this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
176 points (96.8% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4578 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 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Spitzspot@lemmings.world 65 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The next presidential debate is going to be wild. Harris is going to grab MAGA by their dick.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 66 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I truly believe Trump won't debate her

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 35 points 1 month ago (1 children)

He has nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing a debate with her so I’d say the chances are fifty/fifty.

[–] Cosmos7349@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago (1 children)

depends on how badly she can bruise his ego via "he's scared" comments

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

Trump’s got thick skin.

It’ll just be water off a duck’s pussy.

[–] seathru@lemmy.sdf.org 26 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Cosmos7349@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

why do u know so much about ducks

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

I mean, it's all birds and reptiles. Why do u know so little?

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 3 points 1 month ago

Because someone told him ducks are similar to chickens

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago

He could always drop out, so he can avoid it.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

She’s a former attorney, prosecutor, DA, and AG. I’d be shocked if he debated her. She would eat him alive.

[–] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

He's already saying he won't debate Harris unless they switch the previously agreed upon moderators from ABC to Fox News.

[–] classic@fedia.io 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You'd hope. But everyone always seems to pull their verbal punches when it comes to Trump

[–] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 28 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Harris has already called him a sexual predator, among other things. Hopefully she's still willing to do so.

https://x.com/KamalaHarris/status/1197243216132804608

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

As I understand it, he can be called a rapist without risking slander. Let's go all fucking in. But run that past a lawyer first.

[–] ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I'm sure as a lawyer, she'll know exactly how to toe that line.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 4 points 1 month ago

Smart lawyers, like doctors, know to consult other lawyers.

[–] Hazzia@infosec.pub 4 points 1 month ago

I really hope the new presidential candidate runs her talking points past checks notes herself

[–] sxan@midwest.social 19 points 1 month ago (2 children)

A very optimistic article; despite the assertive title, it consists mainly of "shoulds" - enthusiasm among Democrats should rise; Democratic candidate poll numbers should rise; those withheld donations should start pouring in. There's very little in this article aside from wishful (or, hopeful, if you will) thinking.

Being hopeful is fine. Predicting positive outcomes can be reasonable. The title is a complete misnomer, though; none of this has yet come to pass.

[–] qprimed@lemmy.ml 27 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

If Vice President Kamala Harris gets what is rightfully hers and ascends to the top of the ticket, we should see dynamic change ahead.

gonna pick a bone on the "ascends" and "rightful" bits. sorry. no kings, queens or ascentions. fair delegate vote.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Best option for unity is no one runs against her. I know Whitmer and Newsom both said they wouldn't run against Harris. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

[–] qprimed@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 7 points 1 month ago

Well that was good for a laugh. What a self-important douche. Okay, let's see if there is anyone who will mount a serious challenge.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Riding on, or responding to, my comment?

I find Lemmy sometimes seems to attach my replies to arbitrary comments. I mostly assume it's my mistake, but I'm increasingly thinking it's a rare bug in replying.

[–] qprimed@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

so, my reply to you re: misthreadiing was... misthreaded. am gonna go home now.

[–] qprimed@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

ackkk. should have been attached to the OP. very rarely I get a comment mis-threaded, but like you, think/thought it was a mistouch. interesting

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It hasn't even been 12 hours. It's way too early to be expecting results.

But, we have some anyway. Currently up to $55m

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/07/21/joe-biden-drops-out-election/actblue-biden-harris-donations-00170174

[–] sxan@midwest.social 2 points 1 month ago

Don't get me wrong. I'm on Team Harris, assuming she's the nominee. If she's not, I'm on team whomever is.

But to be clear: my complaint was that the title was counting eggs before they hatch, while the article title was a litany of things we progressives hope happen.