this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
1041 points (97.1% liked)

politics

24577 readers
3981 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said the reelection of former President Trump would be the “end of democracy” in an interview released Saturday by The Guardian.

“It will be the end of democracy, functional democracy,” Sanders said in the interview.

The Vermont senator also said in the interview that he thinks that another round of Trump as the president will be a lot more extreme than the first.

“He’s made that clear,” Sanders said. “There’s a lot of personal bitterness, he’s a bitter man, having gone through four indictments, humiliated, he’s going to take it out on his enemies. We’ve got to explain to the American people what that means to them — what the collapse of American democracy will mean to all of us.”

Sanders’s words echo those President Biden made in a recent campaign speech during which he said that Trump’s return to the presidency would risk American democracy. The president highlighted the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol in an attempt to cement a point about Trump and other Republicans espousing a kind of extremism that was seen by the world on that day.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

It’s just a new way for below average people to think they’re smarter than everyone else.

Now if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black...

We should not be afraid to speak out against morally unjustifiable support for the mass killing of innocent civillians in our name, and with our tax money. That is the reality of the situation, and it is wrong. It will always be wrong regardless of who is doing the killing.

You thinking you have the more enlightened position simply because you are willing to carte blanche accept this behavior or foreign policy position from the candidate that will be better for the United States doesn't make you a genius, it makes you self-rigtheous and self-centered. Real innocent people are really dying, and your ability to shrug that off in such a smug, self-satisfied way is truly appalling.

[–] osarusan@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

You thinking you have the more enlightened position simply because you are willing to carte blanche accept this behavior or foreign policy position from the candidate that will be better for the United States doesn’t make you a genius, it makes you self-rigtheous and self-centered. Real innocent people are really dying, and your ability to shrug that off in such a smug, self-satisfied way is truly appalling.

This really isn't at all what he said, and is an extremely dishonest thing to post.

You complain that your comments fall on deaf ears, but when you accuse people of things that are blatant lies, what do you expect?

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

This really isn't at all what he said

It certainly was implied though.

[–] osarusan@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No it wasn't, not even in the least. It's absolutely dishonest to pretend that's what it was.

Go after him for what he actually said instead of making up things to be angry about.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Look, I don't agree with you. I found what the OP said to be smug and self-satisfying as I said. I also found it to be pointedly critical towards anybody pointing out that Joe Biden has a blind spot in supporting Israel's unethical campaign against Palestinians.

You want to ignore that element, or you don't see it that way. That's your prerogative, but don't call me dishonest because I'm not being dishonest. There's a difference between legitimate disagreement and dishonesty.

[–] osarusan@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Look at the text you wrote, and the parts that I bolded.

There is a difference between legitimate disagreement and dishonesty.

Pretending that OP is giving carte blanche to genocide or shrugging that off is an outright lie. Accusing them of anything else based on that lie is also dishonest.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You either cannot or will not admit the hypocrisy of OP being hyper-critical and condensending towards people who are upset about the immoral support that is being given to kill innocent civillians, and then trying to bully them for it.

Whichever it happens to be, I no longer give a shit. Therfore, we are at an impasse. So, I'm done arguing with you as it is a waste of time. It's been real, it's been fun, but it ain't been real fun ✌️

[–] osarusan@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

See, I might have cared about OP's post being hypocritical or condescending. But then you went and posted something so outrageously dishonest, and when it was pointed out instead of owning up to your mistake and trying to do better, you doubled down on it and got pissy. But since you don't care, I guess that's where we end it.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)