this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2025
776 points (95.5% liked)

politics

24503 readers
3149 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago

Save us aoc your our only hope

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

Ask yourself a question: why can't a woman become a preacher, priest or pastor? All major US religions indoctrinate their followers from birth with the teachings that god does NOT permit women to exercise authority over men.

So if Christian and Catholic men and women believe in a core set of values and reasons for why women are not allowed to take leadership roles over men in the church, what makes anyone think they don't or won't apply that same logic to leadership at the political level, or ANY level?

Christians won't let a woman lead their church, but they somehow will be OK with electing a woman into a much higher role, one that can make decisions that affect all churches/the entire world? I don't see it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 hour ago

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016. What are you on about?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Uh, there are lots of Christian denominations who allow women to lead churches. And majority Catholic nations who have happily elected women (like the Latino countries who you people like to also say are too dedicated to machismo to vote for women).

Don't justify your bigotry by an appeal to tradition of the people who already won't vote for Democrats. This isn't a well thought through argument, it's just a reactionary justification.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago

Was a female Pope ever considered after JD Vance cursed the previous one?

[–] [email protected] 23 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

During a debate, AOC would smash any Government of Putin candidate. The problem lies with the Democratic Party.

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

And the deep-seated sexism of too many independent/moderate voters, unfortunately.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

HELL YEAH THIS COUNTRY NEEDS AOC

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

My right-wing friend finds AOC hot so he might actually vote for her if she runs.

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

Right wingers love the idea of hate-sex

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

Right-wingers tried to make fun of her, and lost.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Zohran Mamdani is just the democratic primary if I understand correctly. He's not the mayor of New York yet.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 hours ago

It's been assumed that whoever the democratic nominee is will win since Adams is extremely unpopular and so is the republican party in NY generally

Of course Cuomo running independent complicates it, and the democratic party not enthusiastically endorsing Mamdani certainly doesnt help. Then again, the party had a 30% approval rating last i checked, so maybe that actually helps....

But he's the most popular debut candidate since AOC, so he still has a very good chance.

load more comments
view more: next ›