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
Oh yeah no. If your working backwards from the end result I totally get that approach. I'm not making a moral defense here. All I'm saying is that while we're in it it's important to understand what's going on (and perhaps more importantly what isn't) in his head so that we have an understanding of what's possible. What he might be thinking. In that world, not that of the IC or one that's capable of assessing legal culpability, it's important to draw a distinction between a principled ideologically driven actor and one that's just floating on the whims of their shattered psyche.
Indeed, different approaches lead to different conclusions. Which isn't to say either or is exclusively valid. As I always like to say - two things can true at the same time.
Also, I get what you're saying and didn't mean to imply you were making a normative statement. I also didn't mean to imply that the aspect of understanding is not important. It's fundamental, including from a practical standpoint. In fact, in the past I used to be so much into figuring out the why that I ended up underestimating the what . Then I noticed that different whys can lead to the same or very similar whats, regardless of the content of the whys and I thought that was very interesting. And yet, trying to seperate them beyond the conceptual has tunred out to be nigh impossible.
Anyway, confusing internal monologue over.
Edit: Basically, I am sorta halfway retracting the "distinction without a difference" and going with the always safe "it's complicated"