475
Republicans are quietly deleting mentions of abortion from their sites. We asked why
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
475 points (98.0% liked)
politics
19089 readers
5246 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes. Albeit, I never mentioned anything about speech. It's a bit weird that they immediately jumped to that. I'm mostly mentioning the fact that his senior moments severely outweigh other presidents. I mean, come on. The guy is 81.
I just don't get how people are driven to pick the lesser of two evils when there's much better options out there.
Because spoiler candidates are responsible for the downfall of the earth.
I hold Ralph Nader personally accountable for the state of the climate today. Bush 43 won Florida by a margin of fewer than 600 votes. Nader had 95,000.
I was 15 in 2000. If I was 18, I probably would’ve voted for Nader, and felt like I was doing the right thing. At 38, I realize how naive that was.
It could also be the fact that a lot of modern presidents aren't fit for presidency as much as they can mislead the people. In a perfect world, you could've voted for Nader and not regretted it, because you'd have known that the people that surrounded you weren't naive. Personally though, I feel like raeganomics was to blame for too many of America's problems.
The major problem — one of the major problems, for there are several — one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarise: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarise the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
Another interpretation, and an interesting catch-22, is that they are simultaneously the best and worst contenders for presidency. The act of wanting the presidency warrants at least some ulterior motive, but also requires at least learning how to run a country at the bare minimum. Without the latter, you just can't run a country.