this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
705 points (98.6% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4665 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The GOP is scrambling to find a line of attack against Kamala Harris's VP pick — and it's not going well

Tim Walz has made his debut as Kamala Harris’ running mate, and Republicans are struggling to apply their standard villainization playbook to the Minnesota governor. 

Walz has been making waves for weeks now as a good-natured, relatable politician with a particular aptitude for dressing down the Republican agenda in terms that any voter can understand — and the GOP hates it

Republicans are scrambling to paint the governor-turned-VP candidate as a devilish Marxist hellbent on running the country into the ground — their usual stuff — while leveling a bunch of other really weird attacks. Here are some of their most pathetic attempts to turn voters against Walz.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] solsangraal 258 points 1 month ago (40 children)

LOL if "he gives away tampons" is the only thing you can find to criticize about your opponent, then you're in pretty deep fucking shit

[–] [email protected] 168 points 1 month ago (13 children)

Bet they wanted a Shapiro VP pick so bad. It would've been antisemitic space laser conspiracy theory bullshit 24/7 until the vote. Now all they've got is "how dare this man ensure school children have full bellies and necessary sanitary supplies every day."

[–] solsangraal 98 points 1 month ago (3 children)

as it turns out, the strategy of "lets force everyone to have more babies, and then when kids go hungry, blame the parents specifically for having too many babies" isn't panning out the way they hoped

[–] [email protected] 77 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I've always felt that "have more babies but also fuck you for ever having sex" was a bit of wildly contradictory policy stance.

[–] [email protected] 67 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No, I actually get it. You ever seen a toddler jump in a puddle and then get upset that their legs got wet and dirty? It's like that

Fucking toddler logic.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago

That's giving them far too little credit for their cruelty.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (36 replies)