this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2024
108 points (90.9% liked)

politics

19248 readers
2103 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
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] insomniac_lemon@lemmy.cafe 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

You of all people posting this without comment. The only thing funnier (and sadder) is "cautious optimism about Trump".

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Yeah ozma was one of the loudest mourh pieces on here against the dems and now he's doing the shocked pikachu.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Hi, it's me. Was I not correct in the Dems replacing Biden? Did I not say Harris would lose? Even if the uncommitted 100% voted for Harris, she still would have lost.

[–] insomniac_lemon@lemmy.cafe 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Wrong? Certainly not. But do you think spending the entire election demoralizing closest-to-the-left had no effect? (note: the iceberg of non-voters who aren't directly counted in the uncommitted movement)

This is not to say that the DNC strategy was great, but I am not sure by what metric your own was much better. Particularly as even from the beginning it seemed like a gamble, requiring Harris to win while also having notably high 3rd-candidate turnout.

EDIT: Newer headlines make this even more obvious:

'Very troubling': Leader of 'Abandon Harris' movement now anxious about Trump appointees

Key leaders of the “Abandon Harris” movement, which encouraged voters to oppose Kamala Harris due to U.S. support for Israel during the Gaza war, are now expressing unease about Trump’s incoming administration.

concerns are growing over his Cabinet picks, such as Mike Huckabee and Tulsi Gabbard, which some see as troubling for Muslim communities.

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Well, you had a shit ton of criticism for the Dems, but you seemed rather quiet about trump. Now you're pushing cautious optimism? You really seem like a shill.

[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I hate Trump and the GOP. F them. I've said it plenty of times. I've also said plenty of times I'm not a Democrat. I'm far left.

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 day ago

Well, your criticism of the GOP wasn't as much as the criticism of them dems. Or at least tor didn't show up as often.

Not only that but you pushed third party shit right up until the election.

You gonna start up with that again?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mercphilby@discuss.online 1 points 1 day ago (5 children)

What do you mean trump won?! We spent all our time fighting against Harris?! How did she lose?!

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

What about the braindead fascists who nominated loser kamalacaust?

What do they think? Have they changed their minds? Will they do it yet again in 2028?

Why not ask the people who are actually responsible for this pathetic showing?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›