1 point
*

But not him. He can’t even do the job he currently has

permalink
report
reply
1 point

Luckily, VP doesn’t have to do much. And if you’re right, better to get someone else in that role, right?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

He is better off if he just went back to Indiana.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Maybe, but hopefully we’d get someone better than Pete.

permalink
report
reply
46 points

They really are not. A gay candidate will guarantee a loss through the midwest and south. Generally all the religious votes.

You think PizzaGate was bad? Wait until you have a gay candidate.

permalink
report
reply
29 points
*

Honestly, I thought the same thing about Obama. I didn’t think there was any way a black guy who’d been living in Chicago would win. But he did! You never know!

Though I agree that the risk would be crazy high to run a black/Indian female president with a gay vice president. Maybe not this psycho election.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Never underestimate how much people really fucking hate Trump

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Never overestimate either.

People had a rare situation where they could compare trump and Biden presidency side by side and still were saying that they are not sure who they will vote for.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

Obama is literally the most professional and well spoken president since Clinton or JFK, possibly FDR. Like people he knew when he was younger were impressed with his ability.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

As a Massachusan I applaud your description of JFK as being well spoken. Too often does our nonrhotic profanity laiden dialect end up being maligned. It’s a wicked fucking tragedy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

ya but not you neolib scum

permalink
report
reply

Yeah, but are we in the mood for a CIA spook to be vice president?

permalink
report
reply
0 points

More than the asset as President.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Asset? No.

Spook? Yes.

Analyst, foreign deployment. No conspiracy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Lmfao if you call working for a company that also got outsourced to the CIA for consulting work a “Spook” then there’s millions of “Spooks”, usually that word is used for actual agents, not third party analysts.

The work he was doing overseas was entirely economic, which you would know if you read the article, and there’s no confirmation he had any ties with the CIA at all. there’s literally no reason to point out his very detached and vague connection with the CIA, other than to try and make him look like a plant.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 453K

    Comments