360
Republicans enabling Trump's reign of terror will be remembered for nothing but their silence
(www.lgbtqnation.com)
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2025
360 points (98.6% liked)
politics
20474 readers
3588 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is why I'm of the opinion that we should refer to everyone in the legislative branch by state. Names should only be necessary for campaigning for the primary and the general. Sure, put their name in the title bar at the bottom of the screen as they speak, but the media should just refer to all politicians by their state of origin.
hear me out
We have almost 600 people in power in the legislative branch. 100 in the senate and 435 in the house. My home state has 10 Politicians in this branch, Georgia has 16, California has 54 . Most people struggle with 10 names at a party lasting 4 hours. Good luck trying to keep track of all of them on, unless you are a political science major, a purely casual basis. We will only be able to keep track of 3 to 5 politicians that just... truly suck. A few that we really like, and the rest... let's just be real here, do god knows what.
You can do a lot of damage being hidden and convoluted, and I don't think it's unfair to simplify it by grouping politicians by state. If a Georgia politician does not want to be grouped with Marjorie Taylor Greene then they need to provide ammunition to get them ousted in the next election cycle. If they don't then they're part of the problem. This also drags all of the state into things. If I don't like Tom Emmer, I sigh and move on about my day. If I find Minnesota did something dumb, then I get cranky. Oh wow, this is the guy in my district, or my neighbor's district? I had no idea. I want this guy out!
What's more, it incentivizes cooperation and competition at a state level, and begins to break up the more monolithic federal level of the parties. Federally, it's easier to pace the unpopular positions to be pushed by people with 4 years left in office, and hope the heat cools down three years later. If the entire state gets dragged into unpopular positions, it makes them much harder to push.
I think there are a lot of cute ideas to reframe the optics around any given megalomaniac in a Senate Seat. This is good. Making them wear their sponsors on a jacket while on the chamber floor would be another one. I'm also very partial to the Original First Amendment, which failed back in 1789, with the intent of guaranteeing one House Seat per 30,000 residents. Now a house district can be as large as 600,000.
But so much of our struggle is bound up in the privatization of mass media and the consolidation of ownership and decommissioning of so many regional offices and bureaus. The coverage of individual candidates is stacked by a handful of kleptocrats. And the airwaves are swamped with misinformation 24/7/365 as it stands, only hitting a hysterical pitch in the weeks before the election.
As it stands, I don't think we really benefit from "The Representative From Texas" and "The Representative from California" getting generic obnoxious headlines, as the hate between people in this states is already so intense and so artificial as to make it redundant.