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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
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
Lmao I didn't know parrots could ride bikes but here you are backpedaling! Impressive!
Blah blah blah both parties. Guess what, we could have swallowed the pill to keep the vast majority of those people alive 20 years ago when voting in the 2000 presidential election. Instead people "both sides-ed" and stayed home with atrocious turnout. They made the choice that killed those people and YOU are making the same choice today. But your choice is even more callous because we don't have to theorize about the tragedy, you can see it happening live.
The march of fascism and collapse of capitalism is irrelevant to the conversation. One corrupt politician spent decades building climate into his political platform, regardless of what other theoretical ways he would fuck us. The other was drill baby drill. And now those people are dying.
No jackass, YOU'RE advocating for non-voting as a tribute to DEAD victims. Your gesture didn't bring them back to life or even slow the genocide. The USA is trampling around causing as much, if not more, damage than ever.
I'M advocating for human LIVES. Real people, alive today and just as oppressed under the boot of capitalism, who now are going to die because every non-Democrat vote didn't value their lives. That's the difference in our stances.
For reference, 1.3 million people is about as many deaths as the USA caused in Vietnam. You're perfectly capable of rationalizing suffering on the scale of one of the largest human tragedies in modern history but you draw the line at what is literally "the tip of the iceberg" in your own words.
The fact is that you don't care about minimizing human suffering, you care about having to see viscera. Admitting that the real world requires shitty choices causes cognitive dissonance with your ideological naval gazing; it's simpler to brush those dying Indian children away as necessary for your imagined scheme.
But you did! Your argument was an emotional appeal to videos of dying children. You couldn't vote for a collaborator to that tragedy that because it made you feel bad. You felt it would be an endorsement of genocide and incongruent with your self image.
I acknowledge that my 2024 presidential vote went to a genocide enabler; I've laid out the reasons it was strategically defensible in keeping millions alive and mitigating permanent damage to the only biosphere we'll ever get. Can you stomach your choice? Can you tell me what rational tree of outcomes had such a high likelihood of improving humanity's future that you would tacitly endorse the death of millions? Or are you ashamed that you made an emotional, unconsidered and impatient decision?