this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
238 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19120 readers
5165 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
top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] negativenull 108 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)
  • Bush's daughter
  • Cheney's daughter
  • Reagan's son
  • Giuliani's daughter

All campaigning for Harris

[–] [email protected] 37 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

When Republicans don't listen to famous (relatives of) Republicans about who to vote for, because they want the country to get worse really quickly under a volatile idiot who has openly wished violence on anybody who opposes him... things escalated.

[–] aquinteros 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

what about Elon's daughter ?

[–] negativenull 6 points 3 weeks ago

Oh good addition!

[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm wondering, why, 7 days out from utter disaster, wouldn't Taylor Swift get on a fucking stage with Kamala Harris, other than self preservation. Are the stakes not high enough? I mean, she endorsed Kamala, but, come on. It's a big ask, but, doesn't Taylor have enough fuck you money to be alright either way? We are headed for apocalyptic decimation if Trump wins again. Turn to the end of the Christian book or Revelation, it's gonna be worse than that.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago

it's a big ask

I don't know about that. Off the car lot it's just a big request.

It's like how champagne is just 'sparkling wine' outside of that one region of France.

[–] Rapidcreek 12 points 3 weeks ago

It would have been funny to see her grandma try to hide her contempt for Trump.

[–] donuts 4 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

The former first daughter

Is this really a thing? I know about "First Lady" and I think that's fine, but "first daughter"? That's kinda whack.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It's a commonly used term. The President's family is the First Family. All children are the First Son/First Daughter even if there are several siblings. "First Lady" isn't an official term; it's not mentioned in the Constitution as an actual position but traditionally it is a thing.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

The first time I heard this term, I was so confused both as a young kid and as a child of immigrants (at that time, English was not my first language).

I couldn't understand why they were first and then when another president came in they were first again.

[–] EmpathicVagrant -1 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Okay so let’s say the president’s grandchild also lives there. Is this the second?

[–] tehevilone 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

"First Grandchild" has been used previously (mostly tabloids), but I think the "first" term is usually limited to immediate family

[–] Aqarius 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Is it still "First Lady" if the marriage is morganatic?

[–] tehevilone 1 points 3 weeks ago

By definition? No.

But if there was a situation like that, I'm willing to bet people would default to using the "first" title anyway out of custom.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Nope, First Grandchild (or possibly just ignored). "Second" is for the VP.

Doug Emhoff is currently the "Second Gentleman"

[–] EmpathicVagrant 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I feel like that’s a duh moment. There’s egg in my beard, pardon me.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Eh, I feel worse knowing how easily accessible that knowledge was for me. I'm sure your brain was temporarily occupied by useful knowledge

[–] EmpathicVagrant 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I just lack information recall, and prefer interaction via asking humans over a search. It’s definitely something I knew, hence the duh.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I was alluding to recall vs. implicit memory, but yeah. I wasn't suggesting that you didn't know the fact, I'm suggesting that perhaps your mind is less filled with the noise of factoids shouting themselves out at you.

I hope I'm correct in this assumption. Everyone deserves to be able to sit in personal silence.

[–] EmpathicVagrant 2 points 3 weeks ago

Oh my misunderstanding sorry if it came across with any sort of tone. You’re not wrong in that at all, always some kind of chaos.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Since it has no official meaning anyone can use it as they see fit.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

You can learn all about it in the 2004 documentary First Daughter

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

she has a sister who would probably be miffed at being second for some reason

[–] wolfpack86 2 points 3 weeks ago

Bro they got first dogs, too

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

I just love how Sorkin took control of the campaign right after it did the one good thing it’s done (Walz). For all of our sakes I hope it works.

[–] spongebue 2 points 3 weeks ago

Is "breaks silence" the "slams" equivalent in headline writing when someone gives an opinion?