politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:

- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Can we FUCKING FINISH THIS ELECTION FIRST BEFORE WE TALK ABOUT 2028?
Precisely. I hate to say it, but I agree with Trump here (about it being too early, not about JD being terrific)
Oh man, no, 2026 is already in the bag for Democrats, we got the House and Senate - no need to even vote anymore, just take it easy and enjoy the 2028 race!
/s
talking about the next election (2028) is the fastest track to acknowleding the lame-ducked-ness of the current occupant. I say speculate away.
No. We should not be talking about elections 2 YEARS IN ADVANCE! it's not fucking normal! I do not want every day of every year to be occupied by electoralism.
In American electoral politics, it is ‘fucking normal’ to be talking about the next presidential election cycle following the midterms, and the midterms are in like 2 weeks. It’s ‘fucking normal’ to start marginalizing the current administration because they can’t run for re-election again and to start focusing on new people, and despite your hysterics, I think we could actually agree that paying less attention to Donald Trump would be a great thing for literally everybody, so calm your fucking tits.
One problem. The midterms haven't even finished. This is preceding the midterms.
That's fine. But we don't need to start talking about elections! It leads to thinks like good ol' Mitch saying we can't let Congress vote on a SCOTUS position because we're a year away from an election.
Your patronizing tone is not welcome. I don't fucking care what the status quo is, I'm sick and fucking tired of the status quo.
It’s also normal for them to put christmas decorations out in some stores before thanksgiving and you’ll still get people whining that it’s too soon or whatever. This is all just a weird complaint, because it happens every election cycle, and, we’d ideally like to move on. The zombie corpse of Mitch McConnell can read a calendar and the political reality as much as anyone. They’ll use whatever tricks they have to fuck over as many people as they can as long as they can. But we need to start talking about whatever the post-Trump era will look like, nobody wants to stay mired in this.
In case you forgot, that wasn't a hypothetical. It actually occurred during Obama's admin. Enough people thought "yea that sounds right" to the point that there wasn't even a procedural change in SCOTUS selection.
Christmas decorations being up early is one thing. Talking about electoral politics is an entirely different thing, that actually has consequences. People tune out of politics all together because we talk about elections years before they actually happen.
Both parties absolutely love that we spend all our time with politics discussing elections, because all they do day in and day out is fundraise for their parties. Assuming that they never eat or sleep, politicians in both parties have less than 30 seconds to review bills before they vote on them, because of all the fundraising they do. The constant electoralism means that they never have to change.
And then one of those ghouls, Barrett? was sworn in like 2 weeks before an election when it suited their needs.
Yes, I know. Mitch did that one too, and has to do with Mitch weaponizing the fact that people tune out of politics because of constant electoralism. It's not just Mitch, it's not just Republicans, it's the underlying system. Part of that underlying system is constant electoralism.
your thesis is that people weren’t tuned into the election 2 weeks before the election?
My thesis is that electoralism is so constant that enough people agreed with him in 2016 to the point where no changes were made to SCOTUS selection, setting himself up to just do what he wanted. The Democratic party was pissed at both situations, but they saw fundraising opportunities instead of actually fucking doing something.
I read that situation as the republicans had the democrats in complete checkmate and just did what they wanted to do. They made up arguments on the fly to suit their needs, and I think they will continue to do that in the future. The US is a system in which there will be constant elections, so try not to get too twisted about that?
I will rage against the dying of the light. I will not go gentle into that good night.
Ok but if the democrats had shoved Ginsburg out of her seat and rammed through a supreme court justice at whatever price (even via -gasp- hypocrisy), then the world would be a lot different now. So I kinda wish the rage went into electing effective motherfuckers.
My rage towards our socioeconomic capitalist system is being used to organize against the system, and I do vote for people I think will be effective.
I 100% agree that Ginsberg should have been pushed out, and I think Obama could have said that Congress elected not to perform their constitutional duty of providing advice and consent therefore he will be appointing the seat without them, rather than tweeting about it.
Edit: just noticed that the goalposts have moved from being about putting limits on election talk to implying that I don't vote.
Heh, Costco has them out as of a few weeks ago (at least) and it's not even freaking Halloween yet.