this post was submitted on 06 May 2024
109 points (91.0% liked)

politics

19144 readers
3196 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
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 77 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Please let him fucking pick Noem - I'd love to see the entire GOP voting base placed on animal abuse watchlists.

[–] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 45 points 6 months ago

IT'S A COMMON WAY TO TREAT PETS WHEN YOUR FAMILY TREE IS A WREATH YOU IGNORANT LIBTARD

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 44 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Many of them are open white supremacists and a number of them are convicted insurrectionists. I like animals too, but animal abuser seems to be lower on the "horrible" list than those two other categories which are not only well represented, but celebrated among the GOP ranks.

[–] ApostleO@startrek.website 18 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Honestly, I put animal abusers in a lower circle of hell, along side child abusers.

It's about the power differential. The difference between a white adult male and a black adult female (for example) might be considerable, but its not going to be even close to the power differential between either of those adults and a child or a pet.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The difference between a white adult male and a black adult female (for example) might be considerable, but its not going to be even close to the power differential between either of those adults and a child or a pet.

I fear more for minority children at the hands of white supremacists than an animal in the hands of a an animal abuser, and I like animals. To me there's a deeper depravity when a human looks at another human, seeing just the color of their skin, and decides that they are lessor or worse.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago

I would bet the overlap between animal abusers and bigots is significant, because there's a consistent lack of empathy and sadism required for both.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 6 months ago

Yep. The dog probably thought it was about to get pets when she called it over to its execution.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Many, but not all.

It only takes a few percent of a political party to reject a candidate to tip the election one way or another.

[–] dugmeup@lemmy.world 33 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I am so conflicted... On one side a serial tax dodger, rapist and traitor running with a literal puppy killer (and proud of it) and on the other side and older president who follows the law...

What is more American? Who should I vote for?

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 15 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Ok, but what about this one issue that would get horribly worse if I pick the serial tax dodger, rapist and traitor? What then labdog!

Got'em!

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Wait… people actually care about Biden’s toe nails?

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago

Oh my corns!

[–] cmbabul@lemmy.world 32 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I figured it would be a woman so the GOP can do their “we aren’t sexist” shit, but I’ll admit my money was on Marjorie she seemed like the perfect type of unhinged

[–] ZagamTheVile@lemmy.world 40 points 6 months ago (1 children)

She's too loud. She'd try to get the spotlight and we can't have that. We don't share the spotlight.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

Especially not with a woman, who should be seen and not heard (unless she's a vapid blond bimbo talking head on Fox News).

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

She's Trump's brand of crazy, and Trump has a trademark on it.
I feel like he wouldn't pick her simply because she might be able to out-crazy him.

[–] 31337@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago

Trump only surrounds himself with conventionally attractive women.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 5 points 6 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


New audio recorded at a private lunch reveals Donald Trump’s thoughts about his potential picks for a running mate in the 2024 election.

The audio, obtained by Axios, was recorded during Mr Trump’s high-profile GOP event at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida on Saturday.

Mr Trump’s top picks for a running mate include several senators, representatives, governors and former presidential candidates.

In 2021, several weeks after the January 6 Capitol riots, Ms Noem also refused to say whether President Joe Biden won the 2020 election freely and fairly.

Ms Noem also made recent headlines after revealing in her book No Going Back that she shot her 14-month-old “working dog” Cricket because of his behaviour.

Mr Trump also commented on several representatives, including House Republican conference chair Elise Stefanik –a long-rumoured top pick for his vice-president.


The original article contains 626 words, the summary contains 135 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

He's probably hanging around.