this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2024
-29 points (29.0% liked)

politics

19223 readers
2879 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
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DomeGuy 18 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Very little, at least.compared to the opposition.

It was infested with myopic tomfoolery of a scale that can easily be described as "corrupt", but i haven't heard and specific allegations of anyone actually trying to lose.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 days ago

Democratic political consultants milked the campaign for a shitload of money and likely led the charge to "pivot conservative so you don't lose!"

It's bullshit to assume it was corrupt by design, however.

[–] Ensign_Crab 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

at least.compared to the opposition.

Can we please stop doing this? It just gives Democrats license to be second worst.

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

"They're open fascists and genocidal maniacs, so we can be open racists and do corporate lobbying, they're worse so why try to be any better?"

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

DNC leadership literally said they would rather loose than tarnish Biden's legacy with critique. That's why Harris wasn't allowed to differentiate herself in any meaningful way.

[–] DomeGuy 3 points 5 days ago

It's not accurate to say she wasn't "allowed" - - she was the candidate for POTUS, and essentially literally the party boss.

Harris CHOSE to stand by Biden, warts and all, and in doing so inherited a bunch of his baggage. I presume this is in large part because she agreed with him, but it may be that she instead chose to hide her disagreement on the advice of others.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

Very mad, downvotes are now an argument! Being mad at progressives worked so well in 2016 and 2024, right?

[–] just_another_person 6 points 5 days ago

The arguments laid out here are about a campaign that had no time to scale, and therefore didn't have time to properly set up field offices. I doubt they even had the staff or procedures to properly set up requests coming from thousands of field offices. I'd say this was more of a failure of the Biden campaign's initial setup than anything, since that is what the Harris campaign stemmed from.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

Too much. Because Trump was 100%, doesn't mean that we should be anything above 1%.

Like Jesus, all that money spent and losing on such a margin because she refused to listen to her campaign aids.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

This is a bit a of tangent, but I've read some of the author's takes on russia and China (and briefly discussed the articles with him on twitter) and he has no clue what he is talking about. The "articles" are sophomoric takes that clearly show a lack of knowledge or interest in understanding anything.

He might have a better understanding of US internal politics, but his confidently ignorant approach (with respect to russia and China) does not inspire confidence.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2021/08/the-irrational-fear-of-russia

https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2022/03/is-russian-brutality-toward-civilians-actually-unique

Fucker doesn't even speak russian or Ukrainian and has almost certainly never lived in russia or Ukraine (I would be surprised if he has even visited). And yet he speaks of "Russo-Orientalism"? Come on...

His magazine also directly parrots russian propaganda:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2022/10/why-did-russia-launch-this-catastrophic-war

https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2022/05/how-the-war-in-ukraine-can-be-ended

As someone who lives in Ukraine (I am Ukrainian), has lived in russia and the US and speaks the local languages, his takes are horrendous.

I do hope one day, Nathan Robinson, Anatol Lieven and Thomas Moller-Nielsen meet the same fate as "Donbas cowboy" Russell Bentley.

Bentley, 64, was a fixture in the low-level Russian incursion in Ukraine dating back to 2014. Calling himself the Donbas Cowboy, Bentley became a popular figure on Russian propaganda networks for his criticism of the U.S. government.

Bentley, whose military call sign was Texas, went missing in Donetsk in April.

According to the Investigative Committee, Vansyatsky, Agaltsev, and Iordanov tortured Bentley on April 8, and he died shortly afterward.

Vansyatsky and Agaltsev are suspected of blowing up a car with Bentley’s body in it and ordering Bazhin to get rid of what was left of his remains.