this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2025
340 points (87.3% liked)

politics

25300 readers
3427 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
[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

just cant bring yourself to acknowledge that any alternative has to be better.

That is not true. Slower fascism isn't appreciably better than faster fascism. The you of four or eight years in the future doesn't have any less of a right to not live under fascism than the you of right now. If by choosing the "better" alternative you throw away your ability to actually stop fascism you're missing the forest for the trees.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's disingenuous to characterise imperfect alternatives like Newsom as "slower fascism". That's a propaganda narrative.

In this case choosing the better alternative means preserving your ability to actually stop fascism.

Did you see the other headline today where your actual president mentioned avoiding elections by starting a war ?

It's this type of "Harris is imperfect therefore the same as Trump" attitude that brought you to this juncture.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's a propaganda narrative.

Well you still didn't refute it, so you should do that if you disagree with my propaganda narrative.

In this case choosing the better alternative means preserving your ability to actually stop fascism.

And where, pray tell, is that stopping? How do you intend to do it? I mean do you remember the wins the far-right got under Biden in red states? You're clutching your pearls without offering a realistic plan to ultimately stop fascism. If your favorite neoliberal can't fix American society such that the fascists don't simply come back stronger four years later, you're just kicking the can down the road and should let the people with an actual plan get to work.

Did you see the other headline today where your actual president mentioned avoiding elections by starting a war ?

Yes, and who exactly managed to fumble their campaign so bad they lost to this well-known fascist?

And this is all before we even look at Newsom's actual policies. The way that guy treats homeless people is straight up fascism, full stop. If you can't take a stand on that, why the fuck should anyone else take a stand for you?

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 day ago

Oh please. You don't even have the concepts of a plan.