this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
596 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19103 readers
3457 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
(page 2) 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 66 points 9 months ago (6 children)

Fucking disgusting how they talk about it. As if it's just another political stratagem that went a little awry. Fucking fuckers.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 9 months ago (8 children)

Because it was. It was a great wedge to capture religious types and people who were vaguely "in favor of not killing babies" but didn't comprehend the reality of abortion bans. Now that they actually killed roe and we're seeing the devastating impact, they can't tout it as a success. And since roe is already dead, they can't use it as a wedge to activate voters. So it goes away.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 56 points 9 months ago (5 children)

What idiot is pro choice but doesn't already know that Republicans aren't?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 9 months ago

Well duh. It's an election year. People will actually go out and vote end of the year.

Hopefully.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I really hate this "quietly deleting" / "quietly removing" trend in news headlines. Politico's don't "publicly announce" things they want to stop talking about, so it's always going to be "quietly". It's not like their teams have to go into some secret room/SCIFF to remove a paragraph of text on a web page...

[–] [email protected] 21 points 9 months ago

You can hate it if you want, I guess, but isn't that what they are doing? They know the polls are against them so they are flip flopping, to use Repub terms, but doing so in a cowardly fashion hoping no one will notice. But we've all noticed.

How would you frame these types of stories?

[–] [email protected] 30 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's emphasizing that they would prefer people not find out about it, which is different to regular deleting.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I don't think people delete things intending for them to be found out in general

Edit: I think the 'silent' part refers to them continuing the rethoric on twitter while deleting from the website

[–] [email protected] 58 points 9 months ago

Seems quiet to me, in a metaphorical sense, if they delete something from PR page which they previously considered important enough to have as a campaign position, but without articulating a new position. They are obscuring their position.

[–] [email protected] 155 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The dog caught the car & is desperately trying to escape the pull of the tire.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 95 points 9 months ago (6 children)

It is genuinely remarkable that so many of those idiots still think theological patriarchy is a viable strategy in this day and age. I think we’ll be safe (as in, demographics will make it not viable for them to remain a political party) by 2030, but the next two presidential elections are gonna be a fucking nightmare.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

We've been saying conservatives will be marginalized soon since the 90's. I really hope it happens in my lifetime. The infestation has only gotten worse.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

It is a viable strategy as long as you don't depend on actually winning elections.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 9 months ago

I think we’ll be safe (as in, demographics will make it not viable for them to remain a political party) by 2030

If it were not for gerrymandering and several other kinds of election tampering, that would have happened at least a decade ago.

As it is, they're still clawing away at democracy to such a degree (and meeting so little resistance other than empty words for the press from the only ones with the power to stop them) that they're likely to remain competitive indefinitely unless something changes dramatically.

the next two presidential elections are gonna be a fucking nightmare.

Sadly, it's much more likely that every presidential election for the rest of my life will and I'm "only" 41.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 9 months ago

still think

This is where you went wrong - they don't "think" that, as in they sat down and logically reasoned it out, they "know" that, as in they were told it from a pastor behind a pulpit, who they pay part of their salary to. If they thought it then they could be convinced by the presentation of facts to now think differently, but since their belief comes from authority, there is really no way around that kind of brainwashing. That I know of at least, in anything like a mere few years.

I honestly don't know if our democracy will survive this challenge. What country has ever survived after devolving into a mere two party system, such that neither side does anything except try to block the other one? (That's a legit question btw, if anyone knows the answer)

[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Considering it's gotten them power thus far, it seems to be working pretty well for them.

I don't disagree that it's morally repugnant... but to say it doesn't get them what they want is naive.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Oh, what I meant was that this whole “frighten all people who have a uterus such that they’ll vote against you in vastly overwhelming droves” strategy doesn’t seem like it’s gonna end well for them. I just hope it doesn’t end well for them quickly.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Most conservative women that I know aren't one bit frightened. They should be, but they are not. They still think that nothing will happen to them, and they will go on thinking that despite all evidence to the contrary.

On the other hand, what they are frightened of and angry about is the LGBTQIA+ agenda being pushed onto schools. Do NOT overestimate the level of logical thought that such people are willing to put into voting, as compared to respecting authority structures (chiefly, the ones they are told to respect at church, while conversely disrespecting the other stuff they are told to do so with, also at church).

[–] [email protected] 70 points 9 months ago

2030 is too far away and i think that's naive. we need them gone now. you don't understand how ingrained conservative thinking is in rural areas. they aren't going away. they're making new ones every day.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 9 months ago

We asked why

Hahaha.

Grabs their hand holding the anti-abortion sign, bashing then repeatedly in the face with it.

"Why are you hitting yourself? Why are you hitting yourself? Why are you hitting yourself?"

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›