this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2025
570 points (99.1% liked)

politics

24209 readers
3180 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
 

Tulsi Gabbard left no doubt when she testified to Congress about Iran’s nuclear program earlier this year.

The country was not building a nuclear weapon, the national intelligence director told lawmakers, and its supreme leader had not reauthorized the dormant program even though it had enriched uranium to higher levels.

But Donald Trump dismissed the assessment of U.S. spy agencies during an overnight flight back to Washington as he cut short his trip to the Group of Seven summit to focus on the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran.

“I don’t care what she said,” Trump told reporters. In his view, Iran was “very close” to having a nuclear bomb.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 44 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Just the person to entrust the most powerful military of the world with.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 23 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

"But what choice do we have? Entrust the military to a lady? We'll take the dementia-addled toddler instead"

[–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmynsfw.com 15 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Don't forget that under the orange paint, he's white

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 0 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (3 children)

Didn't matter. Look at the three elections that Trump ran, and his performance against the candidate with a penis vs. the ones without one.

The American electorate will vote for a Black penis-haver (particularly if he is a baller) over any vagina-haver right now. They still won't say "I'm a sexist pig" in the exit polls, though, so we get reasons like "She didn't explain her policies enough" or "She wasnt authentic enough" instead.

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

I don't flatly disagree, but I think to call Hillary or Kamala as "electable" as Obama is a hard sell. He was a better public speaker than any president in my lifetime and he played things off well. Kamala was certainly more likable than Hillary, but she didn't have as much sauce as the sauce king at least before he was usurped by the sauce god Mamdani.

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 4 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (2 children)

Why do women win Governor elections, then?

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

People can accept woman as the little boss, but not the big boss. Not yet anyway.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Because not every state is full of misogyny

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

That is not so clear-cut https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/11/01/17-states-havent-had-a-female-us-senator-and-18-havent-had-a-woman-governor/ I'd have to go see if there is any correlation between these and Kamala/Hillary's results, but I'm not expecting it to be strong.

(Oh, and of course, I didn't check if any of these elections were woman vs woman, where it would not serve as an indicator of misogyny to elect a woman)

My point is that even women can win elections in deep red states, particularly if they follow "conservative" values close enough. But then again president has the whole commander-in-chief aura...ok...

[–] sunnie@slrpnk.net 10 points 11 hours ago

Maybe I’m just being hopeful, but I don’t think the vagina thing is as big of an influence as it seems. First, we only have a sample size of two.

One of them, Clinton, was just an objectively awful person. She wasn’t popular with anyone, including women.

The second, Harris, had an abbreviated campaign caused by Biden’s unwillingness to step down. She also wasn’t built up in preparation fora campaign during her VP term. On top of that, she was very unexciting policy-wise. Basically status quo when everybody is clamoring for progress.

Contrast that with Obama, who ran on “hope and change” and got people excited for actual progress. Which he didn’t deliver, but that’s another story.

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago

Yeah? Well my pop tart fell on the floor this morning. I think I'll sit out 2028.