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
No, that's what this article quoted her about for their entire article.
Clearly my first statement didn't land the way intended, since you missed me calling it "silly" immediately afterwards.
Criticizing you for failing to talk about policy in a conversation that isn't about that is silly. Much like I think it's silly to criticize someone for not talking about policy because in a particular context they're talking about something else.
Did she call it "the plan", or was that the article, which is an article about an article about an interview about an upcoming speech?
From the actual interview, she refers to a set of speeches directed at party volunteers and organizers as a "war plan", and indicated they will cover many topics, including messaging. Not quite the same as "the plan" being a change in messaging.
That's what politicians do. Most of the politicians you went on to say you liked just ... Talk. They talk until people do what they're talking about.
I feel like the thread of this conversation has been lost. I don't actually care to have a referendum on the Democrats or their strategy, and I'm relatively neutral towards slotkin.
I still disagree that saying Democrats have a perception problem they need to work on is being a "Republican lite", and think it's odd to criticize both for being passive and not doing anything, but also for saying they should stop being passive and do something.
It really feels like you're just looking for a reason to be angry, and it doesn't actually matter if it's here or not, since you already have a notion of what you're angry about.
This really feels like projection, bud. I'm with Democrats that want to do shit. To the point where I just donated to hoggs cause and skipped kamala's.
Sure, politicians mostly talk, but some also put their skin in the game while others sit on the sidelines and say what they're doing wrong.
Maybe the focus groups say it would be 10% more effective for AOC to use the word King rather than oligarch, but you know what matters more? The movement showing the fuck up in the first place.
Cool. We've entirely stopped talking about what I cared about, which was "man, this article sure has a misleading headline", so you can keep sharing your feelings about different Democrats if you want but I honestly don't really care.
👍 the headline ain't that misleading either but you do you