378
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
378 points (94.0% liked)
politics
31179 readers
2338 users here now
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
When right-wingers clean their own house then, and only then, may I reconsider my opinions. If you are a friend to a rasicist (etc), support them, invite then to parties, vote with them then I see no difference.
Many are not. The ones that vote based on economic policy aren't exactly inviting the KKK/MTG types over for barbecues.
I'm not exactly a right winger myself, so I don't really know. My point is that conservatism is not the same as evangelical Christian fundamentalism, and that all groups have people with honest, if possibly mistaken, intentions and plain bad actors.
They may not have invited them but they're not trying very hard to escort them out, either.
How does one escort these people out of the "conservative" label exactly? I'm sure many feminists would like to do the same to RadFems and TERFs. And the MensLib crowd would like to distance themselves from MRAs and RedPillers (think Andrew Tate and you're not far off with that last one).
The problem is, they keep getting grouped together anyway, especially by opponents, as it makes the whole so much easier to attack, and gets so many more clicks, which is the new lifeblood of journalism, apparently.
Conservative outlets often do the same with us, by the way. They lump people that simply want equality with the crazies that want to destroy Christianity and put Caucasians in a subjugatory position in society. Yes these people exist, even if they are currently inconsequential.
For every philosophy, belief system, or school of thought, there are people who can be reasoned with, even if they are incorrect, and there are hardliners who take things too far.
See Al Franken, Anthony Weiner, Andrew Cuomo... It's pretty easy to kick people out of your party if the will is there.
The right wing crazies are in Congress.
The problem is it isn't just a party. You abolish the Republicans, the crazies will just come back as the Pants-On-Head party or somesuch. The crazies are organised, and they will organise outside of the Republican party if need be. Hell, Trump has already threatened to do so.
You do however make an excellent point about the crazies in congress, and I'm not saying we should ignore the damage they are doing. I'm just saying not everyone in the conservative sphere is a certified MAGAt, even if the latter does have big numbers.
If your still in the conservative sphere post maga. You own it. You are maga. There is no separation. Maga isn't antifa where it's a decentralized unaligned group of protestors, maga is in the halls of power, it's passing laws, the people you vote into office are voting yes.
There is no distinction and won't be one for half a century at least.
Ah yea, the economic policy ones too selfish and self centered to care what happens to LGBT people or little girls who were raped.
How redeeming of those people to align themselves so readily with the racists, misogynists, and xenophobes just to back up failed economic policy.