this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2026
329 points (98.8% liked)

politics

30286 readers
2409 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 47 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I always like to point out that ex-slave Frederick Douglas bypassed a candidate who was strong for Abolition in order to work with Abe Lincoln, who was willing to keep slavery if it meant preserving the Union.

Douglas decided it was smarter for him to back the candidate who was most likely to win, in hopes that Lincoln could be persuaded once in office.

[–] Snowies@lemmy.zip 36 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (2 children)

Pragmatism is intolerable to extremists.

Any concession is viewed as total defeat.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 hours ago

Just like any other zealot, religious or otherwise

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 8 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Except for actual total defeat, which is seen as a 'moral victory.'

See "Spanish Civil War," "The Black Panthers," and "Rosa Luxemburg"

[–] Wrufieotnak@feddit.org 1 points 3 hours ago

Wait, what should they have done differently in the Spanish civil war and in case of Rosa Luxemburg in your opinion?

What concession/compromise should they have done in order to stop their defeat by fascists/monarchists?

Or do you mean specifically that the extremists like to talk about those "moral victories" but dont want to contribute to politics and use compromise, without meaning that those examples of yours could have been saved by a compromise?

[–] jennybesserit@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

What does that even mean?

'Based'? It's this week's word like 'groovy'. The meaning changes with the needs. Very fetch.

[–] matthurtme@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Stop trying to make fetch happen.

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 7 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

So off the chain it's streets ahead.

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)
[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)
[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I looked that one up.

It means exactly what it sounds like; the young bucks would snap their whips over their horses' heads to get the poor beasts to run faster.

[–] green_goglin@thelemmy.club 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)
[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 1 points 45 minutes ago

Well aren't y'all just some highfalutin word scholars!