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
If anybody wanted to read the article (ha! yeah, I know) she's not saying we should lose 'woke' ideology or stop attacking 'oligarchy'. She says the opposite of those things, which was phrased by mediaite this way for clickbait reasons.
What she's saying is to use the word "kings" instead of "oligarchy". Which I get. Sure - do that. Makes sense. Same argument, same vitriol, more punch.
As for the 'woke' part, she said:
She's mad as fuck and doesn't want to explain why people need to be treated with respect - it should be a given and we don't need to explain it.
So there's sixty comments on here so far, most of them railing against her but I don't see it. I think she's been misinterpreted, deliberately, in the case of the mediaite headline writer.
Nah, this headline gets it right by ignoring Slotkin's transparent spin
Slotkin voted for the Laken Reilly act and hasn't ever said shit about the CIA being held accountable for torturing people, so she doesn't want to "fucking retake the flag" in any way that isn't just a new reign of terror for brown people
The negging about the word "oligarchy" (which she was happy to use against wealthy Russian assholes who support Putin up until very recently) is continuing a very long tradition of her being against whatever AOC is doing at the moment. She can't come right out and say "I don't like her policies" because those are popular and that would be political suicide, so she's just focusing on AOC's rhetoric and playing to Republican talking points about progressives being the out of touch ones.
Slotkin is a toxic divisive piece of shit who's bad on policy, bad on politics, and drags the whole Democratic party's image down whenever she wants to advance her own career.
I'm not seeing that from this article, but you seem to know a lot about her - what are some other things she's done?
Off the top of my head - she said she's more than "just an AOC," said Rashida Tlaib was supporting terrorism when Tlaib asked the Biden administration to stop funding Israel, said multiple times in interviews that the Green New Deal could never pass because it had controversial ideas like universal healthcare, said multiple times in interviews in 2020 during the height of the George Floyd protests that she would never ever support defunding the police, and on and on. She constantly signal boosts Republican talking points about progressive lawmakers and progressive policy ideas to tear them down and only then turns around and says "Hey Michigan, if you don't want to deal with a Republican party that went completely insane around 2020* I guess you're stuck with me!"
*I forget the exact details, but MAGAts purged their party's leadership for some "say the quiet parts through megaphones" types and then there was some sort of scandal with their finances, so MIGOP has been a barely functional shell of itself for a few years now
Still don't agree with that. Oligarchy is a very specific thing that we are currently living in. We don't have a king, not even by the most new-speak of definitions.
Also hard pass. The CIA should be shuttered they will never be able to provide solution to the problems of capitalism, because their number one goal is to secure "US Interests Abroad" meaning, prop up the oligarchy.
Well you can argue the words or the pronunciation thereof but I don't think you're on the right side of that one. Language is central to reality and you're talking about a wide swath of people's reality where oligarch has little meaning but king has a lot.
As for CIA-bad, no argument there but CIA-bad-therefore-anyone-who-worked-there-bad I'd also disagree with. We gotta have someone to run and if she's progressive and firey, I'll take it. If the left wants to primary her for someone else, fine - so long as they can win. But in most cases they don't have anyone.
It does not make sense and is not the same argument. She's part of a New Democrat Coalition campaign to absolve corporate interests from any responsibility for their lobbying of congressman for whatever filthy outcome they want. She doesnt care about doing the right things, she wants boycotts stopped, and to keep the public busy attacking figureheads.
Do you consider yourself an informed person when it comes to how the system works?
Look how desperate you are to derail anything about Slotkins odious caucus memberships with an ad hom attack.
New Democrats coalition, buddy. Explain why Slotkin is a member of that caucus (AKA the blue dogs) and how the work of that caucus is good for voters. After that we can talk about her other caucus memberships and votes.
Thank you, Lemmy is looking like a slippery slope back into Reddit today with everyone just screaming at the headlines without knowing the full stories or context.
Have you read the article? You should it pretty short, and the Headline absolutely gets it right.
There are a lot of people here who pat themselves on the back for their lack of education and understanding.
This from the guy who insta-pivots to ad hom attacks on anyone who tries to dig into Slotkins caucus membership and voting record, and then runs away.
So we're all stupid huh? Your boos mean nothing to us, rowrowyourbot, we've all seen what makes you cheer.
Trolls are so tiresome.
I for one, greatly appreciate all the comments on this thread that arent pro Slotkin trolls. You give me some hope that the voters of the dem party (or what the dem party should be anyway) have some hope of getting this country back on some sort of track, and flushing the filthy slotkins and republican fascists down the tubes bak into the shameful silent background where they always belonged.