this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
245 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3058 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 33 points 5 months ago (3 children)

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who did political work for that piece of shit gets what they deserve.

Typical reactionaries: they're only upset when they become the target of the hatered they were slinging.

It's not like it was a secret that Trump and team are a hugely vindictive bag of assholes.

[–] GroundedGator@lemmy.world 25 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This woman has done so much work for many people who worked on the campaign. She has spent her own resources to get the NDAs that her and others signed declared non binding, or whatever the legal term is.

I'm not a fan of Trump supporters, but telling them to pound sand because they supported him at some point but have seen the errors in their ways will do us no favors.

Check out some of her work and her story

Her story

[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 25 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

If you stop being a fascist, you get a "good job, now roll up your sleeves and help undo the damage."

She helped empower the people who are harassing her (and countless others); I'm glad that she's working to reverse that, but she doesn't get a cookie for her efforts- she (hopefully) gets to live in a society that doesn't put up with this shit.

[–] DMBFFF@kbin.social 12 points 5 months ago

She must atone before she is taken seriously.

[–] snownyte@kbin.social 9 points 5 months ago

When you work for Trump - you are expendable.

It's why we're seeing all of these former Trump colleagues going around like "Why, why did he do this to me?" "Why, I was special to him!!"

Trump only cares about Trump.

[–] bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone -5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)
[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 18 points 5 months ago (22 children)

She was working to make sure that far worse harassment happened to much more vulnerable people.

I'm not going to cry when she gets some splash damage.

[–] GroundedGator@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Back then, most people didn't understand the threat that was Trump. I sure didn't know all of the horrific things he did. This was pre Epstein. This was before Stormy.

I thought he was just a bombastic rich asshole with a shit political outlook.

Someone taking a job in that campaign had no reason to think it would be toxic. Most campaigns are not run by the candidate but by the party.

[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I mean, he began his political career by a racist attack on Obama.

He started his campaign by calling Mexican immigrants rapists and drug dealers.

He said a judge couldn't be fair to him because the guy had Mexican heritage.

He openly campaigned on a Muslim ban in the US and commiting war crimes by killing the families of terrorists.

There was a tape where he admitted to sexual assault.

Any ignorance to the fact that he was a vile, racist, bigoted rapist was intentional. Doubly so if she worked to get him elected.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Correct. Everyone full well knew what a sack of shit he was. 2016 at the absolute latest. Everyone in New York knew for decades. She knew.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

You'd think someone politically connected enough to work for him would know.

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

There's a difference in victim blaming via " what was she wearing" and someone knowingly walking into a lions den while wearing a meat dress like Lady Gag.

It would be a little different if she didn't actively work to empower a person whose platform revolves around harassing and silencing women who have been sexually assaulted.

Being a bad person does not mean you give up any assumption of basic human dignity.

People who take people's dignity in an inhumane manor do not themselves deserve to be treated with basic dignity. That's just inviting a paradox of abuse.

[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Exactly.

There's a big difference between blaming the victim and reaping the whirlwind.

[–] bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)
[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's okay, people are allowed to have differing opinions. I was just curious about the extent of your world view. It seems to invite internal contradictions, or at least rely on a hefty amount of cognitive dissidence.

For example, if no one deserves that type of treatment, what does the person committing or enabling those acts deserve?

If they deserve a punishment, why not the one they laid upon others? Is it because of the nature of the treatment is somehow worse than other punishments? If it is worse for some reason, why do they deserve better treatment than what they serve to others?

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Absolutely losing it over "cognitive dissidence". I know you meant "dissonance", but the way you spelled it is probably more accurate.

"Cognitive dissonance" is when a person's behaviors don't match their stated values or beliefs. It's basically a fancy word for hypocrisy as it relates to argumentation / debate. I'm not seeing it in @bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone's argument here. They're basically just disagreeing with you about whether or not Conservatives deserve suffering. They've been perfectly consistent in their reasoning, and you haven't offered any actual justification for your position aside from a petty appeal to disgust.

"Cognitive dissidence" reads like "If you disagree with me you're wrong", which is exactly your attitude here.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

Cognitive dissonance" is when a person's behaviors don't match their stated values or beliefs. It's basically a fancy word for hypocrisy as it relates to argumentation / debate.

I don't think thats the definition of cognitive dissonance. It's just holding two conflicting ideas at the same time, so your behaviour is by default not aligning with your ideas, because it's impossible.

I'm not seeing it in @bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone's argument here.

I think the cognitive dissonance lies in the fact that they state no one should be subjected to that behavior, but they are arguing in favour of a person who is perpetuating the action upon others.

whether or not Conservatives deserve suffering

Right, but they were the only person who brought in the concept of "deserve", it's a strawman argument.

Deserve implies some sort of ethical construct to judge the justification of the action. When in reality we are not choosing wether or not this action is being done, just witnessing it.

Cognitive dissidence"

Yeah, for some reason my autocorrect really like dissidence over dissonance. But I'd say that's a fairly pedantic point to base your argument.

[–] Crazyslinkz@lemmy.world 30 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What!? The trump campaign harassing women?!

/s (because internet)

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 27 points 5 months ago (1 children)

A federal magistrate judge has ordered the campaign to produce by May 31 a list of all discrimination and harassment complaints made during Trump’s 2016 and 2020 presidential runs

That is going to be a long list.

[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

The last bullet point should be “undue stress and hardship having to enumerate all of this endless bullshit.”

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Who are these harassed women going to vote for? Cause I have a feeling they didn't learn

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

The Serena Waterfords of the Republican Party are going to vote for Ronald McDonald. Or maybe some BS third party candidate, or do a ridiculous write-in protest vote like children.

But never for the Democratic Party, I mean, my stars! Can you imagine, voting for the Democratic Party?

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

I never thought leopards would eat my face...

-Average Leopards-Eating-Faces party voter-

[–] TheJims@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

I’m Nikki Haley and I approve this message… probably

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm shocked that, SHOCKED I tellz ya, that MAGA shitheads would berate women for anything other than staying barefoot and preggers in the kitchen.

[–] SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 5 months ago

I feel like MAGA shit heads would also find a way to berate women for being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago

Sympathy for Trump supporters who get their faces eaten by leopards might be difficult to muster, but it's probably an effective outreach strategy.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Something about leopards and faces comes to mind.