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
A lot of us who disapprove of the party are still going to vote for them. It doesn't mean anything.
That's what Kamala said.
The political situation is way different now than it was in 2024. Running as the incumbent party in an inflationary environment is always an uphill battle. The GOP should've won by more than they did. They barely gained control of the house
Ok.
That's what Hillary said.
Everything Kamala said turned out to be true. If people have seen 2 years of this and still think "both sides are the same", they clearly already picked their side.
One should not slander people who simply have stricter ethics than oneself as "both sides are the same." That's how you lose elections.
Slander implies falsehood. I've said nothing false. I'm tired of being gaslit by people who want to pretend they are enlightened centrists just because they are now feeling the consequences of their actions but still can't bring themselves to say "the other side was right".
Be much better if people could be the bigger person, admit "yeah this was worse than I ever expected" and learn from their mistakes.
The falsehood was that the election was lost because a large number of people decided "both sides are the same." That is a comforting lie.
Some people just have different ethical systems than you do. Please have the humility to acknowledge that and not be so judgy. For millions of voters, supporting the Gaza genocide was a bridge to far. And no, you cannot placate these voters just by reflexively saying Trump would be worse for the Gazans. This is about ethical lines in the sand, not a balance of the greater good. The people who voted against Kamala because of Gaza do not follow your ethical framework. They simply look at the world differently than you do. They have a different world view, and that world view is just as valid as your own. Have some respect and quit pretending your way is the only way. And if you just call them stupid, they'll continue to not vote the way you want. You don't win votes by calling your voters stupid. Kamala tried that path of arrogance already.
This has all been hashed out before. But ultimately you have an ethical system that goes for a utilitarian greater good approach. Others have a respect for persons ethical system. The latter says vote for the lesser evil. The other says, vote for lesser evil, but there are some ethical lines that simply cannot be crossed.
Yes, you can say that's stupid. But you're talking about two different ethical traditions, each with generations of scholarly work behind them. It makes you seem like a child. To just dismiss an entire ethical philosophy out of hand is not only the height of hubris, but a recipe for losing elections. If you cannot be honest about why some people didn't vote for your candidate, you're going to continue to lose.
It appears you prefer feeling morally superior over actually winning elections. Respect for persons says that there are certain actions that are simply unacceptable, regardless if they result in a net benefit to the world. We could cure a lot of diseases by involuntarily experimenting on people, and on net we probably would save lives. A utilitarian philosophy like yours would tell you that using prisoners as involuntary test subjects is perfectly ethical, as long as it results in a net good for society.
And I actually voted for Kamala. I just have the honesty to acknowledge why she lost.
I never said that. I'm talking about people still trying to set the fence 20 months after the results of the election. 2024 has come and gone and there's not much use deliberating over why or how she lost. Because I think what's happening in 2025 onward will affect elections much more than re-living 2024. Trying to argue "Kamala said that" as if she's wrong because she lost doesn't help your argument (especially when many of her predictions came true anyway).
So yeah, if you're in 2026 still arguing "both sides are the same", you picked your side.
This isn't ethical, this is simple fact checking. You're reading way too deeply into a comment that was simply doing fact checking, and not even making a political judgment call.
This isn't political, this is simple fact checking. You're reading way too deeply into a comment that was simply doing fact checking. Let's go back over the chain and see what I said:
That's all I'm saying. I also literally said "I'm not here to gloat, I want problems fixed", so thanks for ignoring that.