385
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 16 Nov 2025
385 points (96.6% liked)
politics
31558 readers
2142 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
My most charitable thinking about this is that she s always just playing to win. The way she acted was just that, an act. She did it because she knew it appealed to a particular segment of society that could get her elected. Now there is a sea change she is smart enough to know MAGA is doomed and she had jumped ship early because she thinks it will be more politically advantageous in the long run.
She may be genuinely remorseful if she is good for her, but it doesn't erase the things she had voted for, against, and the things she said that harmed people or incited violence deliberately or accidentally.
That said, she is somewhat uniquely positioned to assist in the deprogramming of MAGA members so, though I don't trust her, the things she is doing and saying today are leading people away from Trump, and that is the most vital mission right now.
The deprogramming is an incredibly good point.
Yeah, the apologies are the first step, if she follows through and changes we can decide wgat to do. But as it stands stepping back will at the very least reduce the heat she gets because she only gets it because she's actively been picking fights
she should never be given benefit of the doubt just because she "apologized". her past conduct should not be forgotten, ever, no matter how strategically advantageous it might be for you at the moment. the end does not justify the means.
The means are an attempt at my belief in rehabilitation and forgiveness when possible. Her past conduct is reprehensible, and also I don't believe we should be saying that it's not worth bothering trying to change.
I'm unlikely to ever like her, but fucking hell I'm sick and tired of this pervasive idea that people can never change for the better and even if they do they're still evil. It's carceral bullshit.
She hasn't demonstrated change yet, just announced her intentions, whether true or not. It's worth keeping an eye out and seeing if she actually does change. I'm never going to forget who she has been for the past several years, but just as I believe a murderer should be given the opportunity to become a better person I'll give her the room to do the same or not. It's not like I have any power over her whatsoever.
Yep. As always: Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.
Her apology and future actions should be considered if she’s ever found guilty and put before a court for sentencing.
Messing up while running for political position should result in a permanent return to private life. There’s a limited number of seats and millions of people who can fill them.
If you give people no credit for admitting they were wrong or give them no chance to atone, then you give them no reason to do it and they will continue down the path they are on. To me it is preferable that she stops being toxic vs her continuing if those are the two choices.
I am not saying she should be forgiven, but if she is genuine, and that remains to be seen (she has a lot of work to do to prove that), then continuing to punish or otherwise vilify her, sends her the message that she's damned is she does and she's damned if she doesn't so why not continue being toxic. Why should she try to be better?
If she continues to atone and does some very positive things in future (again doubtful) there should at least be some consideration given that she may have changed.
i understand this argument, but if you enter politics by being willing to burn the society to the ground for your personal profit, that shouldn't be easy to wave away. at least you shouldn't be able to keep the profit from doing so.
imagine i steel your wallet and then say "oh, i regret that, but i have changed and i am a better person now, so please like me. also i'd like to keep that wallet." that would be clearly absurd, and she is in similar position.
let her go work for the ngo and help poor people, after doing so for as long as she was evil, i may be willing to admit she really changed.
She isn't deprogramming shit. She is leading people away from Trump and toward her because she suspects Trump will be dead soon and she wants to take his place. She "loves Trump" (her words from the view interview). You'd have to be dumber then a liberal to take her at her word.
I didn't actually say she was deprogramming anyone, just that she is in a position where she could.
That said, the fact that she is speaking out against him has unquestionably lead other people to doubt him.
Whether she is trying to take his place is not a point I tried to address directly, but I do believe she is behaving this way because she sees it as a way to further her own political career.