this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
730 points (90.4% liked)

politics

19089 readers
4069 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] blazera@lemmy.world -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Most states didnt have the challengers on the ballots

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Most states had at least some of the challengers on the ballot. The ones who qualified in time.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Its pretty fuckin hard to be expected to be able to win a nationwide election when youre not listed as an option nationwide. That shit aint democracy. And just about every state missing challengers on the ballots do not accept write ins

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Its pretty fuckin hard to be expected to be able to win a nationwide election when youre not listed as an option nationwide.

No fucking shit dude. It's because these candidates are not popular enough or organized enough to qualify nationally. They're a joke. No one wants them except right wing plants and their useful idiots.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Who would you consider to be qualified to be an option in a democrat primary? Just an option, just a possibility people can decide on themselves.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Anyone who can demonstrate appropriate fundraising ability and can get the appropriate signatures and paperwork filed in time for the primary.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Good thing money is free and not held in majority by a small group of people already politically co-ordinated to only allow two options to you for the sake of pretending the US isn't a one party state.

Also if it was all about fundraising, Bernie would have been president, but it isnt about fundraising, its about who's funding you.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

It's not all about fundraising, it's also about how many people actually support you. And that number, for anyone not named Biden or Trump, is "not enough".