this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
199 points (90.6% liked)

politics

19148 readers
1981 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rdyoung@lemmy.world 41 points 9 months ago (4 children)

I hope that Biden gets reelected and then a few months in steps down and gives us the first female and black president. The maggats will lose their fucking minds and I'm going to have a trailer of popcorn ready for the show.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 42 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I don't really like Kamala Harris much, but I really doubt she'd be substantially worse than Biden. And probably miles better than virtually any Republican.

[–] rdyoung@lemmy.world 26 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Right now I don't care about us moving forward policy wise. At the moment what we need is more stability and let the states work on progressive policy like protecting trans, queer, etc, access to birth control, abortions, etc.

Biden has been way better than people give him credit for (including the left). He has not only been able to (with help obviously) undo most of the damage trump caused but has also brought us back to a fairly roaring economy despite the insane inflation thanks to capitalism being capitalism.

[–] DoctorWhookah@sh.itjust.works 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Too many states are doing the opposite.

[–] rdyoung@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Not that many compared to the ones passing laws to reinforce it or even codifying it in their states constitution. 1 of 2 things will happen with the reddest of states.

  1. They lose enough people moving to blue states that they keep taking more from the feds than they pay in and the status quo stays the same.

  2. Enough progressives move to cities like Austin that they turn the state purple if not bright blue.

What we need is some kind of federal rule on how to draw districts and magically the maggats lose most of their power.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

They lose enough people moving to blue states that they keep taking more from the feds than they pay in and the status quo stays the same.

Except they further cement their states as red states. Each of which has 2 senators who are less likely to flip. The status quo gets worse.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

let the states work on progressive policy like protecting trans, queer, etc, access to birth control, abortions, etc.

That's a great way to make those into Red State Problems that will never be fixed for the whole country, because legislators from blue states represent people for whom the problems are solved and experience no pressure to address the problems beyond that.

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I didn't expect lollypops and ice cream when Biden was elected but if you really look at his accomplishments, he is doing a really good job. Certainly the MSM isn't reporting it so you have to dig to find it, and it's there.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I disagree that Biden is doing a really good job. I think he is not doing enough to combat climate change, labor rights, income inequality, or human rights abuses at every level of government. His foreign policy is status quo, which isn't good.

He's a functioning adult with a modicum of shame, which is to say he's worlds better than any Republican, especially Trump. He's doing his job and making thoughtful, considered decisions. In comparison to the previous administration, that's a grand slam, but compared to the leadership we need right now, it's not good enough.

[–] Hazzia@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately with the way congress (and SCOTUS) is, even if Biden wanted to go for-real progressive, I doubt he'd be able to do much. What we really need is a full paradigm shift that gets and keeps dems in office for a number of election cycles.

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

Leadership means setting the goal and making the persuasive argument. It means speaking out on issues when Congress and activist judges are pushing in the wrong direction. Governing is the slow boring of hard boards, and if you give up without trying because some people will try to stop you, then you have no business running for office.

[–] groupofcrows@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

So Biden compromises to make a deal with Republicans, they backtrack so it's Biden's fault nothing gets done?

[–] GustavoFring@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

In each of his speeches announcing his comprehensive plans for combatting climate change, income inequality, the housing crisis, and the Palestinian genoncide.

[–] GustavoFring@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That's where he said he gives up?

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Yes indeed, verbatim. Read the transcript on any of them.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 11 points 9 months ago (2 children)

If Harris becomes president and chooses to run for a second term, there's a good chance we're losing 2028. She lacks charisma and often comes off as unprepared even for softball questions, and her history does... not endear her to large parts of the Dem electorate.

Best hope for a non-dictator running on the GOP ticket.

Hell, maybe I'll be proven wrong, and she'll turn out great in the position. But I'm not exactly thrilled by her performance so far.

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Wouldn't it be funny if it were Harris v. Trump in 2028? I mean Donald to be clear:-P.

[–] Patches@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Then rounded over to Donald v Kamala in 2032. then AITrump v Kamala in 2036. Just keep holding your nose and vote the way you're told to or the whole system collapses.

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 2 points 9 months ago

Tbf, we probably had AI Trump already for parts of the last presidency. We do as we're told, the same as the President of the United States!

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

She lacks charisma and often comes off as unprepared even for softball questions, and her history does… not endear her to large parts of the Dem electorate.

And that's before we even get to the problems associated with being the preordained candidate on the 20th anniversary of the last time the results of the Democratic Party primaries weren't decided ahead of time.

[–] ech@lemm.ee 22 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm not gonna say it would be wrong to happen that way, but I do feel like it would be a disservice to civil rights for the first woman president to be a matter of technicality, deigned to be given by an old white man. It would always be a bit marred by that.

[–] rdyoung@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

While I don't disagree. I wouldn't be surprised if they had already discussed this possibility. And seriously, what is the difference between him stepping down after the next election or 3 months ago? It's more likely than not to happen legitimately versus "health issues".

[–] ech@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

To clarify, I mean becoming president through the vice presidency, vs being elected as president outright.

[–] rdyoung@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Right and that was my point. She agreed to be his vp and had to be aware that he is more likely to have health issues that have him step down even if only temporarily. For her legacy and the "look" or whatever, there is no difference between him having to step-down today or after the election it's also how she could (in theory) get 3 terms in office.

[–] jaschen@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The thing is if Biden really did that, she would be able to run 2 more terms as president. I think Lyndon had that chance but didn't get reelected for a 2nd term. Outside of Roosevelt, she would have the chance to serve longer than 2 years as president.

[–] rdyoung@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I know. She would have a chance at 3 terms and if she didn't win reelection next election she could still run again 4 years later.