this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
543 points (95.2% liked)

politics

21724 readers
4130 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
 

Summary

Former vice presidential nominee Tim Walz criticized Trump for economic chaos while taking personal responsibility for the situation during an MSNBC interview.

"We wouldn't be in this mess if we'd have won the election — and we didn't," Walz told Chris Hayes. He called Trump the "worst possible business executive" and praised the Wall Street Journal's editorial criticizing Trump's tariff war.

Walz emphasized Democrats must offer something better, not just criticize Trump. Recently, he acknowledged a leadership void in the Democratic Party and admitted spending too much time combatting Trump's false claims about immigrants.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 135 points 1 day ago (8 children)

Nope. This is on Biden. It's his fault Harris/Walz were put into an impossible situation.

That senile old fuck was supposed to be a one-term president. If they'd spent 4 years planning for 2024 instead of sitting around with their thumbs up their asses maybe they could have run a winning campaign.

But no, Joe was too proud or stupid or both to stick to that plan. This election was lost the instant he doddered his way on to the debate stage on 6/27/24.

[–] [email protected] 50 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

Lots and lots of balls were dropped. Garland didn't get Trump in jail when he could have. Biden didn't stick to only one term. A democratic candidate wasn't really elected when Biden stepped down (for the record, I think that Harris was more than qualified, but a lot of people were upset that she was just "chosen"). Harris didn't try to stand out and be her own candidate - she mostly just stuck with the status quo and never disagreed with Biden. Etc etc etc.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 hours ago

Garland never had any intention to prosecute trump

[–] [email protected] 21 points 20 hours ago (4 children)

Warning bells started going off in my head the moment that the Democrats announced that Harris was going to be the candidate after Biden dropped out, not because I thought she was an unqualified candidate but because there was no time taken to search for other candidates. Maybe it was too close to the election to take the time to go through the rigamarole of all that but I think even a cursory effort to do so would have gone a long way towards making it feel like people's opinions actually mattered. Biden dropping out was huge (at least to me) because it felt like an acknowledgement of the voters who had consistently felt like they were held hostage for their votes because the alternative was a fascist.

It doesn't help either that they went on to repeatedly shoot themselves in the feet while chasing moderate Republican votes, getting other prominent Democrats to chastise certain classes of voters and breeding the same voter apathy that hurt them in 2016, and their refusal to acknowledge that what's happening in Gaza is a genocide that we shouldn't help Israel perpetrate.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 hours ago

It's also the campaign money, only goes to Harris, and not anyone else. They are legally required to return all that fundraising to the donors if they use a different candidate

[–] [email protected] 2 points 12 hours ago

Maybe it was too close to the election to take the time to go through the rigamarole of all that but I think even a cursory effort to do so would have gone a long way towards making it feel like people’s opinions actually mattered.

it was way too close for that, by the time you had found one, you would be weeks, if not one or two months prior to the election, with no VP, and only a candidate, you would've had to have started the primary at the time it normally does to pull that off, they took a gamble, and that gamble was that biden would ride it out, and im not really sure why they took that gamble, but they did, and they lost.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, the moment I knew we were in trouble was when they publicized that video of Obama lecturing down to some black men about not supporting Harris enough. Whoever thought staging that was a good idea needs to retire from politics forever and go find a field to stand in.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

that video was so based lmao. Not every day that you get to see obama yelling at people.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Idk about based. Imo, it was hella staged, and I found it real cringe.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

On your last point, I don't think Dems could've done anything different. They're clearly in Israel pockets and they can't disobey their corporate overlords and run on a more progressive agenda. Only other option was to try hard to get the "centrists". Incredibly disappointing as they would rather lose and go hard fascist rather than let their donors lose any money (how's that stock market looking?).

[–] [email protected] 11 points 21 hours ago

Putting trump in jail would've made America look bad. Oh, the irony.

[–] [email protected] 76 points 23 hours ago (4 children)

It's on Biden and Garland for not throwing Trump in prison the second his term ended.

[–] [email protected] 57 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Exactly, and it's the third time we've been betrayed like this.

Not going after the Bush administration.

Not going after the subprime mortgage architects.

Not going after Trump.

