this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
406 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19090 readers
5359 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
 

Vice President Harris’s campaign posted most of Tuesday’s debate on the social platform X, referring to it as a new ad.

“Our newest ad just dropped,” the campaign captioned its Wednesday video post.

After Harris’s closing statement in the debate hosted by ABC News, the video is cut off to omit Trump’s closing statement, and a photo of the vice president pops up featuring a voiceover in which she says “I approve this message.” 

Harris was seen by many as having a good debate Tuesday night, a reversal of fortunes for Democrats compared to President Biden’s negatively-received performance in June. Sixty-three percent of registered voters in a CNN flash poll said the vice president performed better on the debate stage, while about 37 percent said the same about Trump.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 29 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I really wish she got to go after Trump... His ending statement/question was the absolute perfect opportunity to stress the importance of voting for more than just the president!

"Why haven't you done all the things you say you want to yet?"

"People of the US: give me a Senate and House that will work with me and we can!"

It seemed like a mic drop for him but that's only because people don't understand all Republicans exist for is obstruction of democratic plans and to benefit the ownership class. Have a Republican lead House/Senate? You'll get nothing meaningful.

[–] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I fully agree, but a fully democratically owned house and Senate under Obama was pretty damn disappointing.

[–] Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

fully democratic by letter preceding their names only, they had a couple turncoats included in that

[–] Frozengyro@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's been the standard for a long time though, on both sides of the aisle.

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

If true, that would be exactly why you would need more than the exact bare minimum number of Democrats for what you want to accomplish, so that one or two can’t make a name for themselves by gumming up the works.

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Are you a person who doesn’t appreciate the significance of the ACA, or are you a person that doesn’t realize that the supermajority only lasted something like 11 weeks (during which they managed to barely get the ACA to happen)?

[–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

But it's the only reason we have the ACA. Which, while only ok, is so much better than not having the ACA.

[–] littlewonder@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

"No! You'll get something! I'm doing things! They're concepts of plans! We've got the greatest concepts!"