this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2025
228 points (92.9% liked)

politics

26368 readers
4503 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 26 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Imagine not being able to beat Hitler in an election

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Hitler was appointed chancellor by Hindenburg, who ran as a left wing centrist. And at the time they were fighting against a bloc of left wingers and a small group of communists. Sound familiar?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago

Hindenburg, who ran as a left wing centrist.

There wasn't anything "left-wing" about Hindenburg. He ran on maintaining the status quo - a status quo that was a rapidly deteriorating depression with very high unemployment. He represented business interests and was never going to do any of the major reforms that would've been necessary to save the republic (if anything could).

The social democrats decided to throw unconditional support to these centrist parties for the sake of stability. They didn't seem to have any actual understanding of why conditions were deteriorating, why extremism was rising, or what needed to be done in order to address it - all they could ever think to do was support the bourgeoisie in order to buy time - in order to sleepwalk into fascism.

Naturally, as Hindenburg represented bourgeois interests, he was always going to side with the far-right against the left, if he had to choose. And, since conditions were declining with no plan to actually fix anything, he was always going to end up in the position of having to choose.

I would say that there are similarities, though, yes.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 32 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Imagine not voting for the black lady because she has to prove herself worthy while a criminal senile pedophile can go on insane demented rants for a year and win by default.

There's a lot of cope happening in America, and everyone is pointing fingers, but the fact is 2/3 of the electorate either voted for fascism or didn't bother to vote against it.

But go ahead and blame everyone and everything other than the fact that American culture is fundamentally rotten and most people either want fascism or at least don't care about whether it happens.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 16 points 10 hours ago

Well that’s a gross over-simplification. It certainly wasn’t her and the DNC’s long history of clearly ignoring the needs of the people who want to vote for them while regularly reaching for “moderate” votes. It definitely wasn’t her disconnection from Walz while hanging out with Liz Cheney for a significant amount of time.

People don’t see her as any form of significant opposition to the far-right but they do see opposing the DNC as something worth doing and I’ve come around to supporting them there. It is not their fault that the Republicans won, anyoderately sane and intelligent people would have laughed him into oblivion but the US threw tens of millions of people at Trump.

300 million rotten people sure, this is how I know your opinion isn't worth the pixels used to display it.