politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
You're right. He's not young. But he's still a better President than I expected and he's far, far better than any alternative that Republicans will nominate. So can we let go of the age thing for now until we have an opportunity to pick better candidates? I sincerely doubt this election cycle will be it.
Oh I totally agree. I guess the rest of my comment was about how they're trying to make it an age thing and it's the worst marketing for him.
Exactly. When the other side is literal fascists I will, begrudgingly, vote for whoever the non-fascist is.
"shut up or my guy might lose"
No. It's a valid criticism. I don't think I should have to set my concerns aside so the chosen moderate can stall progress for the next 4 years.
So you'd rather watch the world burn than accept progress that's slower than you demand. How noble.
No, it's not slower, it's actively progressing the wrong direction. And having a president that's happy to stall progress is tantamount to giving the GOP what they want next cycle.
I'm tired of 'Democrats' pussyfutting around for 4-8 years only to watch what little they accomplished undone immediately, and the GOP making massive gains towards a fascist agenda no one wants.
Give me a candidate with teeth or yes, watch it all burn down. Get the horror show over with. Anything less than relentless progress is a win for the party that's willing to fight dirty for their bullshit agenda.
Really. This is the wrong direction?
What color is the sky on your world? It's usually blue on mine.
How much of that is executive order that can be undone day one for the next president?
How much of that is wrapped up in a single spending bill?
How much of that is limited in scope when we need large scale change? Protecting a forest with an EO is peanuts on the scale of action we actually need
Fine. You show us how it's done. Tell us how we pass good legislation in light of a hostile House of Representatives.
Go on. We'll wait.
How did Johnson do it?
If they wanted things to change, things would change. Nothing is moving because frankly they don't want it to. They're comfortable with the status quo and won't finance candidates with actual liberal agendas. And they actively finance fucking psychopaths to make their own candidates look better
The house is one of their own making.
Bullshit. This House is the one Republicans built, when they threw aside all norms and decided to be open about their power grabs. They telegraphed it in the late 2000s, and now it's become their new normal. Johnson was able to compromise with Republicans because back then Republicans were largely irrelevant and still followed the rules instead of making up bullshit precedents. They were still interested in governing.
So go on, tell me how you deal with modern politics when the other side isn't willing to negotiate in good faith. Be honest about the world we live in.
I'm pretty sure he selected Kamala specifically for the "well what if he dies" crowd.