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
“During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”
― Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism
Ah, I get it.
There's two types of genocides: ones that you don't support and ones that you don't care about.
Claims of a genocide requires proof. That's duly lacking in this case (unless you want to believe blatant propaganda which it seems you are full-throated in endorsing). I'll wait for any clear evidence that is not directly related to ideological propaganda.
Persecution of Uyghurs in China
always check the sources
[1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YbhU1v_48OxAHokzpWA_aZi8I3hIVcJK/view
This is a report by Rushan Abbas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rushan_Abbas
[2] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang
[3] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2020.1848109
[4] Paywalled
[5] https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1834&context=gsp
and 9 other mentions of Zenz
[6] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/nz0g306v8c/china-tainted-cotton
and 3 other mentions of Zenz
[7] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10281.pdf
page not found
[8] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-xinjiang-rights/muslim-minority-in-chinas-xinjiang-face-political-indoctrination-human-rights-watch-idUSKCN1LQ01F/
No direct link to any sources, but seems to be talking about this one from HRW:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/09/10/china-free-xinjiang-political-education-detainees
That report cites RadioFreeAsia (US funded propaganda) and Adrian Zenz reporting.
https://jamestown.org/xinjiangs-rapidly-evolving-security-state/
[9] https://apnews.com/article/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764C
and 6 other mentions of Zenz
[10] https://www.voanews.com/a/east-asia-pacific_china-forces-birth-control-uighurs-suppress-population/6191919.html
Literally US propaganda outlet Voice of America.
I think that's enough for now to get my point across.
That’s you don’t give a shit about genocides if you like the state doing it?
Yeah you proved that a long time ago.
Your rhetorical ability is a hate crime.
I’m just a guy who is against all genocides not just the ones that further my narrative.
Not one gram of logical understanding. All those sources are clearly ideological, but you seem to prefer that over any actual proof.
I think I’m missing the part where you showed any proof that China is not committing a genocide on Uyghurs or Russia is not genociding Ukraine.
You are the only one mentioning Russia on a thread about Democratic incumbents losing due to zionism. Your rhetorical ability is like agent orange to any rational thought.
You say you hate genocide but you deny two of them are even happening.
[citations needed]