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
Excellent idea. Many of us disagree with Republicans, but many Republicans aren’t villains who want a bigoted dictator in the White House. They don’t want to be condescended to, either, and that’s fair. Nobody likes that.
The best way to win them over is with other Republicans who want to preserve democracy.
That's a funny way of saying "former Republicans." By definition, anyone who wants to preserve democracy can no longer be a member of the Republican Party because they are directly at odds with 100% of its platform and ideology.
A lot of people have a political party woven into their identity. It's hard for them to accept that their party is no longer aligned with their views. If they still identify as Republicans but oppose Trump, they might just avoid confronting the cognitive dissonance by staying home or writing in a candidate for president. Plenty of others will pinch their nose and vote Trump because they just can't escape seeing it as R vs D.
By appealing to them as Republicans, the Harris campaign is able to basically say that it's ok, you don't have to choose between being a Republican and voting against the insurrectionist would-be dictator.
You're not wrong, tactically speaking about the current election, but at some point afterwards we've got quit enabling their denial and start helping them through the rest of those stages of grief.
Yeah, that’s what it’s become. A lot of people who voted for Trump the first time won’t do it again, because they thought the warnings and predictions were exaggerated. Oops.
Now, we’ve got a Republican Party that’s painted itself into a corner, because they let themselves become overrun by fascists. Former Republicans need to come to terms with that.
I mean, yes, but also no: it's not so much that they've "let themselves become overrun" and more "willingly given in to their basest desires."
Just give em the benefit of the doubt that they are really just conservatives, who may be misguided, but who are generally still operating in good faith, unlike the Trumpists simply looking to seize power and abuse it.
That's always been a fiction. The word for people who believe in things like democracy and the rule of law has always been some variety of "liberal."
Conservatism -- yes, true conservatism -- is an unbroken thread from monarchists, to Confederates, to NAZIs, to Trump.
Conservatism, minus the not-a-true-scotsman thing, is rooted in tradition. Traditions can vary from culture to culture, a person could even have liberal democracy as their tradition.
It's really just a sort of tag you can apply to any other ideology that means "very rigid-minded". You could have a conservative liberal, or a conservative communist if you wanted, they simply need to embrace those as traditions and refuse to alter their opinions no matter how much contradictory evidence is presented.
In this sense it is the opposite of progressive, which is identified by seeking change, both in the world around us, but also within ourselves as we try to stay current with changing environments and growing bodies of knowledge. We change our minds very readily when proven wrong, that's what makes us distinct from conservatives.
You didn't watch the source I cited at all, did you? Conservatism has a specific set of philosophers who founded it and we know what their goals were. It was not about being "very rigid-minded;" it was about defending the monarchy (and once that proved to be a lost cause, hierarchy in general).
Conservatives only want to "conserve" the status-quo insofar as the status-quo happens to be hierarchical. If the status-quo were egalitarian instead, they would 100% be champing at the bit to make broad, sweeping changes to introduce hierarchy as hard and fast as possible.
It's called disagreeing with your source. Our world is a fluid thing, I don't think a responsible historian or philosopher can try to define something by its origin without taking a broader context into account.
An epiphany the party may one day have regarding progressives.
How many of them voted for him anyway? How many of them were taking action within their party to stop the slide into an authoritarian clownshow? I can think of 3, and it hasn't gone well for them.