84
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] WiseThat@lemmy.ca 38 points 1 year ago

They were told the risks of pinning their entire political strategy and identity on one septuagenarian gameshow host, and did it anyway

[-] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago

Yes but think about how much they accomplished in those 4 years! Totally worth it.

[-] ScreaminOctopus@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately I think this might be unironically true for them

[-] mookulator@mander.xyz 6 points 1 year ago

The policy promises were mostly unfulfilled, but they did in fact stack the judicial system with sycophant judges from top to bottom. The real goal was actually achieved.

[-] yesman@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

alt headline: GOP strategists fear apathy in the vital deplorable demographic.

[-] Alteon@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Sounds about right. Lindsey Graham even said that this would happen...so...they shouldn't be even remotely surprised.

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

They had their chance, they had a chance to separate from Trump to build a new identity. Hell even had a candidate who would have worked for them. Instead they let Trump dub their guy the meatball and completely derail the process. They didn't have the balls to take a chance and change and now it's too late they don't have enough time.

this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
84 points (96.7% liked)

politics

18821 readers
5072 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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