this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2025
552 points (98.8% liked)

politics

25359 readers
2356 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
 

Politico reports that at a Hamptons fundraiser last Saturday, Cuomo told his well-heeled supporters that, contrary to all available evidence, he could win the New York mayoral race as an independent—because he was likely to have the implicit support of President Donald Trump.

The imperative of defeating Mamdani justified the new coalition Cuomo is trying to create of his die-hard loyalists (who are Democrats) with Trump Republicans.

Some of that latter group might be tempted to back Curtis Sliwa, the actual GOP nominee in the race. Cuomo told these donors, “We can minimize [the Sliwa] vote, because he’ll never be a serious candidate. And Trump himself, as well as top Republicans, will say the goal is to stop Mamdani. And you’ll be wasting your vote on Sliwa.” Cuomo went on to emphasize that he’d be a mayor who could find common ground with Trump:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (5 children)

No wonder you Americans are fucked, you demand that democrats step up and hit back at trump and the moment one does, you guys shit on him and tear him down. Enjoy more trump i guess, since you clearly think he’s better than Newson

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 7 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

You should really research Newsom some more. One example is that he hangs out with, and a gives a platform to, Charlie Kirk on his podcast but there are far worse things, too.

Newsom is not the guy.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Why research when you can just vote blue no matter who, as they platform fascists and treat the poor like dirt?

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

The critical failure of "vote blue no matter who" is that many of those who run under the blue banner are actually just opportunistic Republicans who happen to live in blue states or districts. They're Republicans who can't get elected running as their true selves, so they lie and pretend to be Democrats. And then you do vote for them, because "blue no matter who." And then they corrupt the party from the inside, and deliberately make it harder for Democrats to win in the future. Remember, these people aren't actually Democrats. They don't want the Democratic Party or Democratic values or goals to succeed. They're just a bunch of cynical Republicans pulling one over on the Democratic base.

The problem with "blue no matter who" is that it has no way to address outright fraudsters. You're electing 'Democrats' who literally want the Democratic party to fail.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago

Always glad to see Eugene Debbs still haunting the fascists and its enablers.

[–] gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You're missing the point I think. People want better politicians, Democrats are better than Republicans meaningfully but not so meaningfully that they could fix the issues we're seeing in society. People like Cuomo and Newson are just power hungry people, who may be better than Trump but the people won't be satisfied with replacing their turd sandwich with ultra processed fast food, they want a healthy nutritious meal. Newson is fast food, it's a meaningful step up from turd sandwich but it won't fix the American diet.

It's Germany being upset at the traffic light coalition and then electing Merz. They went from one back stabbing party to unhealthy and destructive fast food. This will only upset people enough to eventually elect their version of a turd sandwich - the AFD.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You're missing the point. If we don't back the imperfection in this FPTP system and then pass meaningful reforms the which we haven't had enough senators to do in over 10 years, we're going to end up in a racist theocratic dictatorship which will make even something as horrible as China or Russia blush. The world will devolve into war which will leave hundreds of millions in perpetual suffering. The rich elite are the only people benefiting from this downfall.

People want something better than Democrats? Then we're all going to fucking die.

[–] octopus_ink@slrpnk.net 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

You’re missing the point. If we don’t back the imperfection in this FPTP system and then pass meaningful reforms the which we haven’t had enough senators to do in over 10 years, we’re going to end up in a racist theocratic dictatorship which will make even something as horrible as China or Russia blush.

Well, we can pre-blame the voters for not liking what Democrats continue to sell, just like we blame the left for Kamala's decision to court Republican voters instead of Democrat voters, or we could recognize that I guess Newsom's got a very generous four years ahead to make himself an attractive choice on the basis of being something more than just not Trump and yet more warnings about the end of the world as we know it. (Which, by the way, I completely agree is happening-edit:the end of the world, not Newsom making himself attractive in more ways than that)

Maybe modified maga AI memes will be all it takes for enough people. I'm not that enthused by just aping what maga does, but it seems like a lot of people are. The gerrymandering thing is good, but it's also a slam dunk because he's fucking with Abbot and Trump, so let's see if he abandons less safe positions or shows he'll fight for any of them.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

I do blame people who chose not to vote for Kamala. I really do. Blood on their hands.

This should have been the easiest fucking choice and they blew it.

[–] octopus_ink@slrpnk.net 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

This should have been the easiest fucking choice and they blew it.

Totally agreed. But do I blame them? No, I fucking get it. They need to own that they contributed in some way to what's going on, but that doesn't mean I don't get it.

So do you want to blame them again next time, or would you rather kick D in the ass so they stop running the 2016 and earlier playbook?

I'm not voting for R-lite again, and for whatever small degree of difference there is between the two, I'm not voting 2016-era-D again either.

It's their job to show me they support my values, not my job to convince myself they do, then hope I'm right. I've been voting that way for decades and I'm done with it.

Conservatives and centrists already elected modern Hitler. There's no bigger bogeyman to hang in front of us next time. It's time for D to be actual opposition. Time to stop ignoring progressives except to blame them for their own failure to evolve. Time to admit they've got a lot of people still in power who haven't been able to relate to most of the electorate for thirty years, and many of them are in those positions because of nothing but internal power brokerage and politicking. Otherwise D better hope there's enough non-crazy R and conservative D left to keep them in power on their own, if they still plan on winning elections fair and square. The pool of people who are about done with the old ways and the oligarchs isn't shrinking, it's getting bigger.

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

I blame them. Blood on their hands. I don't pretend to understand any reasoning behind it besides pure ignorance.

[–] octopus_ink@slrpnk.net 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Choosing blame over change is a time honored establishment-Democrat tradition so I get it. You do you man, some people find that more comforting anyhow.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Identifying the problems is how we come up with solutions. I can't control who the winning candidate campaigns alongside, but I can convince people that the enemies of the DNC are all of our enemies. Being confronted isn't likely to change the person on the receiving end but it certainly makes onlookers think about their own stance.

We need to reform the electoral process and there is only one way to do that: remove as many GOP from office as possible. Volunteer for the DNC. If your candidate loses the primary? Doesn't matter, Republicans are worse.

[–] octopus_ink@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

It's their job to show me they support my values, not my job to convince myself they do, then hope I'm right.

 

Identifying the problems is how we come up with solutions.

You are trying to treat the symptom, not the problem.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

If the candidate who supports 90% of your values doesn't support your values in your eyes thatd your problem. If people would rather let somebody who supports the opposite of their values in than the 90%, that's our problem.

They're raised on a steady diet of propaganda that says that they're the Greatest Country in the World, with a perfect democracy created by visionary prophets who understood the whole of human history back in the late 18th century. Therefore, whenever they're forced to confront the fact that that isn't the case, they rationalize things by assuming that the present state of affairs is just an anomaly and that the perfect candidate is just around the corner who'll win universal support and usher in a new golden age.

They're incapable of understanding the idea that, when things are fucked, you're going to have to go through a long path consisting of several stages of not-quite-as-fucked before things become good.

[–] eskimofry@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

you're fucked too to suggest people should vote non-republican, and then bitch when people vote for a true progressive.

[–] But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world -1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I think you’re confused and lost

[–] eskimofry@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

you're the one who is confused and lost here. I don't have a skin in the game. It's quite clear to me what liberals are doing and it's neither honest or decent.

Loyalty to the "lesser of two-evils" is worthless if one of the evils defers to the other.

You’re hysterical

[–] MourningDove@lemmy.zip 2 points 22 hours ago

Thank you! These people are about as entitled as it gets. And with no good reason! Their campaign to protest against good because it’s not perfect got us where we are. And I’m blown away by the fact that they just don’t fucking get it.

Thank you for pointing this out. This should be shouted from the mountaintops.