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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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
That headline is one of the stupidest things i have ever read. The dude is a politician, its perfectly fine to attack him with a political motive. Any attack on him would be politically motivated... If someone does things that are morally reprehensible, then they should be attacked for it.
You’re missing the point entirely, probably because you don’t have the context. The NY Times worked with a Heritage Foundation political operative that founded the Ladies for Kavanaugh political group to accuse him of “abuse,” which they were not able to substantiate. It’s politically motivated because the NY Times, although liberal, is a Zionist paper that would rather have a pro-Israel Republican in the Senate than a Democrat who calls the events in Gaza a genocide.
I mean it explains why this headline is attempting to defend him, but the headline is still stupid. It should just read "The Attacks on Graham Platner Are Unsubstantiated"
But that is burying the lead again. Are the attacks unsubstantiated because legitimate victims simply cannot prove definitively that they were assaulted or put in a position of discomfort, or are the attacks unsubstantiated because they were made by a clearly partisan political actor? If you really don't want to use the words "politically motivated", you'd have to add to your headline that they were made by a pro-Israel, Ladies-for-Kavanaugh founder in order to accurately portray these attacks.
Well, that's the rub, isn't it?
Graham Platner cheating on his wife is the worst thing in history. Susan Collins green-lighting multiple genocides overseas, while callously turning her back on constituents snatched up by ICE goons, is above reproach.
Meanwhile, Ken Paxton cheating on his wife is a private matter and fake news and only a woke transgender illegal communist would mention it. James Talarico met his wife at Good Luck Charles (Austin gay bar) and eats a turkey leg like a vegan and spent half his life as a minister where he claimed God didn't have a gender. All of that is also supposed to be super bad.
"Morally reprehensible" is just "whatever the Democrat did" updated daily.
And yeah, the headline is baby-brained. But that's American politics in a nutshell these days.
Should have been the headline as it gets to the nut of our Zionist media priorities.
Ha! I am only most of those things, and I still like to tell people that Ken Paxton is a cheating hypocrite.
Also, a reminder that Susan Collins is a home wrecker. Her husband started an affair with her while his first wife was dying of cancer. He ultimately left his dying wife for Susan Collins.
Imagine leaving literally anyone else for Susan Collins
Newt Gingrich?
TIL. Never even heard that one.
The point the headline is trying to make are that they are baseless, they are making a mountain out of a molehill, it’s a smear campaign.
The zionists, the oligarchs, the pedophiles, are all scared he will be elected and be a loud voice against them for like 6 years.
Remind me in in a few years to serve your words up for you to eat. This guy will go lamestream the moment he is guilded into the Senate.
The Zionists and oligarchs are not afraid of a was criminal who went on 5 terror tours and loved his time killing brown people so much he got a Nazi tattoo to commemorate it, by his own gleeful unapologetic admission. His portrayal as progressive should insult you, not make you jump to defend him and accuse those accuse him of sexual assault of being liars so conveniently.
No one cares tankie. He just won by 60%.
You guys will never win anything in this country because you're incapable of relating to other human beings. Go back to sucking up to your maga buddies.
It says that we're willing to accept a flawed candidate that can admit mistakes, rather than some purist. If you're not willing to forgive and accept flawed candidates, the downward spiral toward fascism will continue.
The other side doesn't give two shits about running rapists and murderers, but we can't run a candidate that admits a dark past and tries to make amends? These purity tests have got to end!
Here it is, imperfect vessel 2.0. pardon me while I go throw up.
He's unapologetic about his crimes and still talks about them proudly... At what point does it go from "flawed" to "rotten" to you? It might be impossible to change your perspective if you brush aside every accusation as a minor flaw.
He doesn't. He never said he regrets his war crimes, he talks about them reminiscingly, he only calls the wars "pointless", he has no moral objection to the crimes, he just doesn't think Americans benefitted enough from them.
He doesn't identify the war machine as bad, on the contrary he wants to thank and honor and support veterans. Y'all need to stop pretending that's a progressive idea.
You only think in "their side" and "my side" to the point where your side winning is the goal itself, regardless of whether your side effectively does anything to advance what you think of as principals.
Take his stance on Gaza, where he seems eager to cash in on people's outrage by positioning himself as opposition to genocide, but you won't see him ever address the real problem. He's there to change the conversation and allow the status quo to continue. On Ukraine he's happy to say that Ukrainian fighting the Russian invasion is "resisting with all the means that they can, and I personally think that we should provide them with support." He's unwilling to make a statement about Palestinians resisting genocide as needing support, he's only ever willing to denounce past acts in a vacuum. Like a typical liberal zionist.
He's being branded as progressive by literally the same people that brought you Fetterman, it's all aesthetics and zero substance, and you still have your arms wide open.
Beyond this I think the real smoking gun is that it is an explicit part of his platform that he wants to expand our navy. "Closing the shipbuilding gap" he calls it.