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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
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
Let me guess... Only dean Phillips can save us?
no. Phillips has no chance.
He's just saying the quiet part out loud. Biden is the compromise canidate nobody likes but everybody voted for precisely because he's milquetoast and soooo much better than the turnips the pubies put forward
I voted for him in spite of him being milquetoast.
well, kinda, yeah. My point is he wasn't particularly offensive to anyone (which is exactly why he was chosen as Obama's VP... you don't pick controversial VP's, generally.) which is exactly the reason he became the nominee in 2020, and will be again.
I appreciate him having the courage to say what everyone thinks, I don't now who it would be, I'm sure there are many viable candidates who would step forward, but Biden is not a safe bet in 2024.
The incumbent president always runs. Just being the president gets them a ton of votes. If he was going to step down, he'd have to do it after winning the next election, making his VP the president
Not always. Yes, usually, but definitely not always. See, for example, in the last 100 years:
Johnson in 1968 (he knew he had no chance against RFK and had alienated a lot of the base with the escalation of the war in Vietnam)
Truman in 1952 (low polling because of the war in Korea and other domestic issues)
Coolidge in 1928 ("The Presidential office takes a heavy toll of those who occupy it and those who are dear to them. While we should not refuse to spend and be spent in the service of our country, it is hazardous to attempt what we feel is beyond our strength to accomplish.")
Granted, all three of these men served more than one full term in office because they each had taken over after the previous president had died, but each had the ability to run for an additional term and chose not to. Anyway, it is no more true that the incumbent president always runs than it is true that the VP always runs for the presidency at the conclusion of that term.
Well, I'd hate to break it to you but Kamala is a worse choice
If the DNC didn't hate the idea of a progressive candidate that would follow through with all the progressive policies that the American people overwhelmingly support on both sides of the aisle then you might get a good candidate and blow the GOP out for a decade or two.
Instead the DNC realize their only way to continue to exist and get money is to sell out the public good for the rich, which makes them no better than the Republicans.
That's exactly it. They seem to think never losing another election is a realistic option without also embracing a FDR style populism.
It's like Cornel West says:
If they're so threatened by this guy, maybe they should embrace medicare 4 all or marijuana legalization, the Green New Deal etc. That's ^^ the bare minimum really
It would be a lot easier for dems to do anything if there weren't 47 democratic senators (+ Manchin), 49 Republicans and 3 independents..
Absolutely, which is why the Democrats need to embrace progressive policies that are supported by the vast majority of americans like Universal Healthcare and Marijuana Legalization.
Also, how did LBJ pass the Civil Rights Act when half of his own party were Dixiecrats?