489
submitted 1 year ago by ZeroCool@feddit.ch to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Monkeyhog@lemmy.world 68 points 1 year ago

Is "Sexual Anarchy" supposed to be a bad thing? Because that's sounds pretty fucking awesome to me.

[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 13 points 1 year ago

I'm pretty sure there's at least 5 mildly successful punk bands called that. If not, there should be!

[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 year ago

Woohoo, fuck the systeeeem!

Puts on condom

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 66 points 1 year ago

"Incel-isation of the modern GOP"? OK, apart from the point that "modern" and "GOP" don't really go together, this just means no sane female member of the human race wants to touch a Republican even with a 10-foot pole?

[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

He is closeted gay man his homophoiba screams it. Democrats should kick him out of office next year. We need Democrats to take a super majority in both chambers.

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Could we not use "he is secretly gay" as an insult or as a witch hunt? Like, I don't see why that even needs to be elaborated on in the 2020s.

We can comment on hateful bigots and hypocrites without dragging down one of the demographics who are particularly under threat from said bigots.

[-] Frog-Brawler@kbin.social 34 points 1 year ago

My 2 cents that no one asked for… mentioning, or hypothesizing that he’s “secretly gay,” is meant to further articulate the degree of absurdity around his views. I do not believe it’s meant as a which hunt or an insult.

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] morphballganon@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

It's not bad if he's gay. It's bad if his policies are disingenuous. If he's gay, then there's an extra reason he shouldn't support anti-gay legislation.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 59 points 1 year ago

Imagine thinking sexual anarchy is a bad thing

[-] deafboy@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Coitus without a license? Preposterous!

[-] Maeve@kbin.social 54 points 1 year ago

He actually said it out loud. Instead of expecting fabulously wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share.

He wants to breed more wage slaves that are so disposable, it doesn’t matter if they starve on the streets, as long as they’re not self-medicating.

[-] PeterPoopshit@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is how mass shootings are going to increase in frequency. As soon as they wise up in their tactics and stop going after innocent school children I wonder what they'll do about it.

Even the type of mentally retarded subhuman trash that kills random people will figure out the corrupt government is fucking them over sooner or later.

[-] Maeve@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

They won’t attack them because the party projects the same projections as the base; iow, anything but face the shadow self.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] TheJims@lemmy.world 51 points 1 year ago

This guy is just so fucking weird.

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 51 points 1 year ago

We can expect MAGA Mike to ban women from talking because he believes they don't belong outside of the kitchen.

[-] ZeroCool@feddit.ch 30 points 1 year ago

"Exposing your ankles on the House floor like a hussy? That's a censuring." - Mike Johnson

[-] superduperenigma@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

He will ban it because he's a Christofascist who interprets the Bible literally.

Mike Johnson: "Go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it - that's my worldview. That's what I believe and so I make no apologies for it."

The Bible, 1 Timothy 2:12: But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] rapscallion@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago

It’s crazy that House Republicans only sank Jim Jordan’s Speakership candidacy because he and his proxies were mean to them. Once they were offered a bland nobody with even more extreme beliefs they elected him unanimously.

[-] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago

Calling them fervent misogynists would be much more accurate, because unfortunately, these hateful hypocrites are anything but "involuntarily celibate" behind closed doors.

[-] z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml 42 points 1 year ago

If he really wants to go down this route, then perhaps he should call out Nick Fuentes over his desire to have a child bride first. Both shithead monsters can fuck off and die.

If I'm going to Hell, then I am sure as shit seeing these two assholes there. And I'm looking forward to accompanying them while we burn. Seriously, fuck them both.

load more comments (22 replies)
[-] Nobody@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago

A reporter needs to ask him about his stance on pornography being banned and whether he's considering crafting legislation to that effect. His first answer will be wildly unpopular, and if his second is anything but a complete denial, that story will explode.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

Who would fuck a conservative, anyway? Just the thought turns my stomach. They are fucking grotesque.

[-] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

As for why these people find someone who will marry them? They covet power just like their spouses. These psychopaths chase power and money. It's all they care about. They will kill you and me if it means they get more, and they won't lose any sleep over it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] slurpeesoforion@startrek.website 26 points 1 year ago

The party of legitimate rape and those who would depend on it for sexual satisfaction is a set within set.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] figaro@lemdro.id 17 points 1 year ago

I'm calling it now. The GOP platform will include banning contraceptives within 10 years.

[-] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

I'd be surprised if it isn't on the platform by next year's election.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

"Sexual anarchy"

Go ahead, Johnson - threaten us with a good time.

[-] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 year ago
[-] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What’s up with Salon? I feel like I’m OOTL on this one.

Edit:

I checked here and is it this:

We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to occasionally utilizing sources poor sources and failed fact checks.

or something else in addition to this?

[-] SuperSpaceFan@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The article says "commentary" in the top left corner, so it is an editorial piece.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Dangdoggo@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

Super common thing I'm seeing recently among cons, complete dismissal of any article not from the right sources. You see how this makes you much easier to manipulate right? Read everything.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
489 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19136 readers
3621 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS