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.
- 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.
- 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
This isn't so much a mystery, but more of a reaping of what was sown.
Right Wing media sources such as Breitbart and Fox News, have been nurturing many lines of thought, mostly in order to fire up the conservative base, versus providing useful information.
When you want your base to be an angry mob, and spend considerable resources to keep them angry, ill informed, but likely to vote, this is what you get.
This is a well trained response.
I mean, isn't that the media as a whole? The whole media is about outrage, it's not about reporting news.
I'm pretty conservative, so is my pa, and we used to watch CNN's news coverage back in the early 00's. Now, try watching CNN, MSNBC and FOX, it's all 'political commentary.' There's no news, there's outrage.
We've dimished knowledge into 140 characters with a screenshot attached. No context, no actual reporting or knowledge of the whole situation. Just some quick 1 liners to rile up their base. The republicans have chosen their demi-god because they've been losing, but I can't say that if the dems were losing that they wouldn't do the same thing.
Why do you believe that?
"Both Sides are the Same" rhetoric is a tactic that accomplishes quite a bit. It stops loyal party members from independently evaluating the other platform. It's an excellent way to get people to not vote. It's a way to excuse unacceptable behavior within one's own party.
I am immediately suspicious of any Both sides are the same messaging. If it is believed, all sorts of critical thinking gets pushed off to the side.
The both sides message is particularly insidious because it takes a real criticism and then equates it with something that is potentially much worse. It does nothing but limit options, and breeds nihilistic cynicism and nothing more. The worst part about it is that it is based on an absolute lie: the idea of both sides being the same doesn't make any fucking sense, because in this world nothing is the same. If it was the same, it wouldn't need to have a distinction. It's an argument against progress, and therefore a wholly conservative viewpoint in that it states that rather than choosing the best of the two options to not bother at all. To stay the same, or even revert.
It's totally dystopian and reminds me of Russian propaganda, which is designed to erode faith in everything, so that the people in power can make the decisions while the people feel helpless.
Because I don't believe those who vote republican are inherently more evil or stupid than those who vote democrat.
Because I saw the movement Obama made, and although he is much much much better than Trump, he was borderline Demi-god status to the left. Because throughout history, there are evil far left leaders that misled people and far right people that misled people.
Do you think the left in the U.S. are immune to tactics that have worked throughout human history in countries throughout south america, europe, asia and africa?
Or it tells people that party loyalty is trash, that both parties are capable of good and evil and have good and bad candidates, regardless of the letter by their name.
Saying 'My political side is different, it is objectively better than the other' is the problem. The beneficiaries of the division are, as you probably know, the rich. Show me a democrat that doesn't take rich folks money to help their campaign.
Do you think only the right is capable of electing and following bad political candidates?
As I stated above, the 'my side is objectively better' rhetoric does that. Thinking that both sides are capable of good things and bad makes you think about and consider which policies each are pushing that's good and the ones that are bad. Staying dug into your side is what keeps you in an echo chamber.
I'm not American, so I have no emotional attachment to either of your parties. I just see what I see.
There is exactly one party in the US that gerrymanders. There is one party that pushes heavily on voter suppression of non white voters. There is exactly one party that shreds child labor laws. There is exactly one party that strives to strip basic human rights from marginalized groups. One party that seems to attract Nazis.
None of the above is being hyperbolic. All of it is synonymous with one party. This isn't a comprehensive list.
Now here's the crux of it: I haven't named the party. If you and I were talking about some other country, where neither of us had any personal stake, the description I laid out should evoke a sense of "how cartoonishly evil and undemocratic can they possibly be?".
Why would you ever feel obligated to defend or make excuses for the unconscionable? Are those your personal values, or is that the sort of stuff that you're supposed just go along with?
You're showing how little you know about politics in the US then. Both do, and both constantly debate about which gerrymandered maps they should use.
The republican party pushed for personhood of black people for 200 years. Democrats fought against ending slavery.
My friend lived with his brother and single mother, he was 14 and needed to work to make sure the bills for himself, his mother and brother could be paid. This isn't the case of every single fight against child labor laws, but it's not as objective as you'd think. Are you going to tell my friend that it should be illegal for him to work to help his family out?
What rights are you talking about?
And one side that attracts communists. Nazi's tend to be traditional authoritarians, of course they're gonna be on the right. Communism has killed 100x as many people as Nazism. You singling out one authoritarian group just shows your bias.
I'll let you read my responses then you can see how these are exactly hyperbolic and your bias is so prevalent you believe that your values are objective.
What is the current Republican attitude towards minorities?
Abraham Lincoln (R), whupped the Confederacy so badly that it ceased to exist. That's a very good thing.
The United States of America whupped Nazi ass so badly that Hitler had to shoot himself in the head. That was a very good thing.
Why does the current Republican party love the Confederacy, and feel very comfortable with a Nazi infestation?
That we shouldn't care about race that much, we should be color blind and not prefer any race to another, but rather the content of their character. The current democratic attitude towards minorities is that there's a hierarchy of good and bad races. Unfortunately, I'm part of the bad minorities so I get penalties in basic things, like job interviews, and college applications.
To some, confederacy now is more about a state having the right to enact policies as it sees fit, as opposed to having a huge bloated federal government. I'm pretty much as north as you can get, I'm not waving a confederate flag, but if someone asks if states should have rights to enact policies their voters want, I'm gonna say yes.
I can't speak for all republicans, nor most, but every single individual I know that has voted for a republican does not like Nazi's. We aren't comfortable sharing any sort of label with racists. Do you have any satistics on how republicans 'feel comfortable' with Nazi's?
I think that you're in a bind, because you know what you stand for, and your party is currently infested with MAGA style personalities, who are under the influence of the Russians. I don't think that you like that very much, as you've pointed out your disdain for Trump.
I don't have any particular fondness for Joseph McCarthy, but if he was alive today, he'd go absolutely apeshit over how badly compromised the GOP has become. He would make heads roll, and probably remove a lot of prominent figures that you're probably embarrassed to have representing your party.
"The Jews will not replace us! The Jews will not replace us!" I bet you a cup of coffee that at least one of the tiki torch has a predelection for nazism. You know what the republican president's comments were.
I did a Google search of "Jan 6 nazi", which was enlightening. I'd suggest taking a look, and then reflecting on Republican rhetoric about that day.
Stephen Miller had an appointed position.
You described what you thought of the Republican party, I responded to every single one of your accusations, and after that you haven't been able to back up your list of the evils republicans commit.
If you'd like to respectfully continue the discussion, I don't see why you wouldn't try to back up what you stated.
I think that you're missing the broader point, which is that the GOP has a severe optics problem, and are doubling down on everything that makes them look bad. At this instant in time, the Democrats are benefitting tremendously from the Contrast effect.
What's problematic about our discussion, is that I'm not overly invested in this conversation, and nothing that constitutes a "win" for you addresses the above. Deep down where it counts, I am completely convinced that you will remain a proud conservative, and that I will never move you an eyelash width off of your exact position. That remains true regardless of the quality of my response so take that for what you will.
If I was in charge of repairing the GOP brand, I would do two things, in rapid succession. It wouldn't fix things instantly, but it would put every voting demographic back into play within one or two voting cycles, tops. First, throw Trump under the bus, and blame him for everything possible that can be thrown at him. Like physics defying pivot. Second, table a bill to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine which was repealed in 1987. Trump takes the fall, the Republicans propose legislation that forces bipartisanship, and the loudest polarizing voices get cut off at the nuts, and the stuff that you wish would just go away from the party would just melt. Back to the table, actual debate, meaningful legislation, and a chance for the young, real grassroots candidates rise and shine. I'm not sure if either party would have the guts to pull off the Fairness Doctrine thing, but it would have to be the Republicans to propose it to force the win.
I was appreciative of the earnest discourse until the southern strategy was ignored and you showed your own bias.
Also, even though it does happen on both sides, gerrymandering by the right is more prolific and undermines the balance of power.
The Senate already has disproportionate representation against the will of the populace because of rural states like the Dakotas, etc. (and, furthermore, it controls judiciary appointments).
Then gerrymandering creates an unearned advantage in the house, and thus the electoral College, which puts all three branches in favor of conservatives.
This is what people mean when they criticize the "both sides" argument. Yes, both side are capable of the same evil, but our system does not reflect that potential equally.
Ahhh yes, please tell me more about how everything in history democrats have done were actually just republicans, because the parties switched or something.
So you lied your last comment?
Was it you that mentioned you aren't american? That makes sense why you would misunderstand it, the purpose of the senate is to have equal representation across ALL states. That was the agreement to create the union between the states. Senate is a fixed 2 seats, congress is based on population. Your misunderstanding of the three branches of government only shows your ignorance, it doesn't show a fault of the system
How? It's a level playing field, just because you don't understand senate vs the house doesn't mean it's unfair. You should read up about the system of government.
Meaning that you just dislike one side and you think that they're evil? I'm sorry half the country thinks differently than you, but once again, that's not an inherent flaw of the system, it's actually a sign of a working system. That almost every election, we have close voting in congress and the presidency. It would be concerning if every election republicans got the trinity in the government or liberals did.
Can't tell if you're intentionally misunderstanding history or just never understood it.
I only made one comment, but it makes sense that you can't follow along with a timeline.
I know the purpose of the Senate. But It's purpose doesn't change the fact that there are representatives there whose constituency consists of more cows than people, by design. And they vote on the judiciary for the whole country including the Supreme Court.
Gerrymandering is a problem because it removes a level playing field. When combined with the other issues we've been discussing, and the modern times we live in, it becomes a much bigger problem.
I'm sorry you're so ignorant about your own government, obviously it's working perfectly for you.
It's less than half the country that "thinks differently", that's the point.
You clearly don't.
Yeah, almost like every single state gets....2 senators...ya know, what all the states agreed to when the country was formed.
Yeah, almost like the agreement the states made to create the country was designed like this. If you want to change the rules, theres constitutional amendments.
Agreed, you haven't offered a solution.
It's funny that I explained everything very plainly to you, and you tell me I'm wrong, but can't tell me 1 thing in my comment that was wrong
And our country was designed to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority, that's the point.
You are not a serious person. The minority is running the country.
The minority is preventing majority tyranny. States can pass what laws they want, why can't you be fine with california doing what they want in their state, why do you need people in wyoming to abide by what california wants? That's the tyranny of the majority that our founding fathers recognized that you're too ignorant to realize.
Both parties are capable of the same things by definition, but there's no universal law that keeps them both the same amount of good or bad. If one party continues to push policies that are bad (for whatever criteria of "bad" you're using), it stacks up and affects their overall average position on things. This process is reversible but it won't stop itself by default.
Exactly. I'm, in general, against blanket statements saying that one group of people is inherently worth less, is more stupid or malleable that another group of people. Germany fell into fascism, does that mean the German people are inherently worse people and that's why they followed the evil leader they did? No. The fact that England fought against these fascists, does that mean England is inherently better, good and would never follow an evil leader? No, they committed absurd atrocities throughout their imperialist rule.
Unfortunately, what's been considered 'bad' is simply things we disagree with. I disagree with most liberal policies, it doesn't make the other side 'bad'
idk though like... voter disenfranchisement, election denial, pretty much everything Trump's done... opposing education, financial irresponsibility, disregard for the environment... some of these are debatable but do you actually like these things? It's only be worth it if you think their social policies regarding LGBT/race/gender/etc. outweigh all of that. I obviously disagree with that, and I think putting those opinioms above the health of the nation even if you do agree with them is irresponsible and dengerous. Don't take my word for it though-- don't listen to what people say, look at what they do. Just go find the most recent legislation passed or behavior observed for both parties and tell me they're the same. I wish they were, it's not healthy to only have one party choice because you feel like the other one is insane, but somehow that's where we are right now.
We've prevented criminals from voting for hundreds of years, how is that conservatives fault?
For the 4 years the left denied Trump won the election, then in 2020 when biden won, they claim that it was rock solid and there couldn't possibly be fraud?
Trump was the first president in some 30+ years not to start a foreign military conflict. Are you pro-foreign military conflicts?
Where did he oppose education?
Our country is $30T in debt. Trump spent a lot, but if you want trash every president that has spent a lot, you have a long list.
What are you refering to?
As you can see, just stating something doesn't make it true. Once again, Trump, just like every president, did some good things, and did some bad. Just like Obama, Just like Bush, just like Biden. You continuing to act like it's binary between being good and bad, and that republicans are all bad and democrats are all good is absurd.
I typed up a whole reaponse to this but Lemmy was down so it ate it. I'll summarize by saying: voter deregistration and closing voting centers, the left only mentioned the popular vote being lost which is not an accusation of election denial, obviously I don't like foreign conflict don't strawman me, he hired Betsy DeVos, yes we should do that, leaving the Paris Climate Accords and loosening railroad regulations which may have contributed to the train crashes recently (including the Ohio disaster).
I have stated multiple times that I don't think all dems are good or all repubs are bad, don't misrepresent me please. I evaluate all political actions based on my own independent criteria including self-consistency, likely consequences, benefits to Americans and the people that I care about, and overall effects on economics, education, culture, the world, freedom of options, etc. Republicans have consistently failed these criteria.
My tipping point was Covid. It would have been acceptable to say that the lockdowns weren't worth it. It was not acceptable to deny the reality of Covid's existence and the lives it ruined or ended. I can respect people who disagree with me. I cannot respect people who are elected to help us but have no desire to do that and in fact actively make our lives worse for their own personal benefit.