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
if you actually read it, you will know that i directly admit that people in trauma make bad decisions. and i struggle with the decisions she made but it would all have been chalked up to it being a shame she destroyed any chance in finding justice.
but the point is that using it to score political points, and implying that the fault lies with an entire political group, when her case is horrible, invites a right wing rally, and does the opposite of validating victims of rape.
like i said, it’s as if her story was constructed by a right wing shock jock specifically to attack her campaign. if she would have said something on a interview separated from her campaign, AND didn’t attempt to imply it was done by republicans with such weak reasoning, then it couldn’t be seen as a political cudgel.
also you didn’t stop your self from saying fuck you. you don’t get to abstract your insult and maintain you moral high horse.
Jesus fucking christ this is a vile thing to say. I guess women should not speak out about their experiences under a systemic rape culture because it might be perceived as political /s
Do better.
you twisted what i said to miscaracterize me, you are self righteous, and dishonest. i did not say women should not speak out. i have a problem using rape as political game pieces, and with too with little justification, using it to attack your political rivals. if she has spoken out in an interview about the rape and not tied republicans in, my only thought would have been “i wish the evidence of the crime was preserved so the rapeist could be caught”
You are making a distinction without a difference. The fact of the matter is there is a political context to what happened to her. You give her permission to only comment on parts of what happened to her but not the entirety - that is self-righteous.
at no time did i say ‘because she made bad choices, it’s her own fault she was raped’
i said ‘she made bad choices because of trama, and because of that there is no hope of justice, and it’s gross that this is used to imply republicans are to blame. and because she used the rape for political gain she invited critique. because her case is weak, this is going to back fire’
if you are saying there is no functional difference you are dishonest.
that is what the people did to HER, they used rape for political gain. You are blaming the victim, sure not for getting raped, but for her talking about the facts on the matter. That is what I mean by a distinction without a difference because the function is to restrict her speaking out.
it was her admitted decision to fill the blank in her memory of “…ic bitch” with “democratic bitch” using her platform as a candidate. democratic is what democrats think them selves as, not republicans. even if she believes they said that, it was a mistake to say that. it turned what could have been a call for solidarity for victims, into an accusation levied against all republicans. and because her case is weak she is going to be dragged through the mud for the implication. every point i brought up? fodder for her enemies. improper venue, irresponsible comment. and using a tragedy as a weapon in politics is gross, unless it’s a direct accusation.
Where did she say it was a republican that raped her? I agree it was likely the case but her report was one of stating facts, not leveling an accusation against all Republicans.
she framed the attack as politically motivated, on campaign, targeted because she attempted to fix campaign sign. so unless your argument is actually ‘she meant that she was raped by stanch monarchist voting in the election’ your argument is weak as is her implication.
Yeah, how dare she frame things with facts.
Rape victims don't have to be perfect to be believed.
I don't give a single fuck that you are struggling with the decisions she made.
i can totally believe that a rape happened. and we both agree she made bad choices, we disagree as to what point that gets difficult, but normally would not invite criticism.
but when the platform of public announcement is through a political announcement where you implicate your rival is in some way responsible, that opens door to criticism. and justifies why my premise of “i don’t like it” is valid. it muddies the waters for victims of rape using a rape as political ammunition, and i think will back fire against her candidacy
Don't put words in my mouth.
then make your arguments about what i am acting saying so i don’t have to guess.
You’re under the mistaken impression that I respect you enough to have a fruitful discussion on this topic with you.
I don’t.
so then you never had any substance, and were only looking to stir hate. you invented a person and post to hate and to virtue signal for internet points. you have not said anything respectable in any of your posts
Cry harder.
about what?
I don't give a fuck. I'm already on a higher moral high horse than you because I don't defend rapists.
and neither did i. i do not defend rapeists by pointing out the victim made terrible decisions that will cost themselves justice, especially since this seems like a targeted attack.
that alone can make some one go “i don’t like this story”
using it to attack political rivals cheapens all of it, and will back fire, which i don’t like.
You should look into trauma responses, educate yourself, and do better.
you have brought nothing but unjustified ad hominem attacks, and now thought terminating cliches. you have a problem with my understanding of victim responses to harm, but you are going to have to actually deal with what i said, instead of making up your own, because i don’t get to put words in your mouth to find out
I don’t have to actually deal with what you said.
You can deal with how unpopular your comments rightfully are though.
that is an open admission to everything i accused you of, and you fall back on to an appeal to mob rule, it’s lazy and dishonest. and quite frankly i can live with negative votes. it does not invalidate my core argument of, i don’t like this whole thing.
You're mistaken if you think that I have an obligation to feed into your victim blaming in order to maintain some sort of integrity here.
“ok”
-velma
oh i thought you were done, but you[‘re] back with the exact same dishonesty on repeat. hoping a slight change in venue would get a different result?
You're*
noted ;)
Too bad you won't take constructive criticism about your rampant victim blaming in the same manner.
constructive criticism? from you? which if i remember, said you didn’t even have to interact with my post at all? you assert victim blaming, not demonstrated it. it is not unreasonable to not like the fact that she made bad choices that will prevent the rapist from faceing justice. however justifiable a reasoning. and it’s also not unreasonable to not like the using of rape as a political weapon. but you were never interested in arguing about that. you invented what you needed to get what you wanted, a chance to virtue signal. and were in no way interested in clarification.
Mmm your tears are delicious. Yes, yes, cry more.
did… did you just make a eric cartman quote? did you think that sounded like a mature, and good idea when you wrote it?
Do you think you sound mature when you blame rape victims for not doing everything perfectly?
didn’t do that. that was what you invented to argue against. honestly you already admitted to dishonesty and no one other then us cares very much at this point. you have made it very hard for those who would have otherwise agreed with you to follow along. this is getting so bad i might start being accused of fighting a sock puppet to make my argument look good by comparison. you gave up the ghost hours ago