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 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Fixing the idiocy is great. Trying to justify abstaining from voting, which has directly led to killing so many humans, even just USAID alone led to 700,000+ deaths, mostly children, all over one president (which alone is dumb as anything, a president isn't a king, they are just a figurehead that does stuff and takes blame) doing a policy decision based on historic engagement spanning almost a century is basically one-dimensional moronic.
Justify your mistake all you want. The hard line is protecting as many people as possible and then targeting the rot when you're able to. You don't just let the rot live and hope you can somehow fix it afterwards with hopes and prayers.
Those that thought they had power by not voting killed so many people with their concept of having power, without thinking of the bigger picture. The ripple effect is huge. Power grids, data centers, transportation, air travel, medicine, elder care, medical, insurance, vaccinations, communications, emergency preparedness, welfare in disaster zones (in the US), water, massive job layoffs, food safety, access to food, health and safety, inter-government agreements. Pick a dart and throw it, you can't even trust lettuce anymore. All because some idiots didn't care about their own lives and thought that using their vote in their country for some other far away land might make a difference even though it never would because they were hoping their decision for a leader in one country somehow would have any active effect in a corrupt nation on the other side of the planet that was always dead-set on genocide regardless of who the US puppet is. Instead, they were just unknowing pawns.
It did make a difference. It destroyed everything. Kudos. RIP critical thinking times a thousand.
My thoughts exactly. I suppose the difference is that I consider supporting genocide to be rot as well. I believe "hopes and prayers" was the strategy proposed for convincing the Democrats to change their position after demonstrating to them that they could win without doing so and therefore had every incentive to keep doing what they did to win.
I didn't kill anyone. Trump, and Trump voters did. It's truly bizarre how intent y'all are about not assigning responsibility to the people who are actually responsible for the harm.
I understand it's appealing to switch the relationship of who's in charge between the US and Israel for the sake of preserving a fantasy of the US being "the good guys," but it is nothing more than a fantasy. The US holds every card, it is a larger, wealthier, far more influential nation, it is the most powerful nation on earth, it has military spending higher than the next nine countries combined, and when there was a similar situation before, Ronald Reagan whipped Israel in line with a single phone call.
Israel is the US's forward base in the Middle East, it's unsinkable aircraft carrier, and its actions are in accordance to the US's wishes, because they would not be remotely possible without US aid. The tail is not wagging the dog. Israel is a proxy of the US and not the other way around.
What was there worth preserving? A police state conducting pointless war and genocide? Now we still have that, just as we did before, just as we would have no matter who won the election. If only it had destroyed everything!
Again, I'll repeat what I just said. You think I'm not engaging in critical thinking only because you're not aware of the factors I'm looking at, but, if you're not going to agree with me, then I would prefer you see my as "unreasonable," because it puts me in a stronger negotiating position with your side.
Liberals view government in terms of disinterested parties coming together to try to work out the most rational policy together. This is completely delusional and always has been. Politics is inherently about self-interested parties fighting for themselves and their own material interests, and those of their allies.
Harris and her ilk spat on our faction and made it completely clear that she had zero interest in giving us anything we wanted. They wouldn't even allow the purely symbolic move of allowing a Palestinian speaker at the convention. On virtually every issue, it was the same. "Fuck you, vote for me." This is not how politics works, at all, and to allow such an approach to win would be to demonstrate to everyone that the left is completely powerless and that there is no reason to ever give us anything.
It's not my fault that the DNC decided to force a candidate down our throats who acted completely unreasonably and absolutely refused to negotiate. After that, my hand was forced. Even if I wanted to compromise, they're not even at the table.
It's also worth remembering that the Democrats have literally funded far-right candidates because they know that people will fall in line behind "lesser-evil" candidates that way without having to offer anything we actually want. There is no chance of ever getting out of this mess so long as we allow them to manufacture problems like that and flinch into supporting them anyway. Fighting this war requires thicker skin.
I swear, y'all are like, "Because of that damn Churchill fighting back, now I have to deal with my city getting bombed. This is all his fault! Why don't we just let the Nazis kill all the Jews and take over Poland so we can all go back to brunch? We can't control what Germany does anyway." Only worse, because in that example the UK wasn't actively arming and supporting Germany like the US is doing with Israel.