611
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
611 points (98.1% liked)
politics
19126 readers
1952 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
As an organization, they are actively and intentionally interfering with electoral politics. Their lifetime appointments were designed to remove them from that dynamic, but they have decided to bypass that principle. The structure of our federal government is designed to deal with problems like this by having the other branches check them when they step out of line like this. Unfortunately, neither of the other branches have shown any desire to take action. As a result we are currently caught in a self-reinforcing death spiral of anti-democratic corruption that will eventually undo the union unless something changes. What a time to be alive.
I think we are supposed to be that something that changes it.
Peaceful protesting only works for so long.
That's where the second amendment actually does come in for once
If you don't have enough people to win the war by picking up pens and voting, you definitely don't have enough to win by picking up guns and shooting.
Depends. You might not even need to shoot. Those anti mask fuckers got what they wanted by protesting while armed to the teeth.
If they lose by less than the margin of Covid deaths that's going to be hilarious. Until they realize that it was a conspiracy all along and they were tricked into not masking.
Do you want a civil war?
No. You're going to have to walk me through the thought process that led you to ask that. My whole point is if you can't win through voting, don't try to start a war because you aren't going to win that either.
Sorry that was half a thought. The country is divided 50/50, both sides see themselves as good and the other evil. Anyone starts shooting and you got a civil war.
Not 50/50. The MAGAts are severely overrepresented in the government.
Republicans have already started shooting. Just look at the rise in hate crimes over the last 8 years.
Well one side views it that way. The other side sees themselves as intelligent, compassionate and informed while they see the other side as confused, angry, misinformed and violent.
I do, but I don't represent most folks on the left.
It’s the literal reason for the 2nd amendment, there is no arguing that fact.
where is Tetsuya Yamagami when you need him?
I just finished Lost Judgment, he's probably out prosecuting his own client for a different crime at his own defence appeal as we speak. Oh, I thought you said Takuya Yagami.
Have you tried voting for the party that wants to remove corruption and expand the packed court?
Not with First Past The Post voting still a huge factor in how things play out. I do vote local, however.
But violence solves lots of problems.
???
FPTP reduces your options to 2 (sometimes 3) and one of the options literally holds the stances you express worry about.
FPTP prevents 3rd party candidates from being viable. Until we get an Alternative Vote, there's little that can be done to get third parties successfully winning elections.
and? Just vote for the candidate who best represents you. Bonus points if they want election reform.
Why bother limiting it to candidates? I could just write down the person who best represents me.
If they've got a 0% chance of winning then you're throwing your vote away and paving the way for the worst candidate. As I mentioned, FPTP reduces the number of viable candidates, but you still have a choice.
Everyone other than the top two have a 0% chance of winning. I could write down a fictional character and they would still get the same number of EC votes as a third party on the ballot.
Batter up, tough guy.
K
A fine weapon of choice for the humble keyboard warrior, fair play, and better than the alternative to be sure.
Not sure if you're a conservative or just lazy.
Neither, just think keyboard warriors calling for violence is lame and also, they're full of shit.
Throughout all of human history, the only treatment for a plague of conservatism has been direct violence. Pacifism has never cured conservatism.
It's unfortunate that the normal people must walk on egg-shells when discussing the cure for a disease while the diseaae itself publicly calls for extermination of the normal people. If the normal people are to survive this, we must prepare and train together. That means discussing this issue and how to solve it. Unfortunately, there has never been a peaceful solution to this problem. Violence has always been required.
If you have an alternative treatment for this disease, please feel free to share it. Otherwise, why insult those of us who are willing and able to address this problem?
Violence requires a very high bar that has not been met. Not yet anyway, and those who have gone through it would tell you it's wise not to be so flippant. And that bar hasn't been met for you either obviously, regardless of the key clacking, but cool user name.
Slaughtering neighbors may not yet be appropriate, but the appropriate time to discuss our defenses, train and prep is right now. Avoiding or discouraging the discussion is counterproductive and only assists those who are champing at the bit to slaughter us first.
Why should conservatives be permitted to openly discuss oppressing and killing the normal people yet the normal people be disallowed from discussing our defense?
Roger that, colonel. Keep the powder dry.
https://apnews.com/article/louisiana-supreme-court-congressional-redistricting-black-representation-201c1fa9e494ad0d88e4d9ed8328eae0
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/26/1200906844/supreme-court-alabama-voting-case
The executive branch (Biden) would have expanded the courts. Manchin and Simena refused to cast the needed votes to make it work. It's up to us to elect more Democrats so we don't have to rely on our worst ones to do the right thing.
Look at what a mess the House has been when the Republicans have had a handful of votes to spare. Dems have no spare votes, and they've still managed to get a lot done. Put a few more Democrats in the Senate, and then we don't have to cater to the quasi-conservative senators in the party.
All Biden has to do is appoint 300 more judges. Maybe 1,000. Let's see the GOP stuff that court.
While I agree with the sentiment, this isn't correct. They aren't actively interfering. They are refusing to interfer when it's thier job. And the structure was designed to remove them from undue influence of the other branches... not from politics in general, or from outside influence. Fact is, noone is truely impartial, and outside influences are pretty much impossible to remove. So the whole idea of a court that is above that is just ludicrous.