this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2025
556 points (98.6% liked)

politics

25773 readers
4214 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
 

Archive article: https://archive.is/ThCGt

The documentary in the article: https://youtu.be/RP8Oxe6OxJc

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

I made a similar claim recently. I guess we could go back as the beginning of time, imperialism, the framing of the constitution, manifest destiny, reconstruction, Nixon, Regan, etc. But Gore just felt so recent. So close. Like such an inflection point. Think of what the Supreme Court could look like. It really is just these small changes that turn the tides of history. I know tensions were high, but I think of Franz Ferdinand and how maybe things would've played out just the same if he was not assassinated, but there's this huge unexplored possibility space where things were different. Makes me sad to think people make these decisions and will never see or understand the true consequences of them. I wonder if they saw the destruction of WW1, the holocaust, WW2, the nuclear bombs, the destruction in Gaza and war in Ukraine, if they would maybe make some different choices. I know the 2000 Supreme Court wouldn't, but it's nice to think maybe someone would.