this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
125 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3228 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
all 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 50 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Man, I hope it's Capt. Kelly. Just because it would be so nice to have a scientist at that level. He could be for the Democrats what they hoped Dr. Oz could be for Republicans, but Dr. Oz is weird as fuck.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

He's my pick as well, because I think he's a good, sharp guy, and I think he'll help the ticket the most. If I wasn't concerned about them winning, I'd probably pick Buttigieg. Kelly is a little more conservative than I'd prefer and Pete just impresses me every time he opens his mouth.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Pete is very smart. His background concerns me.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What about his background do you find concerning?

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

He was a McKinsey fellow and contractor for the CIA. He has the support of (and he supports) a certain sector of elites from within the intelligence and foreign service world that I don't trust, or wouldn't trust in the office of president, which is a civilian office. It's not that the CIA and McKinsey fellows don't have their place in government, I just don't think that place is in the big chair. That's a bit too much like putting the fox in charge of the hens. I guess a better analogy would be that it's like putting a fox in charge of the foxes, when foxes have been traditionally been under the charge a creature whose conscious is beholden to those who domesticated it, a horse for example.

I don't like anything about his meteoric rise without any accomplishment or political success to speak of, how he was declared winner in Iowa in 2016 despite having less support by every concievable metric, and then how once he was the presumptive frontrunner by the punditry, it was just three or four phone calls and then he's just out of the race, along with Harris and one or two others, they all fell in behind Biden, and that was it for Sanders.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago

It would be nice to have someone in the Executive Branch that has experienced the Overview Effect.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I really, really hope it’s not Shapiro. Shapiro would be a huge setback for stopping the Israeli genocide, which is a massive not only campaign issue, but worldwide issue.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago

Hoping for Walz but Kelly would be awesome, too.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Please not Pritzker. PLEASE. Sen. Kelly. LFGGG!!!

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I want to keep Pritzker here in Illinois. His tenure as governor has been a breath of fresh air after Bruce Rauner.

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

For now absolutely. He’s been a real gift to IL. But I would be all in on a Pritzker/AOC ‘28 or ‘32 ticket.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

I've been looking at this.

Kelly looks good but has little actual experience in government. And I doubt she wants to gamble with losing a Senate seat. So I think he's out.

Shapiro has lots of state government experience, it's not federal but still good for him thinking through policy decisions and knowing how to get things done. Also a swing state, and he has mid west appeal which works over multiple swing states. Apparently really good at fighting against maga types. I think he's in.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Shapiro was my bet. Something about his face makes me love the Kelly brothers...idk what it is they just feel like good people. I wanted him to get the nod but I think Shapiro simply checks too many boxes.

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

And I doubt she wants to gamble with losing a Senate seat.

With a Dem governor to appoint a replacement, and a state that's looking more blue than Wisconsin or Michigan or Virginia, its honestly not as big a gamble as you'd think.

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

Replacement lasts until 2026, whereas Kelly would last until 2028. That's Harris's mid term election. Losing the Senate can gridlock everything.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

We lost the Senate when we elected Sinema and Manchin.

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

New episode of The Whitest Kids You Know?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

Politically, in our racist and sexist country, the VP probably has to be a white man. If it's not, the ticket loses a few percent of the vote.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Ralphie May? And the last one is Tom Hanks?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (6 children)

I hated Buttigieg because he went back on his progressive roots and disappointed his socialist father BUT I wish she would pick him.

My money though is on Kelly or Shapiro because they need AZ and PA.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I love Buttigieg and his VP debate versus Vance would be fun to witness, but is the US ready for a black female presidential candidate with an openly gay VP? I seem to have been wrong about how much racism and sexism would hinder Kamala so maybe it's not an issue? I still fear it would be too much

I don't like all Kelly's positions, but helping potentially win AZ would be important and for undecideds and simple minded people the astronaut factor is not to be underestimated. He seems like a very "safe" and sensible pick.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

Yes, we need to stop proactively enforcing a bigoted worldview because you think there's a secret well of untapped bigots ready to be set off by any choice that isn't straight white or male. "I'm not bigoted, but we need to acquiesce to bigoted sensibilities" leads to the same result as just being bigoted.

The people who would be so incensed by a non-straight VP already know who their candidate is, and if the reaction to Harris is to be believed, they won't be able to keep in the slobbering homophobia that will turn off people who may have had a mild prejudice but still balk at the ugly open bigotry of the Republican base.

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

Dude I thought America would never elect anyone but old white men but they elected Barack Obama. I'm pretty sure Pete's being gay is less of a problem for the right than a smart black man as the literal president.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

is the US ready for a black female presidential candidate with an openly gay VP

Only if they're Republicans.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I hated Buttigieg because he went back on his progressive roots and disappointed his socialist father

Buttigieg was always a technocratic cypher. He relied mostly on his access to elite schools, and background as a "McKenssyite" to get access to the stage. His primary credentials were being a one time mayor of a college town, and his elitist access that being a McKensie fellow afforded. When it seemed inconvenient to be a progressive, he was no longer a progressive. My central issue with him as a candidate was simply that he had not run-in and won a state or federal election. Its a soft-requirement I've had for a while is that you at least need to show me you can win elections. Him going on to spoiling the progressive tickets when and where necessary and being rewarded for that with his position as Transportation Secretary, was just insult to injury.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, him being rewarded for stopping a Bernie Sanders presidency was infuriating.

For context about his father...

Pete Buttigieg Just Dealt a Blow to His Father's Legacy

https://jacobin.com/2020/03/pete-buttigieg-joseph-father-legacy-antonio-gramsci-bernie-sanders

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

Fascinating read. It actually makes me want to buy Buittigieg's fathers book.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

I'm maybe biased towards Beshear, but I feel like it's between him and Kelly.

Kelly seems like an incredibly sensible pick for appeal to 'undecideds'.

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

My worry about Buttigieg is that his past in South Bend runs the risk of reinforcing or even lending legitimacy to the "she's a cop" narrative.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

I guess, but like Harris to Biden, the top of the ticket has a much worse story on that front (Crime Bill > AG misdeeds > poor oversight of a PD). Buttigieg's story just wasn't that important, it was only made important because when your one qualification is being mayor, you better have been the most perfect mayor there ever was. I suppose there's potentially a reinforcement effect, but if "cop" was a major concern on Harris we'd be seeing a lot more active and organized protest.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

BUT I wish she would pick him.

Not enough McKinsey consultants in the White House.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The smear campaign against Shapiro has been intense the past few days. It's impressive.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Is it really a smear campaign, or is it just people stating the facts about his positions and policies?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

As I see it, they are attacking him while simultaneously ignoring other contenders' similar stances, even when pointed out by others.

Feels like smear to me.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 months ago

NBC News Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)

Name: NBC News Bias: Left-Center
Factual Reporting: High
Country: United States of America
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/nbc-news/

Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News


Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.

Footer

Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.