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
The one thing I disagree with is the generalization of Republicans "believing" what they say. Numerous times, they've let the veil slip and showed they don't believe the shit they're saying: they have very specific goals and fill in the logic or "research" later.
It's like the term "globalists." Some very naive people repeat conspiracies thinking that there's some secret cabal of globalists, but most people know that anyone talking about "globalists" means "Jews."
"Election fraud" isn't something they actually believe; they know the election wasn't stolen. "Election fraud" is a hurdle or stumbling block meant to trap Democrats into trying to reason with someone who isn't being reasonable. It's an opportunity to troll people. But most importantly, it's an empty set of words used as a shield behind which they can commit actual election fraud.
Sure some people actually believe the election was stolen, but they're only going to listen to their select group of talking heads. We need to quit giving politicians and grifters the benefit of the doubt and call them out for lying, obfuscating, conspiring, and trying to instill fascism. There need to be repercussions for disenfranchising the people for power and profits under the guise of "No u."
And just to be clear, there isn't a secret cabal of those, either!
That's one of the really insidious things about their tactics: their lies are like ogres, with layers. It makes it such a huge chore to debunk each and every aspect that some of them slip through the cracks and go unrefuted. Then they point to those in order to shore up the rest of the shit they're spewing!
Oh geeze, I didn't even get around to cleaning that up... I'm a bad globalist...
This line of thinking makes me realize that a really good tool for dialogue with these fence-sitters, if we may call them that, would be to reasonably ask them "how has this belief worked out for you?", in response to some usual garbage conspiracy theory projection.