this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
165 points (97.7% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4624 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Xyre@lemmus.org 40 points 1 month ago (5 children)

After seeing him on The Daily Show last night, Pete Buttigieg seems like a good pick. He has the added bonus of not requiring a special election or interim replacement.

[–] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 40 points 1 month ago (1 children)

He’s also only 42, will be a great experienced young pick to rub in what an inexperienced idiot Vance is.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 53 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I disagree. I think Vance has lots of experience with being an idiot.

[–] Lurkinney@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Sculptor9157@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

Thanks, Kevin!

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

Don't forget the double male SOs: First Gentleman and Second Gentleman.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 month ago

Compared to the Biden v Trump choices and even the Trump-Pence v Clinton-Kaine election …

Harris-Buttigieg feels like the Star Trek ticket.

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

It really felt like he was there because he will be the pick, didn’t it?

[–] nandeEbisu@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

He reeks of corporate shill with his management consultant background. Some people change when they get into the oval office, hope he does but I would rather Kamala picks someone else.