this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
904 points (98.0% liked)

politics

23594 readers
3238 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
 

Ocasio-Cortez took to Instagram after the Department of Homeland Security suggested they may pursue arrests of three Democratic lawmakers who partook in a protest outside of an ICE facility in Newark, New Jersey. Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), Rob Menendez (D-NJ) and LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) all attended the protest.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lucky_777@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago (46 children)

Fun to think about, but American males are not ready for a strong female presence in their lives. They can't handle it.

I would love for AOC to show the world her fire and Americans some grace. Not going to happen with the lot in America right now sadly.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 69 points 1 week ago (20 children)

I don't know if American men are ready for it, but neither Harris nor Clinton were strong presidential candidates, and not because of their gender.

[–] Railing5132@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (15 children)

but neither Harris nor Clinton were strong presidential candidates, and not because of their gender.

That's a bunch of bs. It was sexism, pure and simple.

Clinton was an accomplished lawyer and accomplished civil servant in her own right, having spent her entire life in service. As former first lady, she had exclusive access to the inner machinations of the presidency (I'm not saying that being the spouse of an elected leader alone qualifies one for that position (see Republicans' voting for dead candidates and swapping the deceased's spouse in after the election)), but rather adds to the cumulative total. She was also the head of the state department.

And because of a successful attack at a foreign embassy in a hostile nation, that became a millstone around her neck that trumpers bashed her for, capping off an otherwise stellar career.

Against that orange buffoon, on paper, she should have mopped the floor with his toupe'

Harris was VP, senator, Attorney General. She didn't have the cv of Clinton, but she was a woman, and she had a foreign sounding name. I worked as an election inspector (not the jackoff people who challenge voter's ability to vote, but the people who conduct the election at the local jurisdiction level). The election room as a smallish town hall, and many couples came in to vote together. The amount of people who were speaking loud enough to be overheard saying things like: "never vote for a woman" or making referring to "white pride" was shockingly scarry. They wanted to be heard.

Why, yes, I live in a racist, misogynistic hellhole - how'd you guess?

Hillary also had to contend with Bernie as her opponent in the primary, a much more beloved candidate who polled better than both her and Trump, and was also handicapped by the Dems running a crooked primary by saying that they didn't have to and would never pick Bernie as the candidate, even if he won the primary. She also called herself a "Goldwater girl" during the campaign, a man who ran for President on segregation as a campaign promise. People also had a negative view of her because she's a Clinton, and there was a bit of dissatisfaction with "political dynasties" after the Bush era.

And Harris ran a campaign that tried to appeal to conservative voters with promises such as building the wall on the Mexican border and campaigning with Cheney, which caused her to immediately begin losing percentages in the polls amongst independent voters. She also has a legacy of questionable actions against minorities of color during her time in California, which I saw a number of people criticizing.

Not to say that sexism and racism didn't play a part because oh my God, even here in liberal Massachusetts I see that shit. But they also did the usual Democrat campaign strategy of not appealing to their base because they were courting a mythical moderate conservative voter that doesn't exist, and that's a losing strategy. Dems fall in love, Republicans fall in line. AOC is so popular because she speaks to the issues that people have, and she does so passionately.

Despite that, I unfortunately remain unconvinced that she could pull out a presidential victory because of the aforementioned racism and sexism that's so prevalent in this country. As someone wiser than me once said, racism is so American that when you criticize it, people think that you're criticizing America.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (43 replies)