this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2024
427 points (94.8% liked)

politics

19097 readers
2984 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
[–] knightly@pawb.social -2 points 4 months ago (2 children)
[–] Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] knightly@pawb.social -3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I'm entirely serious. The Republicans can rally around a criminal billionaire and still expect to take the white house, so why can't the Democrats run an intellectual Canadian? I trust the guy that coined the term "enshittification" a whole lot more than the politicians who have been enabling it, anyhow.

[–] bobthecowboy@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If you're "entirely serious" in the literal sense, just to be super clear the answer to "why can’t the Democrats run an intellectual Canadian?" is that a Canadian is disqualified from the office of the President in the Constitution. Unfortunately, they didn't think to prohibit megalomaniac felons. That's apparently on us. :(

[–] IzzyJ@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

The writers of the 14th Amendment did, but for some reason they figured the president didnt need to be called out specifically in the final draft; probably figured it was obvious the president is an officer of the state. But well, we know how scotus took that

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The sad thing is, I do think you're serious, and it speaks to the overarching theme of REALLY REALLY STUPID voters this election, on both sides.

[–] knightly@pawb.social -4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Then maybe it's time for you to admit that there's nothing Democratic about elections in this country and to start treating them with the contempt that they deserve.

Elections don't exist to pick leaders, that's a mere side effect of their real purpose: the reification of the implied consent of the governed.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago
[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I trust the guy that coined the term "enshittification" a whole lot more than the politicians who have been enabling it, anyhow.

Cool so he has your vote. Who else? As expected the people who want Biden to bail at the 11th hour have no actionable plan.

[–] knightly@pawb.social -1 points 4 months ago

The problem with demanding "actionable plans" is that the only person who could enact them is the DNC chairperson, who currently reports to the incumbent.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] knightly@pawb.social 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I like Doctorow too. I subscribe to his podcast. But he's ineligible.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 2 points 4 months ago

So?

This is America we're talking about. The rule of law is more of a guideline, really.