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
Speaking from across the pond, I think Pete would have been brilliant... but then that's hardly part of the job description any more is it? A breeze block with the ability to talk shit and grift would unfortunately be a far more electable candidate this year.
Plus, if electing a woman was too troublesome for people to handle, what would happen if they fielded one of the gays!!!?!??
It's a disgrace really. Either Pete or Kamala would have been a safe pair of hands.
I'm also from the UK but from what I could tell at least Pete has some personality. Kamala ran as the establishment manifested in human form, clumsily avoiding questions or policy details in media appearances. She was polling at 4% of popularity amongst democrat voters during the 2020 primaries. I think those factors were more influential than her being a woman,
Absolutely agree with you - I think perhaps Kamala was too safe a pair of hands and didn't generate enough excitement - but then I'm too old for watching fancy headline grabbers (though Ed Davey's approach to Lib Dem vote grabbing at the GE this year was highly entertaining) so to me, a boring but competent candidate is good for me.
I suppose I only brough up her gender and his sexuality because they both share an "outlier" characteristic that Republicans in general aren't too fond of.
Nice to hear from you fellow Brit!