this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
839 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19309 readers
2238 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
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

Many of the things he said are things that Democrats want to do - they didn’t take away the child tax credit (in fact Biden expanded it), they do want to make life more accommodating to parents, they want protections against women having setbacks in their careers because of pregnancy. I don’t get what his issue is.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

Of course he does. He needs loopholes for his fantasies.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The Republicans are getting cannibalized by their own voterbase. They've pushed their voters too far to the right, and now it's coming back to bite them in the ass. Whatever plausibly "moderate" views red politicians have now are going to be gone in a few years, if the Democrats winning the upcoming elections doesn't save them lol

[–] [email protected] 35 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

He created that monster. It’s his own fault if they eat him alive- because I guarantee you, they’re going to get far worse and they’ll turn on him in a fucking second if he even so much as glances to the left.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago

Glances to the slightly less far right you mean?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 117 points 5 months ago (3 children)

The crowd: "We love rape and incest"

[–] [email protected] 53 points 5 months ago (1 children)

How else do you expect them to procreate???!?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 75 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

This is what happens when you pander to extremists, donnie. You now have the choice of pissing off the nutjobs by trying to appeal to the moderates, or you can double down on the nutjobs. You lose either way.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Oh wow, who knew that the MAGA crowd was full of a bunch of misogynist incestuous rapists!?...oh right, everybody...everybody knew that.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 months ago (5 children)

Just a reminder that the only sensible way to determine if a pregnancy was caused by rape is to ask the woman.

If you're pro-rape-exception, you're pro choice.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I’m pro-choice, but I think this is a bit silly. For example you could say that having car insurance cover accidents but not intentional damage is the same as covering intentional damage because the only sensible way to determine it is to ask the driver.

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

Are you suggesting there is some kind of physical way to determine whether or not intercourse was consensual?

Allow me to introduce to you Consensual Non-Consent.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

No, I’m saying that if a woman gets pregnant from consensual sexual intercourse with someone and claims that it was rape, it puts her and her partner at risk. This isn’t that difficult.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Is it as hard to prove someone intentionally damaged there car as it is to prove someone wasn't raped? If so, then yes, insurance companies are covering for intentional damage.

A better fit for your example if is the rules change so that insurance companies only paid out if the other driver intentionally rammed into you. If it was an accident all around they don't pay out. How would you enforce such a rule? You couldn't.

How do you prove sex is consensual when you can't even demonstrate which sex act caused the pregnancy?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Requiring a police report of rape would get you over halfway there. And I hate having this conversation because I completely disagree with the idea, but acting like it’s impossible to implement doesn’t help anyone. We should argue against it because it’s a bad idea, not because the enforcement would be tricky.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

The filing a report becomes paper work to get an abortion.

Edit: Also, I don't know if requiring a police report counts as sensible. There are legitimate reasons a woman my not want to file a police report: they don't want to make trouble with the rapist (boss, parent etc), they were raped by a cop.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

You think they wouldn’t waste a bunch of time looking into it, when it gives them an opportunity to oppress the bodily autonomy of women? C’mon. This is the police we’re talking about.

Unless they think it’s real, then they won’t bother.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 46 points 5 months ago (6 children)

i don't understand why people are still anti-abortion in general, but even for those who are completely against it, why not allow it in extreme cases like medical reasons, rape, and incest? surely your god wouldn't want a young girl raped by her father to give birth to her own child-sibling who's definitely going to be all kinds of genetically and mentally fucked up?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago (10 children)

Because they believe that a fetus is a human being, and that killing a human is murder. I find it sad that so many people cannot understand that many Christians really believe that.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It's crazy how many of those same Christians are okay with killing a human if it's a stand-your-ground home break in, or if it's a thief, or if it's a black guy with a counterfeit dollar bill, or if it's the death penalty.

It's sad how people fall for their stupid double-speak but here we are.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 39 points 5 months ago

Because they believe that women should be subordinate to men, and that their sexuality should be tightly controlled. For the same reason, they want to make it harder to get divorced.

It has never been about religion, that’s just a smokescreen. it’s just control over women.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

Mental illness.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Honest answer? Yeah, many of them would. Because God doesn't make mistakes and it must therefore be God's plan.

Why is rape part of God's plan but abortion isn't? No clue, beats me.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's all part of God's plan? It's either all or not all, so which is it?

Expecting critical thinking supported faith is a waste of time ;-)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Nah, only things I want and like is gods plan, the rest is of course the devils plan!

It's so simple, right?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 5 months ago

The Lord works in mysterious ways. Or some other bullshit they tell themselves to justify the horrors of the world. The Lord is almighty. No, fuck you, the "lord" does not exist, you imbecile.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 66 points 5 months ago (5 children)

He's probably paid for an abortion in a case of rape and incest.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

More likely he promised to pay for an abortion and then didn't.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 months ago

We have court records alleging almost as much. It was a kid on Epstein's Island.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

One abortion for both cases or separate incidents?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

That is one cursed, which is not to say inaccurate, conjunction.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago

With campaign money.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

We already knew the magats were evil did we not?

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›