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
Can you name one example?
I'm a two-time Bernie for President alum and believe without hesitation that he would have been a transformative president for America and the world.
Honestly I can only name two things on which Bernie and I disagree, and it's unsurprising because they are two things on which a lot of people disagree and highly nuanced, and it's heavy policy wonk differences on gun safety and certain middle east policy. I don't want to go into them in detail here. They're both issues on which our views have changed over time.
I'm a pretty hardcore lefty: do on-the-ground organizing, contribute some of my time to NGOs, am part of the working group on some causes, etc.. Damn near everyone of note in my union knows me by first name.
So it comes as a real shocker to them that I think gun control as they want to pursue it is deeply misguided. This is not an emotional decision: my stance is informed by statistics, experience, and theory. You can actually have working gun control without banning anything.
Him supporting FOSTA/SESTA (if I remember correctly).
What exactly is wrong with that? Wikipedia makes it seem like it just requires sites to moderate user content or face consequences for blatant enabling of sex trafficking specifically:
I feel like the key detail is “knowingly”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSTA-SESTA
No, it literally removed the Section 230 protections.
Ok, that makes more sense. It was not clear from Wikipedia.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-rfk-health-human-services/
Thanks.
His expectation that most would understand what he meant by, "I'll never tell you who to vote for. And, if I do, don't listen to me."
Snopes is showing that he didn’t say quite that. He was responding to a question in a town hall meeting where he said Clinton needed to earn the votes of his supporters to win, and even if he endorsed her, his supporters needed to make up their own mind. It was a long and thoughtful response that was not boiled down to two sentences.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bernie-sanders-told-supporters-hed-never-tell-them-how-to-vote/
I'd love it if people cared enough to read the long form. But, the idea can be spread much more efficiently with a two sentence good faith summary:
Some wish to tell you what to think. Others wish to help you reason out your own answers.
I get your point, but it is not his error if someone else makes a meme taking a fraction of his comments out of context.
They're absolutly not "taken out of context". His intended message is represented well in summary.
I like Bernie as much as the next person but idolizing people and believing they can do no wrong is not helpful
I don’t believe he can do no wrong—I was asking for examples, and the ones I replied to were not totally accurate in my opinion.