this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2026
360 points (97.4% liked)

politics

31119 readers
2278 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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
 

On Sunday, Fox News reported, “Calls to repeal women’s rights to vote are emerging from the online firestorm over the Lindsay Clancy trial, prompting Republican women to warn that the intraparty rhetoric could hurt the GOP.”

The fact that this article was published by Fox News was itself noteworthy. Press Baron Rupert Murdoch is one of the few remaining centers of power on the right who is strong enough to pick fights with Trump and his MAGA supporters. In recent years, Murdoch’s outlets have carved out a position for themselves as gatekeepers who work to protect the GOP brand from the most self-destructive impulses of MAGA. One recent example of this phenomenon is the decision to fire (or at least take off the air) the firebrand election denier Maria Bartiromo.

The Fox article was also significant for highlighting how the tragic case of Lindsay Clancy is being exploited by the hard right to justify misogyny. Clancy killed three of her children in 2023. Her legal defense was that she suffered from postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder. Eleven jurors voted to acquit Clancy based on this argument, but one juror resisted, leading to a mistrial.

Nine of the jurors who voted to acquit—presumably because they thought Clancy deserved pity rather than harsh punishment—were women; the lone holdout was a man. The hard right has seized on these facts to justify arguments that women are incapable of reason. The Fox article quoted a post on X that made a common argument: “The female jurors in the Lindsay Clancy trial are speaking out about their deliberations and disagreements with the sole male holdout. The more they speak the better they make the case for repealing the 19th Amendment.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] eronth@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 hours ago

First you talk about the crazy idea in a way that slowly normalizes it.

Then you start talking about it in a way that sounds to have balanced reasons on both sides.

Then you start supporting it, more and more, until you're actively calling for it to happen.

Then your team implements the idea, clearly to the support of millions of citizens.

[–] criscodisco@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago

And they wonder why women are increasingly becoming adverse to dating them.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 12 points 22 hours ago

They are throwing everything they can at the wall to see what sticks so they can destroy whats left of the US government and start their long wished for civil war. They want a monarchy, and they have the US militarys backing to get it.

[–] rabber@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I said this was going to happen weeks ago and people here on lemmy were calling me stupid

[–] fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com 10 points 19 hours ago

Both can be true

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The deep conspiracy theory is that this whole case is fabricated to create toxic man vs women discourse because racism isn't distracting enough right now.

This case is basically an exact copy of a case that apparently happened in Ireland 3 years ago that caused a lot or controversy.

https://www.ctinsider.com/news/article/lindsay-clancy-diedre-morley-murder-trial-ireland-22421995.php

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 6 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

if true I'm pleased that racism isnt working well enough for them. And I don't think sexism will work well enough for them either.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 day ago (47 children)

There’s some in the comments saying the same. That’s what I heard about Roe v Wade as well and look where we are.

The erosion of women’s rights has been happening and is continuing to happen. Don’t let anyone gaslight you about this.

[–] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 6 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Not just women's rights but the rights of anyone that isn't a richwhiteman.

[–] peacepath@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

May those who are not rich, white and (straight) males should go live somewhere else, just the needed time so we can see how great america becomes...

load more comments (45 replies)
[–] Zak@lemmy.world 156 points 2 days ago (34 children)

A mentally ill woman kills her kids, so women shouldn't be able to vote?

What happens when a mentally ill man shoots a bunch of random people?

[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

It's coming from a mentally ill white woman killing her kids and then being found not guilty.

While people assume that, perhaps, a mentally ill black man that kills his kids is sent to the chair.

If you say that "women experiencing severe post partum depression can't be held liable for their actions but a man experiencing a mental break can", then a double standard exists.

This double standard is being used by conservatives to support their broader goal of disenfranchising a democratic leaning voter block.

However, and I can't stress it enough, this double standard DOES NOT EXIST. There are a number of cases in which men experiencing a mental break have murdered children, and then been found not guilty by reason of insanity.

https://www.kcrg.com/2026/07/15/father-found-not-guilty-young-sons-death-remain-mental-health-facility/

https://www.wcax.com/2026/07/30/man-found-not-guilty-murdering-6-year-old-boy-by-reasons-insanity-is-released-prison/

I will say this though... Men across the nation have never grouped up together to raise money for a mentally unwell man that killed children. That's some weird ass shit, and perhaps why people are reacting so much to this lindsey clancy case. Women that go out of their way to support a child killer are... let's just call them weird. Cuz that's some weird ass shit. Ladies... stop it. Y'all fuckin around, gonna get the 19th amendment revoked.... Stop it.

[–] M137@lemmy.today 1 points 6 hours ago

If it's ine if them it's a fluke, a bad apple or caused by one of the others. If it's anyone else it means all of everyone else is just as bad.

How anyone, especially here, doesn't know that's how they think makes no sense.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 day ago (3 children)

That's what bugs me, the double standards. If a female led superhero movie sucks, Hollywood is afraid to invest in female led superhero movies. If a male led superhero movie sucks, oh well, shit happens.

If a woman does something wrong, it's on all women. If a black person does something wrong, it's on all black people. If an immigrant does something wrong, it's on all immigrants. If a transgender person does a mass shooting or a transgender person's partner shoots someone, it's used against all transgender people. But if a white cis man rapes and murders, it isn't seen as a reflection of their demographic

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Don't remember what the term was. Glass cliff? Something like that?

There's a theory that women get put in charge/lead roles when people can tell shit is about to hit the fan.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 points 21 hours ago

Well, it really seems that Hollywood wants them to fail.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

Conservatism is about unequality. For them it's just "nature" to collectively punish all people belonging to a given group that are less powerful.

If you're part of a more powerful group, all your grievances with a group are automatically justified. If not, even if they were justified, you have to show the moral high ground by not acting out on them.

[–] Tryenjer@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Most of them are completely opposed to voting. They are trying to exclude only a portion of the current electorate, as it is more difficult to convince a significant part of the population to support the total abolition of elections.

[–] Washedupcynic@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 hours ago

First they came for the [blank], and I did not speak out because I was not a [blank].

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 108 points 2 days ago

What happens when a mentally ill man shoots a bunch of random people?

Thoughts and prayers.

load more comments (28 replies)
[–] Blibly@lemmy.world 155 points 2 days ago (2 children)

"All the women are telling us we're wrong. We should probably take their voices away."

Typical fucking conservative logic. I hate these people

[–] GolfFoxtrotLima@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 hours ago

This unfortunately, I’m sick and tired of chudservatives

[–] aquovie@lemmy.cafe 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Also they missed the much more obvious conclusion: the lone holdout juror was a man with no evidence, no logic, and all emotion. Shouldn't we take away men's voting rights instead? /s

load more comments
view more: next ›