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
I know Margie is as dumb as the day is long, but did she really forget what leading an insurrection actually looks like already?
No, she intentionally used this language to dilute the impact of the actual, real, attempted insurrection on Jan 6. She's trying to normalize the phrase so people don't associate the word with violently storming the capitol trying to hang the vice president.
Just like how Trump has started calling the January 6th insurrectionists that were sentenced to jail "the J6 Hostages." It's meant to both evoke images of people being wrongly held against their will by an evil group and to trivialize the word "hostage."
Yep, they've been calling every protest at the Capitol an insurrection, so they can lump Jan 6th into the bucket of 'protests at the Capitol', which are basically a weekly occurrence that typically don't even make the news.
It is sad that we do not have a strong President who can metaphorically bash her fucking face in on the reg from the bully pulpit
The president amplifying all the incredible stupid shit she says would be the worst possible politcal move.
Its a good thing we have a strong president who doesnt use his bully pulpit to respond to petty and stupid bullshit all day.
She was re-elected. She won the first time because her supporters threatened violence against the opponent and his family. You think that should be ignored? It's literally his job to defend the country against these people.
You think the president of the united states, the head of the executive branch and the military, who makes endless decisions that directly steer our nation all day long, should directly and overly concern himself with a single lunatic house member who endorsed qanon and jewish space lasers? A person whose brand is based on high profile conflict? The president should ignore his duties to engage with her, to directly empower and boost her brand with her base, for what possible gain?
No, it's not his job at all to slap down an errant house member. Im sure his press secretary has many times though, as dealing with lunatic comments is part of their direct role. Why havent you prasied them for their work handling her?
MTG is a singular person that is part of - and a leader of- a violent terrorist movement. It is absolutely his job to slap her down.
Y'all really want the president to argue with every crazy motherfucker that wants his spotlight, huh?
Shouldn't he be doing a sit down with Tucker Carlson, go on Bannons podcast? Hit up the OAN circuit? Maybe go on some "skeptic" YouTuber channels? They are all crazy terrorist supporters, so he needs to go toe to toe with them nonstop too, right?
MTG is a piece of shit that got her start in politics by stalking and harrasing the parkland survivors. Engaging with her is exactly what gives her power. Why are you so insistent the most powerful person on earth, who has way more fucking important things to do than argue with loons, go and give her his spotlight?
Boy, you REALLY dont get this, do you?
She is part of an anti-American movement. His literal job is to crush that movement. It's in his job description. It's not a one-on-one thing.
This sounds like those dumbasses who think a rebellion is two armies meeting on a vattle field. It isn't, and thats why the US army gets its ass kicked on the reg.
Uh huh. Yall cheering for Trumps "Twitter dunks" to be what the president's job is now, and youre saying I'm confused about what the role is about.
Sure thing man.
That's not at all what I am endorsing. I am endorsing punishment for anti-American activism.
You REALLY do not understand this.
Isn't this the Karl Rove strategy? Accuse your opponents of the things that you're guilty of so it muddies the waters if they accuse you?