this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025
144 points (98.6% liked)

politics

24567 readers
3085 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] otacon239@lemmy.world 10 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Standing by your decision for the sake of it is never strength. It takes a lot more to admit you’re wrong and change. These people are now in a position that if they admit they are wrong, they’re admitting they were okay with all the horrible things they believed in.

Looking at your past self and distancing yourself from that is terrifying, harrowing, and humbling, so most people find it easier to just double down. I don’t think the lot of them truly believe anything anymore. Just what those in charge tell them to believe because then they can relinquish their moral responsibility. “If everyone else around me thinks this way, it must be right!”

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 2 points 18 hours ago

I understand that, but that imagines he's standing by his decision for the sake of it. I'm not trying to go to bat for a Trump supporter right now, but in general my point is that his "reasoning" seems to hold even if he's in the crosshairs. If his opinion is that sacrificing some freedom is necessary in order to ensure safety, then he seems like he still believes that even if it affects him personally. I understand your comment, but it doesn't actually address his position or my point. I don't think anything has happened to make him think he's wrong about the sleeper cell things. You're projecting your worldview onto him. He says he believes there's a problem and he's willing to face familial hardship to ensure the problem is rooted out.