this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
519 points (97.1% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2318 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
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure I understand what is happening to the united states right now.

the british broadcasting company does though

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I remember the butthurt about portraying Nazis as the bad guys in video games. I think that's the moment when I realized just how fucked up certain people are in this country. Because, yes, the Nazis are the bad guys.

[–] nforminvasion@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

In 2019 I came across someone online who was mad about Wolfenstein because it was anti trump. I had to tell them that the series had been running since the 90s and that the new ones are just fun action games.

There may be some good messaging in there for sure but they're not profoundly deep antifascist critiques of Trump's USA. They're just fun shooter games where the Nazi's are the bad guys

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] foggianism@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago (13 children)

Why didn't he go with DeSantis?

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

He wants loyalty, and one that will do what Pence didn't do.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] nailingjello@lemmy.zip 13 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Since Vance is officially the VP running mate and ballots are probably going to be printed soon, could he actually get swapped this late?

[–] Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz 11 points 2 months ago

I can see draft dodger Don just saying “I have two VP picks now. How it is!” The RNC would roll with it because they are cowards, and somehow SCOTUS would also be cool with it.

“Doesn’t say he can’t pick two people.” - Uncle Thomas, if he actually knew how to talk.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pyre@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

Epstein buddies teaming up?

[–] Binzy_Boi@piefed.social 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

In a really weird way this might actually be helpful to the campaign. When RFK dropped out of the race, both Kamala and Trump saw a boost in the polls, meaning there are people that supported RFK that were more Democratic leaning than Republican leaning, though it should be noted Trump went up only a few points more than Kamala did.

JD Vance has been the most unpopular VP pick in modern American history. While RFK is of course weird, I personally wouldn't be surprised if he's seen in a more favourable light than Vance is. The swap could potentially win some of RFK's supporters who moved their support to Kamala over to Trump and the Republicans, and could give the opportunity for "unity" messaging considering Trump would be bringing in a former opponent as well as the Democratic association with the Kennedy name.

Will say though, not sure how effective this would be compared to the Trump campaign simply swapping Vance with someone else that was on the original running for VP pick. Still shocked knowing that Burgum was going to be picked before Trump was swayed to choose Vance, and that Tim Scott wasn't his go-to considering Scott's potential for Republicans playing identity politics and his talent in campaign fundraising.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Game changing this late in the game, no matter what.

I haven't watched either one speak out loud, and do not wish to (30-seconds of audio crushed my smoky fantasies regarding Lauren Boebert), but RFK seems more sane to me.

Bring on the bear and whale jokes, c'mon. But remember when Bush seemed like a guy you could enjoy a beer with? Yeah, that kinda vibe. In any case, nothing will get me to vote R again in this lifetime.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Can't you NOT swap out VPs?

Vance is a couch fucker btw

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MaxPow3r11@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

That would be fucking hilarious.

He should do it.

[–] yarr@feddit.nl 9 points 2 months ago

Think of all the extra money they will make selling the new merch.

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

Do it, give us mr brain worms to mock!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] deconstruct@lemm.ee 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This would be chaos, but there's no way it happens. Trump is too beholden to dark money to try it.

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

Money will be spent by the time he probably tries to do it. There's a bunch of legal hurdles that should stop it from happening, but look at the shit this idiot does.

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago
[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

Go from half a brain to brainless. Oughta make a world of difference

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›