this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2026
164 points (95.1% liked)

politics

30004 readers
2561 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 10 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Articles backfired, voters don't believe it.

Also, where are the articles on Collins' insider trading? Her voting record on the war and her defense contractor lobbyist husband? Her alleged infidelity with a man that she then married while he divorced his former wife while she was dying of cancer?

Nah, instead "Platner has bad vibes ya know, though unsubstantied" is totally more worth it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ7PS26zGKY

Also, Scott Pelley on the inside of CBS and zionist, conservative control

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dpK9lJ3ucw

[–] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 9 points 10 hours ago

Noooooo fuckin shit

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 33 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (3 children)

That headline is one of the stupidest things i have ever read. The dude is a politician, its perfectly fine to attack him with a political motive. Any attack on him would be politically motivated... If someone does things that are morally reprehensible, then they should be attacked for it.

[–] favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 51 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

You’re missing the point entirely, probably because you don’t have the context. The NY Times worked with a Heritage Foundation political operative that founded the Ladies for Kavanaugh political group to accuse him of “abuse,” which they were not able to substantiate. It’s politically motivated because the NY Times, although liberal, is a Zionist paper that would rather have a pro-Israel Republican in the Senate than a Democrat who calls the events in Gaza a genocide.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I mean it explains why this headline is attempting to defend him, but the headline is still stupid. It should just read "The Attacks on Graham Platner Are Unsubstantiated"

[–] Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 6 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

But that is burying the lead again. Are the attacks unsubstantiated because legitimate victims simply cannot prove definitively that they were assaulted or put in a position of discomfort, or are the attacks unsubstantiated because they were made by a clearly partisan political actor? If you really don't want to use the words "politically motivated", you'd have to add to your headline that they were made by a pro-Israel, Ladies-for-Kavanaugh founder in order to accurately portray these attacks.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 22 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

If someone does things that are morally reprehensible

Well, that's the rub, isn't it?

Graham Platner cheating on his wife is the worst thing in history. Susan Collins green-lighting multiple genocides overseas, while callously turning her back on constituents snatched up by ICE goons, is above reproach.

Meanwhile, Ken Paxton cheating on his wife is a private matter and fake news and only a woke transgender illegal communist would mention it. James Talarico met his wife at Good Luck Charles (Austin gay bar) and eats a turkey leg like a vegan and spent half his life as a minister where he claimed God didn't have a gender. All of that is also supposed to be super bad.

"Morally reprehensible" is just "whatever the Democrat did" updated daily.

And yeah, the headline is baby-brained. But that's American politics in a nutshell these days.

Graham Platner’s critics are operating with a politically motivated double standard.

Should have been the headline as it gets to the nut of our Zionist media priorities.

[–] cowfodder@lemmy.zip 6 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Also, a reminder that Susan Collins is a home wrecker. Her husband started an affair with her while his first wife was dying of cancer. He ultimately left his dying wife for Susan Collins.

[–] teslekova@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago

Newt Gingrich?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago

TIL. Never even heard that one.

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 6 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

The point the headline is trying to make are that they are baseless, they are making a mountain out of a molehill, it’s a smear campaign.

The zionists, the oligarchs, the pedophiles, are all scared he will be elected and be a loud voice against them for like 6 years.

[–] 3abas@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago

The Zionists and oligarchs are not afraid of a was criminal who went on 5 terror tours and loved his time killing brown people so much he got a Nazi tattoo to commemorate it, by his own gleeful unapologetic admission. His portrayal as progressive should insult you, not make you jump to defend him and accuse those accuse him of sexual assault of being liars so conveniently.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago
[–] InfernoWarrior@piefed.social -4 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Yeah... the guy has a Nazi tattoo. I will not support someone like that. I do not care if he says he 'has changed'. Politicians lie all of the time. What is up with the party recently? First Graham Platner and then Maureen Galindo? Both OPENLY either has Nazi symbolatry or says to throw people in camps en masse to castrate them. EVEN PEOPLE LIKE AOC, Hakeem Jeffries, Suzan DelBene, Josh Gottheimer, Jared Moskowitz, and John Fetterman ALL CONDEMNED her and Brad Schneider, Jake Auchincloss, Cory Booker, and Janet Mills condemned him! Stop. Embracing. Nazi. Candidates. You KNOW it is bad when some of the most prominent Democratic Party leaders are condemning them and saying their rhetorics are unacceptable. If you get mad at the right for remarks that are less blatant than this over stuff like this where it is somewhat expected, you should be OUTRAGED that people this blatant are getting support in the party that is supposed to be better than this. It should not be a partisan issue to say DO NOT SYMPATHISE WITH NAZIS. What happened to 'once a Nazi, always a Nazi'?

Edited for grammar.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

He never said "he changed" in relation to the tattoo. He said he was unaware, and honestly it's believable. Is it really that hard to imagine some drunk military dudes in the early 2000s go to a tattoo shop in Croatia and pick a skull tattoo because they think it looks badass. If anyone in that scenario was a Nazi it was the tattoo artist for having that design ready to go.

I swear people forget there was a time when we didn't have the world's information at our fingertips to lookup and know all these symbols.

[–] InfernoWarrior@piefed.social 1 points 3 hours ago

And what is to stop actual Nazis from claiming they 'were unaware'? I am very willing to vote Democrat, but it just seems dodgy to me. People like Angus King, Joe Manchin, John Fetterman, Mark Kelly, Gary Peters, Barack Obama in his first term, and the likes (this is ignoring candidates of other parties I would vote for if they ran, which is many)... but this just rubs me the wrong way. That being said, I do not have the option to vote for him anyways, so it does not matter for me. Last time... I literally voted 40/10/40/10 on my local and federal ballot combined (Democrat, Green, GOP, and Libertarian). It is because I look into what the specific candidate that is running for office has done, has said, their plans, and if they have proven they have changed. When choosing your leaders, looking out for deception matters quite a lot. Reasonably, why should I vote for someone who has ANY Nazi tattoo on him, REGARDLESS of his excuses? It is why I went from liking Elon Musk pre-2025 to not fully trusting him post-2025 outside of technology when he did the Nazi salute ranting about how his 'heart goes out to you' and 'civilisation', even though I think his inventions are great. I cannot reasonably support people who do stuff like that. So again, I ask you, what is proving he is being honest when he claims he 'was unaware' it was a Nazi tattoo? Why should I bet on his honesty about not being a neo-Nazi when I could potentially support a different Democrat candidate with less baggage?

load more comments
view more: next ›