this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2025
185 points (97.0% liked)

politics

26256 readers
3265 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
all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 81 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] TRock@feddit.dk 36 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] fuckgod@feddit.online 2 points 2 months ago

That's an improvement from just "worst".

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

It's an ancillary one, so it's always changing in unexpected ways. It'll supernova soon, though, and we'll all get shuffled off to a new one.

[–] Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 47 points 2 months ago (4 children)

She cheers on children being deported from the US, but cares about children being starved half a world away? She's not one for consistency, is she?

[–] AliSaket@mander.xyz 33 points 2 months ago

“I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to pay for genocide in a foreign country against a foreign people for a foreign war that I had nothing to do with,”

It's consistent from the viewpoint of not wanting to pay for what happens to those children abroad or at home, no matter the nature or morality of the action. Also: Look at the use of the word 'foreign' and think about, who she means with each use. Not with the 'right' intentions, she ends up at the correct policy.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 24 points 2 months ago

she got into congress talking about jewish space lazers. she's actually an antisemite, but this is a case where her antisemitism is leading her to the right conclusion. work with her on the bill but hold her at arms length is the strategy. it's like when you have someone experiencing an acute crisis but you're ACAB. you work with the cops to resolve the acute crisis but you don't let that let you trust the cops.

mtg is filled with hate. right now, in this moment, she just happens to hate the right thing to be helpful

[–] fartographer@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

One is war and the other is disenfranchisement dressed up as war. The latter is the entire republican platform.

[–] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

She does not care about Gazans. She's an actual antisemite and Russian stooge. This is about hurting Israel to the benefit of Iran and, therefore, Russia. She also loudly opposed the strikes on Iran.

[–] hemmes@lemmy.world 44 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Don’t overthink it. If someone’s willing to work with you on something in earnest, take the opportunity.

[–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah what we're questioning is the "in earnest" part, because in the past she's * checks notes * she's batshit crazy, and it worries me that I don't know her goals here.

[–] hemmes@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

100% agree, but we can make crazy work if given the opportunity…just not holding my breath

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

This is a bad take. You really do need to think about who you stand with, even if they appear to align on one thing.

[–] chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world 32 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No. In politics, you have to work with opposing sides to get something pushed over the line.

This kind of thinking is why the political sphere is so polarized today. Conservative thinking is regressive and should be challenged, but if you can use them occasionally to push for progress in other areas, you absolutely should.

[–] Velypso@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)
[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

I think most leftists understand the difference between using someone and teaming up with them.

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Are you suggesting the Bernie should tell her he doesn't want her to support him and Gaza?

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

He shouldn't acknowledge her support at best. At worst just say he appreciates any additional support in the important endeavor. End quote.

[–] FearMeAndDecay@literature.cafe 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You have to reward the behavior you want to see. I don’t like her, and I think she’s done tons of horrible shit. But if she suddenly woke up tomorrow and because a leftist, I’d fucking cheer her on and become a supporter. Even if she was only doing it out of spite to republicans she felt wronged by. Because it’s more important that good shit gets done than that we hold grudges against people. So even though she’s not a full blown leftist right now, and probably never will be, I’m still going to cheer on the good behavior I do see and continue to call out and pushback against the bad behavior

Bernie needs every ally he can get, and honestly, republicans have a much better track record of actually passing legislation they want, so maybe some republicans having moments of clarity and supporting basic human rights is a damn good thing

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It did wonders for Kamala.

[–] FearMeAndDecay@literature.cafe 1 points 2 months ago

Kamala didn’t try to work with republicans to do leftist/progressive politics. She sprinted to the right as fast as she could in the name of “winning the moderate vote” because she’s just the opposition party, unlike Bernie who actually tries to do good shit

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone -4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Is that what I said? Is that what "thinking about" something means to you?

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

You said it was a bad take when someone else said to work with people you don't like but have the same goals. To me that implies you think Bernie should reject her support. I think the second part of your comment is valid, in that when working with a snake, one has to make sure they don't get bit.

[–] Jerb322@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago

Still an evil bitch!

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 18 points 2 months ago

This might be the one time it’s actually motived by antisemitism.

[–] xc2215x@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Rare time I give MTG credit.

[–] Zugyuk@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

Cool story bro, she's still a Nazi

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Fuck Israel, genocidal scum!

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago

Thank God she saved Gaza.