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
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.