Three times, they've had the easiest of layups for public approval of all time and they've consistently fucked it up.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

It's not really a fuck up when they did it deliberately. Their priorities are in the wrong place because it's an oligarchy.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Seeing liberal's repeatedly stumble in stopping anyone to the right, but having the fangs come out the moment they need to protect themselves from the left really shows that it's not failure, it's refusal.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

I'd like to add:

Not going after the Confederate states

to this list

[–] [email protected] 3 points 12 hours ago

Wouldn't that have been the Republicans at the time?

[–] [email protected] 24 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Amen. 4 years to build a case? January 6th, spend 6-12 months and file charges. What the fuck were they doing for 4 years?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 20 hours ago

Running out the clock.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 16 hours ago

To hell with his January 6th temper tantrum, he should be in the fucking Hague for his handling of Covid.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 hours ago

The Oligarchy will never convict one of their own. For four years, I said it was the dog and pony show. And in the end, nothing will happen to Trump. Here we are.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 21 hours ago

Or at least the second the supreme court said whatever the president does is legal as long as it's an "official act".

[–] [email protected] 20 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

Harris made choices. She could have chosen not to adopt every single one of Bidens policies. What was biden going to do, fire her? If you look back at her presidential run she really struggled to articulate any policies back then too.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

What was biden going to do, fire her

If the reports are true, yes that seems to be the case. I'm not really sure what would have happened, but she was absolutely threatened into defending Biden's legacy.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

The president cannot fire the vice president.
The best a president can do is lock the VP out of meetings. Bidens approval ratings were so low, being locked out of meetings would have cost her nothing. So exactly what reports are you quoting here, lets see them. I think you made that up.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 14 hours ago

Bidens approval ratings were so low, being locked out of meetings would have cost her nothing.

Hell, if that happened and we assumed that anti-establishment sentiment is what got trump elected, maybe she could've capitalized on that to win the election as a "new" type of politician, one willing to go against the Democrat establishment whom literally everybody hates and dig up the potential dem voters who haven't had hope for change since Obama. Of course, this is Kamala Harris we're talking about, probably one of the last politicians that I'd expect to pull a move like that.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A cascade of failures. Beyond Joe not man enough GTFO, the DNC once again anointed a letter instead of letting the public decide. yes, Joe should never have run for a second term. Given that he did, he should have dropped out sooner. Given that he didn't, the DNC should have had an open convention rather than putting their thumbs on the scale in back room deals.

Tim is 100% right that we would not be in this mess if they had won, but when is the DNC going to stop trying to manipulate everything and lie to us about it? They are to blame as much as Repugnacans.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 19 hours ago

Because they and R are same team. I bet it's like lawyers who viciously go after each other in court, them have golf and martinis on weekends.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Biden made an appropriate decision to back out. He should have done it much sooner. But I'm not sure I would characterize the failings of Harris/Walz as Biden's fault. I don't really feel that's fair.

Harris' main draw was that she didn't want to do anything, which pissed off progressives. She was pro-establishment and pro-status quo. She didn't need Biden's help to not get votes... I have no love for Biden, but the truth is the truth.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

But I’m not sure I would characterize the failings of Harris/Walz as Biden’s fault.

Inasmuch as they ran as a continuation of his policy, I'd say there's some blame to be had.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

So you're saying that two adults chose to run an unpopular and non-working Biden "plan" which was proven to not work, and that's also Bidens fault because two completely unrelated people decided to also use that plan?

Does your brain not work?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

They used his blueprint. He bears some responsibility.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

This is on anyone who was within arms reach of Trump in the last decade and didn't take matters into their own hands.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

Yeah a bunch of people want to make excuses for 90 million people who just... Didn't think it was important who won.

Campaign was flawed but if people showed up to vote against fascism we wouldn't be here. And there's zero excuse for all 90 million of them to not show up.

Edit- well, Im reading your post in a different light but, yes that too.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 hours ago

If you didn't notice, Democrats were aligning with fascism.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago

Walz emphasized Democrats must offer something better, not just criticize Trump.

Biden shares a lot of the responsibility, but Harris and Walz were running on fundamentally faulty assumptions.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 21 hours ago

They probably realised Harris wasn't going to win due to the amount of prejudice and thought Biden had a better chance against trump (who they'd have guessed would have been axed after his loss and criminality, but it was a cult), but then they let Biden to abdicate because there was truth in the criticism of him and the media ran with it..

At that point who else could they run? It was bad planning, not accounting for Biden's age/health and the cult of trump.

Also they should have given Bernie his shot. They didn't want real change and it's been forced on them anyway, but now to the detriment of all.