this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
1098 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3738 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] frezik@midwest.social 96 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (15 children)

It's great when a quote is taken out of context, and then you look at the context, and it's even worse.

"She cosponsored legislation to abolish very popular private health insurance, which 150 [million] Americans rely on, dumping everyone onto inferior socialist government run health care systems with rationing and deadly wait times, while massively raising your taxes. She wants to take away your private health care."

As if 150M Americans have a real choice in private insurance, or that the bureaucracy of the system doesn't already result in rationing and deadly wait times.

As a side note, Project 2025 does something similar with cars. Something to the effect of "Americans overwhelmingly prefer cars" to justify ignoring bikes or public transit projects, again as if there was a real choice being offered.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 26 points 2 months ago (7 children)

I just don't think grandma should be in front of an Obama Death Panel.

The Death Panel should be guys trying to sacrifice her to the line, someone with zero knowledge of her care typing "no" in a spreadsheet, or, fuck it, let's get an AI with a 90% error rate (always errs towards denial). Those are the right arbiters to decide the value of someone's life.

[–] TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world 30 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Our current death panel is just "well, she can't afford it"... just as American Jesus wants.

[–] oyo@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago

"Her husband should have made more money."

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)