this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
420 points (83.1% liked)

politics

19121 readers
2622 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
(page 5) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Same paper that just ran the "Women should stop shunning Trump supporters in their dating pool" article. I guess that's so they'll be less likely to abused under the pending dictatorship?

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Same author?

Because papers often run a variety of opinion pieces...

[–] be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Good point and probably not, but I'm too lazy to look right now.

Edited to add: Presumably same editorial team, so the seeming dissonance between the two articles isn't lessened much by having different authors.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It really depends a lot. If it's something by the editorial board itself, then it's a very jarring difference. But you can have writers with polar opposite viewpoints in editorials. It used to be nice from a reader perspective to get that variety, but then the right went wacko.

That said, I do think it's weird the section editor would approve something like "women need to date more conservatives". Maybe they take the approach of not being responsible for what their authors say, but that crosses enough lines that it's odd they didn't step in.

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

deleted by creator

[–] blazera@kbin.social 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

When does this brinkmanship dilemma stop occurring? How long are dems gonna get a blank check to spit in our faces because republicans are a looming threat? Is MAGA gonna be gone in 2028? 2032? When is the income gap gonna stop accelerating? Or emissions? When are houses gonna be affordable, or education? What about the situation is supposed to improve if dems win 2028?

[–] kiljoy@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 11 months ago

You get downvoted for actually expecting something from your vote. I’m sorry some 1/100000000 chance of a president becoming a dictator isn’t going to make me want to vote for someone who doesn’t want to fix economic problems for the middle class. Do better and winning the presidency would be a cakewalk do the bare minimum and possibly lose to Donald Trump.

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Is there a way of filtering US politics on here?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] masquenox@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago (6 children)

If a fascist dictatorship in the US is "inevitable," it's only so because liberals won't actually lift a finger to stop it.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›