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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Let's see:
Decides who to ignore calls from based on her husband's wishes
Claims to not be involved in politics, yet supports a certain candidate
Yep, that's a garden-variety republican.
The important takeaway here is that Biden made an effort to reach out.
Ok my respect is quickly dropping for these buffoons caught in the crossfire. But it's like interviewing an attendee from a nazi rally, what should I expect? Critical thinking? Morals? Hah!
"devout Republican" haha... They're a religious cult.
Why would you have any respect for Trump supporters going to a Trump rally? Just because they were unlucky? They're still shitty people.
It's a little more complicated for me considering my family once was Republican during Bush's first term. Rural, Appalachian, Pennsylvanian. I know some of these people most likely. Dumb people who know no better. Manipulated by rich interests. Feeling many pressures no doubt but too uninformed to point the finger at the right problem.
They Thought Were Free is a great book that explores this ignorance endemic in the Third Reich.
Ok, I get that you have a strong desire to humanize them. But humanizing someone doesn't mean you automatically respect them, other than affording them the basic level you'd give any other semi-sentient being. What is there to respect in people who cheer on an addlepated, narcissistic, fascist manbaby?
Yeah I'll admit respect probably wasn't the best choice for words, but as a father I respected his shielding his family from bullets, which is probably what led to use of that word.
Thanks for the new word addlepated. It's like a fancy way to say shithead
People using devout to describe their political views unironically is the scariest thing I've read today.
I had the same thought. It's not a sports team and not a religion. But man, some people treat it like that.
If your husband got killed by a fly ball at a baseball game and either coach called to give their condolences you'd accept the call.
Unless it was the Astros of course
Conservatism is entirely an exercise in belief. Just like religion, if you apply logic to it, it falls apart.
One day she'll realize that after her husband was killed, the candidate she supports cared more about his shoes than about him.
Sadly, she won't realize shit. These people don't have revelations about who they support politically. They bury their heads in the sand eternally. I still know people who are die hard George W Bush supporters and think he was the best president we've ever had.
Honest question: do those folks say that because of how that campaign and presidency made them feel at the time, or is it honestly based in policy, politics, or something else tangible? Thank you.
Honestly, it's a mixed bag of all three. For some, the nostalgia of that time is very strong and for others they feel like GWB embodied the best of the Republican party(which says so much about the Republican party). And some are just bullshit contrarians who want to shut the people up who tout Obama and Biden's accomplishments.
Thanks for the insightful reply. I appreciate it.
Americans--especially those older--tend to hold favorable views of past presidents even if they didn't approve of them in office. W had a majority favorable opinion even among Democrats in 2018, and I wouldn't be surprised if the number were higher now.
I'm glad I'm not the only one repeating this.
He was more concerned about his shoes than:
Following simple directions Getting off stage Acknowledging his staff was in danger Getting the fuck away from danger Asking about anyone else being injured Leaving the scene
You know....NORMAL FUCKING SHIT
But no, he needed to stand on stage AND at his get away vehicle to throw his fist up like he personally took down the gunmen.
I cringed watching the SS try to get him to safety and he refused. I was just hoping no one else was going to get shot while he tried to be some kind of "hero".
Doubtful.
Why am I getting downvoted?
People think this lady is smart enough to engage in critical thinking later, despite what we've seen from her?
I think it’s also important to note that we didn’t hear about this from Biden’s camp. They did their job cause it was the right thing to do, not for some publicity stunt.
"Devout Republican" is also pretty telling. These people aren't politically Conservative, they are religiously Republican. They worship their party and its leaders, and just like religion, they never require evidence for anything they believe.
Conservatism is not an ideology for smart people or critical thinkers.
You can’t discount the selfish and hateful as stupid as even the most vile people can be cunning. I’d agree that the median conservative would be less intelligent than the median liberal, but that discludes the folks looking to take from others their money, freedom, and time in order to enrich themselves monetarily or psychologically. Not everything can be Hanlon’s razor’d, sometimes people just enjoy sucking.
Just as the republicans want how women should vote?
Biden is a better man than Trump will ever be even with half his brain turned to jelly
Which brain is jelly in this equation?
Yes
You deserve an award for the stupidest comment of the day
To be fair, it's probably not even their stupidest comment of the day.
He has made others. MANY others that are equally as dumb. You’ll have to check the mod logs to see them- as they’ve been removed because they’re just that fucking stupid.
Removed, misinformation. Temp banned for multiple offenses.
So you have time to make up shit about illegal immigrant mass murders but you can't respond to my receipts of the Heritage Foundation call to hatred when you first got on the Lemmy bloc? Lemmy dont forget anything but meme reposts, son. Where's them links on those illegal immigrant murder victims not getting a call from Biden? I want them.
You're aware that the first illegal immigrants on this land were white, right?
And boy did they commit mass murder
She's the husband of someone killed who was in the crowd...
I see where you're coming from, but you got a lot of facts wrong in your comment.
Your original point is a straw man fallacy, and thus deserves no response. Get your facts straight before you give us any more of this vitriolic attitude please.
If you could stop being a prick for 10 seconds you might notice that I already did respond to your original point.
How can your expect anyone to take your argument seriously when you mix up the wife of a murder victim with the mother of a murderer and then respond by being a defensive asshole when corrected?
It's entirely possible that one day someone on the internet might say something like, "oops, I got that wrong, my bad" but today is not that day.
Better to just act like a brat.
This was the rallygoer, not the shooter. There were two deaths at that event.
You are accusing the widow of a rallygoer who shielded his family from harm of having a would-be assassin son. You have your facts mixed up.