this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3040 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

President Joe Biden hosted a small group of scholars and historians for lunch on Wednesday as he gears up for a speech framing the upcoming election as a battle for the nation’s democracy.

The discussion revolved around “ongoing threats to democracy and democratic institutions both here in America and around the world, as well as the opportunities we face as a nation,” the White House said in a statement.

Princeton’s Eddie Glaude Jr. and Sean Wilentz, Harvard’s Annette Gordon-Reed, Yale’s Beverly Gage and Boston College’s Heather Cox Richardson were among the attendees, as well as presidential biographer — and occasional Biden speech writer — Jon Meacham.

Attendees were tight-lipped about what was discussed at the gathering. One would only go so far as to say they “talked about American history and its bearing on the present — a lively exchange of ideas.”

Another person in the room, who like the others was not authorized to speak publicly about a private meeting, said the historians urged the president “to call out the moment for what it is.” In blunt terms, the academics discussed looming threats to the nation’s democracy and warned about the slow crawl of authoritarianism around the globe.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

You guys have fun with genocidin biden, if he’s on the ballot I’m just staying home and staying quiet for the next 4 years

"genocidin Biden"? No wonder you're not voting, you sound like you're 12. Go to your room and think about what you just said, young human. It's not as deep as you think it is.

The situation in Gaza is tragic, and can't be solved with a soundbite. But anyone who thinks outcomes will be better with Trump in office is delusional. Trump has proven that he doesn't really care about human rights, he cares about enriching himself. The Palestinians will be sold to the highest bidder. Is that what you want?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago

Also, my bad, it should be Genocidin’ Biden with a capital g and an apostrophe for proprieties sake

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago

I like it more than genocide Joe, hell at least I still capitalize his name.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I’m 37 and voted blue from 18.

The party is officials are ignoring my concerns therefore, I no longer support them.

Feel free to do so if you’d like, I don’t intend on standing in your way.

You did not have my back, and now I won’t have yours

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Cool, so you're just a fucking idiot then, got it

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Loyalty is a 2 way street. I fronted the party some and they fucked me when it came time to pay it back.

I’ll give you some good life advice, never give your loyalty to someone who ignores you.

I’ll tell you what, maybe you can go bypass congressional oversight to do what you want.

Maybe you can give unlimited support to him, but I won’t help a bad person.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I’ll give you some good life advice, never give your loyalty to someone who ignores you.

We're talking about voting, not loyalty.

Maybe you can give unlimited support to him, but I won’t help a bad person.

Of course you will. Choosing to throw away your vote is a choice nonetheless.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago

I mean, if I really disagreed that much I could just vote for the other guy out of spite.

I support the rest of what y’all stand for enough not to help the enemy, I just can’t stand the thought of standing next to you anymore.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Browbeating is satisfying, and is less work than addressing the issue and trying to make progress toward a resolution. Do you suppose that your response made it more likely that the person you responded to will behave in the way you want?

Dismissiveness indicates an aversion to introspection.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I am not averse to introspection, I did a lot of it before I made my decision.

Morally, I can not support someone who wants to kill Gazans so badly that he did a run around around congress, twice.

He even confirms that he is not concerned about it, just the optics on israel.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I am not averse to introspection

I didn't say you were. I was referring to your interlocutor.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago

Ah, my apologies then.