34
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2024
34 points (61.2% liked)
politics
18601 readers
3826 users here now
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Find someone you can't name then.
I'll throw two names in:
Tim Walz, the governor of Minnesota.
Marianne Williamson.
Williamson is an absolute loon and Walz wants to stay governor.
Disagree on Williamson being a loon.
Is she willing to just abandon her palm-reading business to be president, though? Who will run her shop while she is in Washington?
She doesn't read palms as far as I know.
I've never heard anyone cogently criticizing her on the issues.
What about Jim McDonugal?
Or Frank T. Millerson?
AOC, Michelle Obama, Elizabeth Warren, or Jill Stein.
Kamala Harris is unelectable. She is a black female cop. The left won't vote for a cop and the right won't vote for a black woman. Who do you think is in her corner other than DNC mouth pieces? She was a threefer for Biden and that's it.
Jill Stein????
Id argue the other 3 are optimal choices, but Stein is almost certainly a Russian stooge.
Aoc can't run until next election, Michelle Obama has zero interest in being president (didn't even want to be first lady), Elizabeth Warren isn't much younger than trump and Biden (and a lot of moderates still won't vote for a woman, see: Hillary Clinton), and Jill Stein is just as old too and part of the green party which isn't going to even have a chance at winning a presidential election until there is no climate left to change unfortunately
Point of fact: she can run as long as she's old enough to take office before inauguration day, which she will be. But party leadership would rather nominate Trump to run against Trump than nominate a progressive.
Absolutely. I honestly think they would rather just not run a candidate (or pick somebody they know will lose and give them no money) than have an actual progressive win. There's a lot of establishment there. And a lot of desire to keep pounding the same stupid drums of social justice and abortion and gun control rather than deal with real problems like the bottom 99.9% getting fucked over by the top 0.1%, or the effective state of regulatory capture in many industries.
There is a divide and conquer strategy being used against the American people and it is working. We are at each other's throats over wedge issues that, while important and worthy of discussion, are not even close to the biggest problems facing our nation.
We now have two generations that gave up on having kids because wages are stagnant and housing prices are insane and rather than discuss the breakdown of the overall social contract and loss of upward mobility, we are at each other's throats over whether we should ban this gun or that gun or which bathroom we should be allowed to use. It's the modern-day version of the Arena in Rome- The population is distracted by gladiators while the nation is being run into the ground.
At least you're paying as much attention. As to Hillary, that's personality not sex; at least now. She has antagonized a huge section of voters over the last 6 years. She probably couldn't get into local office.
Yeah there is zero chance for Hillary. She lost to Trump the first time, what would make anybody think she could beat him again? Besides even the left doesn't like her much. And the way she ran her campaign against Trump suggests she should be managing a hot dog cart not a country.
The mere suggestion of Jill Stein clearly demonstrates that you do not have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Holy crap.
Warren is a good suggestion. Not Bernie tier but a step in the right direction