this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023

301 points (94.1% liked)

politics

19179 readers

4582 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

• 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

301

Fetterman says he assumed speaking publicly about his mental health ‘would be the end of my career’ (thehill.com)

submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave to c/politics

75 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) said in an interview that aired Sunday that he believed opening up to the public about his mental health struggles earlier this year would negatively impact his career.

In an interview with NBC’s Kristen Welker on “Meet the Press,” Fetterman opened up about his battle with clinical depression earlier this year and urged those facing mental health issues to seek help. He said that for the first couple of weeks while being treated for depression at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, he felt scared about sharing his experiences publicly.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Ghostalmedia 61 points 10 months ago (11 children)

Looking at this comment thread, everyone seems pretty quick to completely write off someone they generally agree with simply because they don’t agree with that person on one or two other issues.

Yeah, I don’t agree with his stance on the Israeli / Hamas war, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t want to encourage people to support destigmatizing very a common mental health issue that 1 out of 10 people have.

Hell, I have loved ones that I generally agree with politically that think Hamas’ atrocities and crimes justify going even lower in response. I don’t agree with them about that issue, but I’m not going to go nuclear on them about it. I’m still going to bond with them over common ground.

[–] theparadox 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The man has turned his back on the progressives that elected him. It's not just Israel. https://nypost.com/2023/12/15/news/fetterman-insists-hes-not-a-progressive-despite-frequently-calling-himself-one/

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

When you’re citing the nypost about dems, you’re really really reaching to stir shit up. The post is an even more out there Murdoch rag.

Liberal infighting only benefits the rich and republicans and they love to incite it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

The site sucks but it's true. Bro ran on progressive issues then outright said "jk I'm not a progressive." fuck em. 🤷

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

It's the biggest problem in today's politics. People are willing to vote against their interests because of single issues.

You have one candidate that meets 90/100 criteria but because they aren't absolutely perfect they instead don't vote for them again or they vote for the next guy who instead only meets 80 of the 100 criteria just out of spite for the first guy not being perfect.

Then they get mad at that guy and vote for the next guy who only meets 75 of the 100. So on and so forth until the unicorn of a candidate which meets 90 of 100 finally pops up again like 40 years later.

load more comments (9 replies)

[–] [email protected] 49 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

It’s not the speaking about mental health that will be the end of his career. It’s the bullheaded support of an ongoing genocide that will do it.

Him speaking so openly about his mental health was the one thing he had going for him in my mind, tbh. I’ve side eyed him ever since finding out he liked a shotgun on a Black man out for a jog, just because Fetterman thought he heard gunshots, and assumed the Black man out for a jog must be a criminal running away.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

What is this incident you’re talking about?

[–] WidowsFavoriteSon 32 points 10 months ago (3 children)

At this point in time, the only conclusion I can draw is that most of the people on Lemmy have the political maturity of a 13 year old.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Most people on the internet, as it turns out.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Supporting extremely documented genocide when your team does it is very mature, agreed, we're all very smart and adulting.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Most people in general

[–] Ensign_Crab 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Anyone who still shows signs of having a conscience must be younger than me and therefore wrong.

[–] Godric 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Anyone who disagrees with me has no conscience and is therefore wrong

See? I also threw a strawman reply, so now you look like a jagoff! What a great contribution we have both made to the thread, let's keep at it /s

[–] Ensign_Crab 5 points 10 months ago (5 children)

If we're talking about funding genocide, I'm against it. I'm comfortable with the assertion that those who disagree with me on the subject have no conscience. If you want to dispute that, do so directly, and I'll gladly have that conversation.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] answersplease77 28 points 10 months ago (1 children)

AIPAC paid him less than $10k for every soul they killed and kid they crippled for life for him to dance with their flag against protestors demanding ceasefire. His humanity, justice and sense of morality is just about who pays him more

[–] fathog 8 points 10 months ago

Or he knows that he’ll likely get primaried if he changes his stance? Money runs politics in more ways than one

[–] FlyingSquid 19 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Instead he continued on into a career that allowed him say all kinds of atrocious things in support of Israel.

