this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2025
78 points (97.6% liked)

politics

25874 readers
3160 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] IcedRaktajino@startrek.website -1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Doesn't matter.

There was a clear and present danger that everyone with two brain cells to rub together was trying to prevent, and these people were actively standing in the way.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io -1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

So you're mad at something you're not even sure had any actual effect? In that case I'm mad at the flying spaghetti monster for using 5G brainwaves to make people vote for Trump.

[–] IcedRaktajino@startrek.website 4 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Let me state it as a parable: If the building was on fire and someone was blocking the fire exit, but I managed to escape by shattering a 2nd floor window, yes, I would be mad at the person blocking the exit.

And more so: This was, very much, a clear and present danger. As we are all experiencing now. None of what is happening now is a surprise. Yet those people still refused to help or lift a finger to prevent it.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

You're the one blocking the exit just now

Hilary's campaign failed to adapt to Trump's campaign

BBC probably had the best analysis, and you'll note they don't mention Bernie Bros.

In a country where millions more women vote than men, it was thought that her gender would give her a major advantage. But what became clear in the primaries against her rival Bernie Sanders was how hard she found it to enthuse young women voters especially about electing the country's first female president, and shattering the most resilient glass ceiling in global politics.

Many women never warmed to her. Some remembered what were interpreted as disparaging remarks made when she was first lady about not wanting to stay at home making cookies. When Donald Trump accused her of enabling her husband's affairs, and of attacking the women who accused Bill Clinton of molesting them, many women nodded in agreement.

Doubtless, old-fashioned, unreconstructed sexism played a part too: the refusal of many male voters to countenance a female president.

In a year when so many Americans wanted change, she appeared to offer more of the same. It's always hard for a party to win three successive terms in the White House. The Democrats have not done it since the 1940s. But that problem was exacerbated by the fact that so many voters were bored with the Clintons.