politics
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
Then name a name.
Who has that kind of charisma and name recognition, with no baggage, that they can storm in like the Koolaid man and take this election?
No? Yeah, I didn't think so. You have been shitting on Biden every thread, even non-Biden related posts, for this entire election year and have never offered an alternative.
You'd have to be blind not to see the news articles dropping names for the past few weeks.
Whitmer
Newsom
Shapiro
Walz
Buttigieg
Generic Democrat
Even Harris polls better than Biden
Whitmer, Shaprio, Walz, Buttigieg all don't have the nationwide name recognition needed to hit the ground running with so little time before elections.
Newsom only has name recognition because the Right has been demonizing him for years because they recognized him as a threat. We'd just have a repeat of Hillary.
I'm not saying that these wouldn't make decent candidates in a normal Primary time frame. But it would spell disaster to pivot to any of these candidates this late in the race.
Four months is not "so little time". And I agree that Shapiro and Walz have branding issues, but 4 months, the entire news media and DNC war chest would be enough to solve that. Newsom doesn't have nearly the baggage Hillary had either. Hillary had baggage going back to 1992. Newsom has baggage from ~5 years ago? At that point there's no one qualified to run, not even Biden.
It's short enough time that a new nominee would literally be disqualified from the ballot in some states.
The only state that requires certification before the convention is Ohio. A state we aren't counting on and have little to no chance to win unless we suddenly run Reagan 2.0.
There's 49 other states that would still be in play, including all of the normal blue states and swing states.
Ohio even passed a special exception to extend the deadline to after the convention, though it's unclear from the news I read whether there might be some risk of it being overturned by the court if Democrats needed it.
Oh I don't think anyone is really depending on Ohio to keep its word on that. But there's definitely a cursed timeline where Harris is the nominee out of the convention, Ohio withdraws their promise, and Democrats get close enough with a write in campaign that it's plausible she would have taken Ohio. Cue more political violence.
At any rate I'm sure that has no chance of happening in our timeline, none whatsoever. Definitely not.
Well, they did pass the law. It's just whether it can be invalidated in courts because they poisoned it with a provision to bar permanent residents (green card holders) from contributing to campaigns, which is likely unconstitutional. In a normal world, the individual ban would be thrown out, as it doesn't really have anything to do with ballot registration, but there's little reason to think the Supreme Court wouldn't rule in a way that disadvantages Democrats.
This is a lie. It's been a lie, and you should know better by now rather than repeating it.
Literally true. In Ohio for sure that I'm aware of
Nope, it's a lie. The date to appear on the Ohio ballot is still in the future. A new candidate could appear on it without issue.
I'll let some shit slide, but you just keep doubling down here
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_presidential_candidates_in_Ohio
Reporting you for misinformation.
That's for primary candidates. Maybe actually read the source you're quoting before you "double down". There are no states with requirements that would prevent a new candidate from appearing on the general election ballot.
Fucking LOL. Hears some trivia on social media that reinforces his biases and doesn't wonder why no legitimate sources point it out as a problem and then jumps to calling the mods for "misinformation" when his wrong fact is rejected.
What as a fucking independent? As a "minor political party"? (deadline for those is Aug 7 btw)
The deadline has passed for anyone other than Joe Biden to be the Democratic nominee, and the deadline is rapidly approaching for ANYONE to be on the ballot, of any party.
I suppose the DNC could just nullify all its own rules and send a different candidate to the Secretary of State within the next 3 weeks. How well do you think that would play over? "DNC rigs its own process to force through [candidate name here]".
What the fuck are you talking about? There is no Democrat specified in any sort of rules or paperwork for Ohio. The Democratic nominee is decided by the delegates. They have a deadline for submission, but not one that in any way has locked in Joe Biden. Joe Biden could withdraw or release his delegates and we could have a different candidate with no issue whatsoever.
Amazing how you keep at this after being embarrassingly wrong about your first justification. You're somehow committed to try to keep making a procedural argument despite being wrong about the rules you thought caused the problem. You just smoothly move on to an entirely different objection without ever recognizing that you were the one spreading misinformation. I thought misinformation was a bad thing that was important to combat, but somehow I see no edits, no mea culpas, no clearing up that you were spreading it. How are you not embarrassed?
Notice you didn't address that. And after all the left's pearl clutching about "the DNC rigged the election!!! To stop Bernie!!" now you want them to do just that. Hah.
Why would I play along with your attempt to shift the goalposts away from you lying? Have some ethical consistency. You were spreading misinformation. Go report yourself.
So, you got nothing. Cool.
Cory Doctorow.
Lmfao
I'm entirely serious. The Republicans can rally around a criminal billionaire and still expect to take the white house, so why can't the Democrats run an intellectual Canadian? I trust the guy that coined the term "enshittification" a whole lot more than the politicians who have been enabling it, anyhow.
If you're "entirely serious" in the literal sense, just to be super clear the answer to "why can’t the Democrats run an intellectual Canadian?" is that a Canadian is disqualified from the office of the President in the Constitution. Unfortunately, they didn't think to prohibit megalomaniac felons. That's apparently on us. :(
The writers of the 14th Amendment did, but for some reason they figured the president didnt need to be called out specifically in the final draft; probably figured it was obvious the president is an officer of the state. But well, we know how scotus took that
The sad thing is, I do think you're serious, and it speaks to the overarching theme of REALLY REALLY STUPID voters this election, on both sides.
Then maybe it's time for you to admit that there's nothing Democratic about elections in this country and to start treating them with the contempt that they deserve.
Elections don't exist to pick leaders, that's a mere side effect of their real purpose: the reification of the implied consent of the governed.
As I said
Cool so he has your vote. Who else? As expected the people who want Biden to bail at the 11th hour have no actionable plan.
The problem with demanding "actionable plans" is that the only person who could enact them is the DNC chairperson, who currently reports to the incumbent.
Is from Canada.
That's a plus for me.
I like Doctorow too. I subscribe to his podcast. But he's ineligible.
So?
This is America we're talking about. The rule of law is more of a guideline, really.