this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
396 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2981 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 47 points 11 months ago (3 children)

how much time and money have been wasted on this effort lead by conservatives?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 33 points 11 months ago

It's not wasted if it gets their constituents to vote for them.

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 32 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Don’t call them conservative, they don’t conserve fucking shit.

[–] Frog-Brawler@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I like to refer to them as Republicunts, but I switch it to Republicants when I want to be polite.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 14 points 11 months ago

I call them Regressives. They're trying to speedrun back to the Dark Ages.

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Extremist Reactionaries or Regressives works for me.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

terrorists and saboteurs seem to fit more and more with each passing day

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

More of both than it would take to keep medicare, medicaid and social security solvent in perpetuity.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

universal healthcare would be cheaper than what we pay now.

but both conservatives and democrats dont want universal healthcare.. now go figure out why

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I WAS actually going to say "more than the transition to universal single payer healthcare would cost, after which it would be cheaper than the current system of paying trillions to private insurers for denying as much care as they possibly can", but I could come up with a concise with better punctuation way of saying it 😁

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

i like to put it this way and have people try and make it not sound terrible:

health insurance profits only come at the expense of human suffering.

repeat it. shout it. because its the truth no one wants to say out loud.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Haven't gotten to use this one in a while