this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
268 points (96.5% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2331 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
all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 39 points 3 months ago (4 children)

I hope she keeps Buttigieg.

[–] rigatti@lemmy.world 27 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Secretary of Owning Fox News

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

That's basically the Press Secretary, but I think that would be a downgrade in job title from DOT Secretary for him. He would kick ass at that job though.

[–] SuperCub@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What would he do exactly? He's had a hell of a lot of problems as DOT lead.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The same thing he's currently doing: fail at his actual job but still be celebrated for being good at pointing out the obvious about fascists 😮‍💨

[–] Hazzia@infosec.pub 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Create a new "Department of Calling Out Bullshit", problem solved

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

On the one hand, hell yeah!

On the other hand, John Oliver or Jon Stewart would probably be better at that..

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

I thought his job was being a non-threatening gay man.

You know, he has to be gay, but not in any way that a straight person might be too uncomfortable with. It’s not easy.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

She'll probably promote him to another position he's even more unqualified for. The do-nothing secretary of sound bytes can't stop failing upwards.

[–] HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

If he’s good at verbal exchange but not so good at governing, maybe Harris could try making him a diplomat.

Maybe he could be US Ambassador to the United Nations, like Nikki Haley was. He wouldn’t even have to leave the United States that way.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Would probably be much better at something in the WH press room since that requires ONLY what he's actually good at, unlike a diplomatic position.

Too bad that going from a cabinet secretary to a WH staffer would be so insulting as to be unthinkable lol.

On second thought though, as long as there's a competent secretary of state to guide him, he might not fuck up TOO much at the UN..

[–] HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

he might not fuck up TOO much at the UN

See, the convenient thing about the UN post is that, even though it’s prestigious, it’s also not of much consequence because America doesn’t care about the UN.

[–] USSMojave@startrek.website -4 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (3 children)

No faster way to ensure he’ll never be President than running the State Department. There were six people who went from Secretary of State to President. The last one was Buchanan in 1857, before the invention of radio, television, and internet computing.

The world is much smaller now, and it’s near impossible to consistently make decisions that align with the majority of Americans while protecting America’s international alliances and interests.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 4 points 3 months ago

Honestly, appointing him to another position at all might doom his presidential aspirations. He kind of needs to be elected to something beyond mayor to show he's got the ability to win a campaign.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

No faster way to ensure he’ll never be President than running the State Department

Might be worth it then, as long as he's replaced by someone actually qualified quickly enough.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

I think I've heard this suggestion before. If we had a leaderly and charismatic secretary of state, with the global influences on American politics, and the world being as small as you've described, it might just as easily be the perfect route to office. What a better office to showcase how you'd run the country than sec state? I just think your sample size is too small for the conclusion. It's more about the candidate then that particular office, imo.

It's a sharp observation that democracy imposes a time penalty on foreign affairs; like, at that stage--diplomacy, war--it's very serious business, and the public isn't always going to have the a full appreciation of the sums, especially when it concerns long-term geopolitics. Despite that, there's a public referendum every four years. So initiatives as to affairs of state have a correlation between how fast they must work and how popular they have to be. Or, third option, they must be secret.

[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I hope that means she isn't listening to the billionaires who want Lina Kahn gone.

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

Me too that be huge mistake. But so far she been doing the right thing lets hope she continues to do so.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

I am ready for a new Attorney General.

[–] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Can we impeach the justices that will hinder progress with this administration?

Plus you know, people in charge of the FUCKING judicial system shouldn’t have ties to war criminals where possible (considering we most definitely are war criminals, I’m not ignorant to that)

[–] worldwidewave@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

younger, more diverse than Biden

Not a high bar to clear

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Given shapiros’s comments supporting Harris and walz at the Philly rally….

I would be surprised if he didn’t get a seat.

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

I doubt it. He legit told the campaign he was getting cold feet about leaving his role as PA Gov when they were in the final stages of screening him (who says that in a job interview tho?). I think he’s shooting for the top. He doesn’t want to be a vice anything

[–] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 15 points 3 months ago

Vice President is the surest path to President in US politics.

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

It’s a good thing to be honest about that, tbh

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Given his cv and everything I know about Democrats, it'll be Secretary of State.

[–] raynethackery@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm available. On second thought, I want to be a Supreme Court justice.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

no one wants to be an embarrassment. why not get a real job like mime artist or lute player?

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -4 points 3 months ago

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

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

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/kamala-harris-cabinet-pick-predictions-b2593594.html
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support