574
this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
574 points (98.8% liked)
politics
23400 readers
3628 users here now
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 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. 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.
- 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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
...okay? If you think there are circumstances under which it's productive or rational to be upset with an Alzheimer's patient for having alzheimer's... not much to say to that.
That was a reference to Biden, and the fact that it should not come to this, and when it does, compassion for the patient is obviously the wrong thing to prioritize.
Edit: clarity
Yeah, thanks, I can read.
What is the right thing to prioritize?
It's entirely valid to call for him to step down. People called for Biden to step down, and it worked. Too little too late, but it's clear that nearly everyone recognized a problem and encouraged him to step down. I wasn't upset at him for blowing a debate, I was upset with the DNC for allowing it to happen in the first place.
Fetterman doesn't have that universal call. Half the nation and political system is applauding him for his stroke-induced personality changes.
Getting angry at him isn't productive, because he genuinely won't understand why. As evidenced in this article. Getting angry at the people that are allowing this to happen, however... that's where the problem is.
We're just talking in circles my friend. My original and only point is that focusing on compassion for him when discussing the problem is misguided at best. At worst, it's exactly the thing you're describing - making the conversation entirely unproductive, and avoiding the serious problem, getting focused on this very typical moralizing we on the left do.
Fuck John Fetterman, and fuck any person who demands compassion for him be prioritized in the conversation. If we disagree, we disagree, I don't think I can make my point any more clearly. I regard anyone demanding the wrong things be discussed as - intentionally or not - helping the fascists. This is not a poorly thought out point of view, it's not a shallowly held conviction, and I'm just about finished even discussing it.
I mean, I'm not demanding compassion for him, so much as I'm trying to direct anger towards the people who are more responsible for the problem. This is why I said the "so much for tolerance" was a bit much.
I'm not really trying to protect Fetterman - any politician who enters the arena has willingly offered their life to the will of the public, and accepts the risks of the public turning on them, even for a bad reason. The pre-stroke Fetterman might have even agreed that it's fair game to be upset with the post-stroke Fetterman, because he is failing in his duty to represent his constituency.
I'm just trying to point out the group of powerful people who are actively encouraging a stroke victim to continue down a path of cognitive decline for their own personal gain. They are willfully taking advantage of a seriously fucked up situation. Fuck those people.
No disagreement there, sounds like we essentially agree and just needed to take a few minutes to argue with one another, lol. Cheers and have a good one!
You too!