Still better than Dr. Oz would have been though.

For all the people downvoting me:

Asked if he was surprised that so many on the left disagree with him on Israel, Fetterman responded, “I mean, of course, I expected that there will always be a diversity of opinions and that as long as things go that the Democratic caucus might splinter more.

"I would be the last man standing to be absolutely there on the Israeli side on this with no conditions.” He continues, “I grieve, and it’s awful the incredible civilian deaths and the suffering. It is awful. War is hell, as they say. But only one side has used civilians as human shields. Only one side has broken the ceasefires. Only one side will systematically rape, torture, and mutilate Israeli women and girls in the most unspeakable, awful ways. … Without destroying Hamas, there will be no enduring peace and a stable, two-state solution.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/john-fetterman-hamas-must-go-i-would-be-last-man-standing-for-israel/ar-AA1md0Ad

"If not for the horrific attacks by Hamas terrorists, thousands of innocent Israelis and Palestinians would still be alive today," Fetterman wrote on Wednesday.

"Now is not the time to talk about a ceasefire. We must support Israel in efforts to eliminate the Hamas terrorists who slaughtered innocent men, women, and children," he went on.

"Hamas does not want peace, they want to destroy Israel. We can talk about a ceasefire after Hamas is neutralized," the senator added.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/john-fettermans-israel-remarks-spark-furious-backlash/ar-AA1iuX2Z

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

I mean, the things he’s saying aren’t atrocious, you just don’t like or agree with them.

[–] FlyingSquid 36 points 10 months ago (2 children)

"I would be the last man standing to be absolutely there on the Israeli side on this with no conditions.”

That sounds pretty atrocious to me. No conditions means "even if they plan to slaughter every last Palestinian child."

But only one side has used civilians as human shields. Only one side has broken the ceasefires. Only one side will systematically rape, torture, and mutilate Israeli women and girls in the most unspeakable, awful ways.

This, meanwhile, is an atrocious lie. Because Israel and the IDF have been found guilty of all of those things. It is an atrocious lie, not just a lie, because it ignores all of the horrific things Israel has done since he wants to be the "last man standing on the Israeli side"

If not for the horrific attacks by Hamas terrorists, thousands of innocent Israelis and Palestinians would still be alive today

This is atrocious because it puts the responsibility of taking the lives of thousands of Palestinians out of the IDF's hands and entirely in Hamas' hands, suggesting that Israel is innocent of killing Palestinians.

We can talk about a ceasefire after Hamas is neutralized,

And if you can't see why this is atrocious, unless you're just unaware that thousands of children have been killed in the very short timespan of this war, I don't even know how to help you.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 25 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (7 children)

Standing by genocide is atrocious. Decent people will of course not like and support that.

[Edit] Oh? Do you disagree? Is supporting genocide A-OK in your books?

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Refusing to call for a ceasefire at the least is supportive of continuing atrocities. It is atrocious to support the Israeli state at this point and has been for years.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago

What a brave man.

I didn't realize a stroke could cause symptoms like clinical depression and thirst for the blood of innocent Palestinian children.

Thankfully we have John Fetterman here to normalize these things for us!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

turns out it's gonna be abandoning his progressive base

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) said in an interview that aired Sunday that he believed opening up to the public about his mental health struggles earlier this year would negatively impact his career.

He said that for the first couple of weeks while being treated for depression at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, he felt scared about sharing his experiences publicly.

Fetterman checked himself into Walter Reed in February to be treated for clinical depression — a condition that he says got worse after winning his election in 2022.

He told Welker that he ultimately decided to check himself in for treatment because he began to have “dark conversations” with himself about self-harm.

He mentioned that a colleague of his took her own life the day before the interview, adding that he hopes he can help others by speaking up about his own struggles.

The original article contains 393 words, the summary contains 177 words. Saved 55%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's alright to admit we were wrong guys. Fetterman is a complete dunce. His blind and oblivious support of the State of Israel will be the end of his career.

load more comments