458
this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2025
458 points (99.1% liked)
politics
26427 readers
2500 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 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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not exactly sure the point that you're trying to make?
She's received death threats.
...but she voted with Trump
Therefore: ???
I guess my take-away was that Democrats should stop making concessions and attempting to work with this hostile administration, as if the administration were acting in good faith. If you make those concessions, you're still just as likely to end up with a target on your back and 1000s of death threats if you don't continue to roll over the next time. I feel like this should have been obvious to Democrats already, though.
I don't know the details or the bills, but it isn't uncommon for people in contested seats to be allowed by the party to vote in a poll-favorable way when their vote won't change the outcome.
Simply, counting 'Times voted with Trump' doesn't say much that is useful and can be misleading, especially in the context of a post about death threats to politicians.
Social media can have a very us or them mentality. If you're not 100% lock step with the group then you're an enemy to be scored and attacked. I read that comment as 'Yeah, they're getting death threats but they voted with Trump so they deserved it ()".
For context, these Democrats voted to end the government shutdown. It was largely viewed by the public as being the Republicans fault, as they hold control of the House and Senate and the office of the President. Dems were holding out for a renewal of subsidies for healthcare costs, where if the subsidies lapsed then many would see their health insurance premiums double, triple or worse. There wasn't much incentive for the Democrats to make any concessions. Yet, for a few crumbs, they gave away their only leverage for retaining those subsidies, on the promise that there would be a vote. A vote which will not pass. If it were going to pass, they would have ended the shutdown.
Your interpretation of the original comment was fair, and I agree with you. Death threats are unacceptable.
Edit: I was wrong. Slotkin wasn't one of the Dems who voted to end the shutdown.
I certainly agree that appeasing Trump isn't going to work.
A thread about death threats on these members isn't the proper context to bring up that kind of argument.
This situation isn't a result of them voting on the CR so that comment is, at best, bad taste and at worst a toxic attempt at sowing division.