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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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
I'd be happy to see an AOC/Buttigieg ticket in 2028.
Warren for sec of treasury. Walz for HUD or even better, cabinet level position in charge of figuring out the young man problem. He's representative of the role model a lot of young men are missing imho.
I don't wanna see another dem pres candidate that's older than me (mid 50s) EVER AGAIN. The problems my kids are facing aren't going to be fixed by old people, and while I'm not quite there yet, I'm fucking close enough.
There is zero reason to throw a moderate on there.
Run a fair primary and number 2 gets first right if refusal for vice.
If they don't want it, let the candidate pick their running mate.
You throw a "white moderate" in there to appease their voters and then ignore everything they say while sabotaging their elections.
I mean VP in recent history is there to balance the ticket. If the presidential candidate is weak in one area, they pick a VP strong in that area. Sometimes the VP is just to lock in a competitive state.
The winner picks the VP. If number 2 works well, great, but the winner picks.
They just need a candidate that can get 100m votes. Like it should not be hard in the age of stolen data to pick a person who can get 100m people off the couch. I don’t care what the Democrats like at this point. If we can’t figure out a candidate and policy that will invigorate 100,000,000 people we don’t even deserve to be running.
can you get 1/3 of the country to vote against fascism? challenge: impossible
We know the DNC leadership is interested more in keeping control of their half of the duopoly than winning elections.
They will never allow a leftist to run.
AOC isn't that leftist anymore. Years of washington have certainly made her more bearable to moderates. I came around to her a long time ago, she's an excellent speaker and very intune with the issues.
I'd vote for her
Ya my mom can barely grasp what’s going on right now. No concept of the future beyond her life. I’m pushing 40 and got no idea what the kids want or need or how our education system got so fucked. we really can’t be having geriatrics making policy that will affect the future beyond their immediate life
I would support a cutoff for president at say 60 when starting office, that would keep us below 70 for a two-termer. That's plenty old enough.
Also the 18 year rolling term limit idea for SCOTUS.
Yea i don't really mind the SCOTUS issue. That goes away with the two party issue, politicized judges with zero integrity is a failure of congress. I like that judges hold benches and get lifetimes of experience and wisdom. I like the old age and prudence rule in courts. Congress ya, 70 is probably getting to old. There's no reason to throw them out of the party, but they do not need to be holding seats when we need to be constantly generating new politicians. They all became so obsessed with their own power they forget they will eventually die with no one to carry their torch. There needs to be a better transition of leadership, as well as coherent leadership. People of all ages should be represented in congress similar to how we are in public. If the boomers are 30% of the population they shouldn't be holding more than 30% of the seats. Fair equitable representation.
I understand wishes, but let's be realistic.
Nearly half the voters went for Trump, even after everything from pussy grabbing to January 6.
If AOC god the nod, she'd have to have someone like Manchin as Veep.
I know the argument constantly rages - too left! Too centrist! and I don't know which one would be more effective.
On the other hand, the closest we've come to a real left candidate at least in my lifetime was Sanders and the thumb on the scale against him was pretty corporate blue - and the mainstream lost, so maybe we should try it the other way?
Both a great idea and one that will absolutely piss of the conservatives that are happy to see their young men embrace far right ideologies even if it comes with violent hatred in the process.
This was a great podcast episode that addresses the young men issue directly. Scott Galloway has been talking about it for a while.
https://overcast.fm/+ABEb8GDsq4Q
At about 70 minutes, he states that the greatest innovation from the United States is the middle class, and he makes a good argument IMHO. He talks about how there were about seven million men that came back from World War II having proven themselves, with some confidence, and of course being in uniform doesn't hurt. They had opportunity for education, help with starting a career and affording a home, and all that made them attractive mates and led to the baby boom and the rise of the middle class. (I know it's an oversimplification, of course.)
Here's a fun conspiracy theory for you – what if somebody recognizes that sequence of events and thinks the best thing we could do would be to replicate it? If that was your goal, what would you do to make it happen, but with a twist to the far right?
You think that's the problem. Old people running? No, it's this lopsided old people majority that the baby boom brought. They could run, but no one would vote for them.
Until we die off and get out of the way, this isn't going to change.
I would fear for AOC's safety with Buttigieg as her VP. And not just because he's McKinsey. Because there are a lot of democrats that hate her and would consider Buttigieg an acceptable replacement.