing for a while now though.

Everyone knows what trump would mean. It doesn't need to be the only thing Kamala talks about

We all know she's not trump, she needs to start giving voters substantial policy that voters want and the country desperately needs.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

But her corporate donors might get upset!!! /s

Better to let the media have the horse race it wants and cater to the non-existent "center." /s

The Democrats have learned fuck-all in 30 fucking years except who butters their bread.

Newt Gingrich was cheating on his wife with cancer while pushing investigations into Clinton for a blowjob (because all their other investigations turned up fuck-all so they had to try to catch him in a lie so they could say "see, he'll lie on the stand, you can't trust his word."). The fact that they've spent 30 years "reaching across the aisle" and learning nothing says everything.

[–] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think America has been in a deep moral crisis since it's inception; should we be evil, or just a little evil. It's easy to get people to agree to just a wee bit of more evil and here we are 200 years later with the magic of compound interest.

[–] usrtrv@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Considering the entire 200+ years, the US is considerably less evil. Is there room for improvement? Yes.

[–] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 months ago

Definitely less evil, towards Americans. But they've made vast strides in outsourcing evil through globalization and the military industrial complex.

I suppose the tricky part is to craft policy positions in such a way that you don't alienate former GOP who were okay with Biden. I recall that when Biden won, a lot of folks voted an otherwise straight GOP ticket but Biden-Harris for president.

I suspect that's what it takes to ahead again.

Meanwhile, it's easier to risk alienating the base for Harris, since those folks def won't go to the other guy.

I like Sanders and I like the ideas in his post, but I'm hopeful that if Harris wins this year, the other guy won't be able to get nominated in 2028 (too old, twice failed, etc) and that will lead to a more normal election cycle. At which point, some of these ideas start looking better.

Of course, if Harris wins, Dems keep the Senate, and take the House, then there's the other option - (temporarily) drop the filibuster (setting the threshold to a bare majority) and then enacting the 127 DC states plan: https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21063591/modest-proposal-to-save-american-democracy-pack-the-union-harvard-law-review

[–] Spitzspot@lemmings.world 31 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Many people are saying Trump should drop out.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] skvlp@lemm.ee 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

In numbers no one has ever seen before!

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

Even the pets and dolphins and sofas are saying it as they storm the southern border to escape!

[–] XTL@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 months ago

Probably literally billions are saying he should be in prison.

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

Bernie Sanders again dropping Truth bombs.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No it won't, we need every democrat to vote.

[–] OopsAllTwix@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 months ago

Even if the loss is because of the electoral college the popular vote for Kamala should be overwhelming. All of the online hate is for nothing if people don't vote.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You totally read that in his voice, didn't you?

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 months ago

I read it in Larry David's voice.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago

No. Debates don't win elections. People voting wins elections. VOTE!!

[–] fubarx@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago

Everybody should listen to Uncle Bernie. Really listen. He knows what he's talking about.

[–] SolarMonkey 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The focus on seniors (from pick your poison politician) is fine and all.. I realize a lot of people are seniors, and they are reliable voters and stuff.

Seriously though, I’m so fucking tired of hearing about what seniors will/could get from the next term, and this isn’t a lot better. There’s some good stuff, but cmon, you aren’t actually going to sway entrenched old people no matter what you give them.

I love sanders, I went to see him speak a few months back when he was at a union hall locally. But this country is mostly -not- old people. We really need to stop catering to them, at our own expense.

I’m almost 40. I don’t give a flying fuck into a rolling donut about seniors compared to the entirety of the working class. You know, the people making all their entitlements solvent? They fucked it up already, and they had their chance to fix it many many times since. As a generation, they fucking failed to do anything meaningful for us, their progeny, why should we prostrate ourselves to them? They are going to fucking die soon, and while we should absolutely take proper care of them…. (So please don’t misunderstand this rage)

WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF US???????

(Full disclosure, I’m presently a canvasser for the Harris/Walz ticket, and I’ve talked to a lot of old people who only give a fuck about what it means for them. They have kids, they have grandkids, but their only concern is why they get out of it, and that’s fucking disgusting. I hate talking to those selfish assholes. I do it because it’s my job, but holy shit do I just want to say “cool story, bro” and walk away. Also those fuckers don’t shut up about what they want. Don’t care grandpa, you aren’t even part of the economy anymore except what they can extract from your estate to keep you alive, so your kids get nothing..)

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

A list of four things that voters on both sides view favorably but will never happen because corporations.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago

The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Guardian:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/12/kamala-harris-debate-bernie-sanders
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support