this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
637 points (94.4% liked)

politics

21775 readers
3853 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
 

Summary

Former vice presidential nominee Tim Walz criticized Trump for economic chaos while taking personal responsibility for the situation during an MSNBC interview.

"We wouldn't be in this mess if we'd have won the election — and we didn't," Walz told Chris Hayes. He called Trump the "worst possible business executive" and praised the Wall Street Journal's editorial criticizing Trump's tariff war.

Walz emphasized Democrats must offer something better, not just criticize Trump. Recently, he acknowledged a leadership void in the Democratic Party and admitted spending too much time combatting Trump's false claims about immigrants.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

I'm not American. but it always seems to me like the Democrats immediately tie themselves in knots trying to meet the Republicans halfway, when everyone knows they have no intention of budging an inch.

It's like if two people share a meal, one person goes "Should we split this bill 50/50" and the other one just says "No fuck you, you pay 100%." Then the first person, instead of telling them to fuck off, says "Okay I'll pay 75%, how's that?" and the other one just refuses until they eventually pay about 5%, then complain about it for the next year and tell they first person that they still owe them for the 5% they paid.

Then the first person invites them for dinner again.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago

It's been clear for a while both some of the Dems, especially the Dinos are getting money from the same donors as the GOP

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

As an American, you are 100% correct. That's exactly what's been done for decades now.

[–] Kalon@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Because very few of them actually represent their working class constituents.

[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

The flaw in your analogy is neither one is paying.

They're arguing about how much we should pay, even though we only ordered a plain salad and water, and they both had surf and turf and champagne.

The Democrat starts off by saying it should be 1/3 each, but the Republican argues until the Democrat gives in.

The Democrat tells us we have to pay the bill, but they'll cover the tip if we let them pick the restaurant next time, and we agree.

Then they don't leave any tip.