this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
425 points (98.6% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4620 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 119 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Weird, per his beloved Constitution the federal government’s duty here is to ensure unmolested travel between and amongst the states.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 61 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Don't worry, the supreme court will soon reinterpret it to mean something completely different.

[–] worldwidewave@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month ago

Thomas: “The founding fathers clearly indicated that they wanted some light molestation between the states, as women were property back then. This is no different from inspecting wheat when it enters the country.”

[–] N1ghtstalk3r@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Gotta love the Supreme Court nowadays… if you want to change the rules just cozy up to them and ask them to do it for you.

Wish i could be rich enough to be a branch of govt.

We need some guys in there thatll take a bag of weed and some buttons or I'll never get to participate in democracy

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Yes. The text says one thing, but what did the founders intend? Surely not the literal words. Only Clarence and pals will know after a seance. The first part of the ritual is, of course, receiving millions of dollars from billionaires.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 14 points 1 month ago

Yeah but not like that, that’s against the rules! \s

[–] Ulvain@sh.itjust.works 88 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Let's be clear on what that implies: it means all women travelling Interstate would have to prove at a state border that they're not pregnant. Which means proving with what?

Some form of proof you have an IUD or contraceptive? They're planning on banning that too.

Some kind of medical document, emitted less than x days ago by a doctor?

And since that would be insanely difficult to obtain, it essentially means women would be banned from interstate travel.

Welcome to Gilead, blessed be the fucking fruit.

[–] Lianodel@ttrpg.network 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If only the people who supported regressive, dumbass positions like JD Vance's could be swayed by thinking about things for even a few fucking seconds.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It would be considered a feature, not a bug, if women could not travel without the permission of men.

[–] Lianodel@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah, that's true.

It's just that based on prior arguments I've had, they're just so agitated by thinking things through. even if you put aside the overt heinousness, they just wave away the collateral damage, dismissing them as trivial details as though the whole fucking point of policy is the effect those policies will have. It's partly that they're advocating for awful things, but also frustrating that they are too willfully ignorant to realize how bad their own arguments are.

[–] NRay7882@lemmy.world 66 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oh, but I thought they were going to leave it up to the states. This is such a surprise.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 38 points 1 month ago (1 children)

When a conservative says "states rights" they actually mean "localized tyranny" within any locality they control. That's why they instantly apply the tyranny at a federal level whenever they are in control.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago

When a regressive says, "states' rights," they actually mean, "we tried and failed to legislate this at a federal level." You are absolutely right.

[–] _bcron@lemmy.world 40 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Female Trump supporters are gonna be in for a shock when they realize 'bringing back the 50s' doesn't mean wearing cute aprons and letting pies cool on window sills but instead means they're sitting in a police station for driving while female while cops are sorting out why they had a couple hundred bucks cash on hand

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Just wait until they find out that women could not have bank accounts, and would not have their own credit cards, under 50s-style thinking.

And for people that would say, "oh, the Republicans would never do that"...LOL. I remember hearing crusty old parents of boomers bitching about "no fault divorce" and I didn't think too many of the youngs GAF about that - until fairly recently - you see these incels talking about rolling it back, some of them born after 9/11 FFS. Also, the right is targeting birth control (again), just like the olden times. They are trying to force "the" bible back into our public schools.

These people are seriously brain-damaged dumbasses who are such Karens that they just cannot let anyone else live their goddamn lives in peace. They have distorted meanings of terms - they view their special privileges and the ability to rule over others as "freedom" and "liberty". Don't put anything past them - some of them will try to roll back 60+ years of progress...

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 38 points 1 month ago (2 children)

My God USA is going to a a civil war over not returning women to Southern states isint it. History really likes to rhyme.

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 37 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The Bible Belt constantly yearns for slaves

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 15 points 1 month ago

At some point someone needs to realize When human pops become a product you gone off the deep end. Especially with automation ramping up harder and harder.

[–] rhythmisaprancer@moist.catsweat.com 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A new underground railroad?

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Great idea. At this point US may need it again but it's just sad that it's come to that.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 38 points 1 month ago (3 children)

That's a violation of international law, specifically article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

"Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state." "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."

[–] N1ghtstalk3r@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago (3 children)

These extremists don’t care about international law, or established laws. Apparently the only laws they respect anymore are the one they make themselves.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

They do not respect those, either, those laws are for poors.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] grue@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

Conservatives want the US to be a confederation, at least when it suits them.

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The UDHR is simply a declaration, i.e. "everyone SHOULD have these and we SHOULD work towards making sure everyone have these", but it's not legally enforceable - it's not a treaty or anything like that.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago

You can still use it to hold people accountable, especially representatives.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 37 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I can only assume that by picking him as VP, Trump is actively trying to lose so he can have another go at Jan 6th.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

It's what it certainly feels like, the guy is so toxic and apparently just keeps on pushing the envelope.

[–] Omega_Man@lemmy.world 34 points 1 month ago

Maybe some sort of Fugitive Women Act? There is precedence for these types of acts in this country ...

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yup... this is really "leave it up to the states" and "personal freedom" oriented.

Just in case you're new to life the GOP never gives a shit about the rules or norms they complain are being broken... They're absolutely full of shit.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

My favorite is when they've been crying all these crocodile tears over the plight of women under Shariah Law and so on - Republicans: "OMG! women cannot even drive in Saudi Arabia! You should be glad we are trying to make you worship the Lord here in Jesustan in the way we interpret the very same source material!"

Also Republicans: "We need to keep these womenfolk from travelin' outside our Gilead states to more free states. Because freedom and Jesus".

(They do the same crocodile tears over treatment of Teh Gheyz under extremist Islamic rule, too, by the way)

The reality is, when they bitch about "creeping Shariah Law" is that they are jealous that another brand of an Abrahamic cult might outdo them at their own game, but just call the god they both worship (which is Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah) by a name they don't really appreciate all that much.

[–] Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 22 points 1 month ago

Trans people: First time?

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 month ago (2 children)

But if you don't like black people wouldn't you want abortion planes? Cmon assholes, get your rhetoric straight.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago

What they like, above all else, is repressing people

[–] ohlaph@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

They need black people to work their prisons.

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The number of women who vote republican given the way some of these people talk indicates one of these scenarios:

— those women are experiencing Stockholm syndrome of some kind

— they sincerely believe the same shit, and think they’ll somehow escape the reality they want to impose on others

— they sincerely believe that women should have less rights than men

— or the worst scenario: they’re in some unsafe and vulnerable position in their family, and will experience poverty or death if they don’t espouse the same nonsense

I think the only way to break out of any of these scenarios is to show real life examples and stories of what happens to women in ultra conservative or repressive societies.

Theres no shortage of sad stories in either history or current affairs, women who vote republican don’t appreciate the gravity of the hell they’re going to unleash on themselves.

Edit to include some examples, western women shouldn’t think they’re immune to these sad things if they elect regressive politicians

https://www.hrw.org/the-day-in-human-rights/2023/07/26

They have banned girls and women from education above the sixth-grade level. They’ve banned women from most employment. They’ve imposed severe restrictions on women and girls to travel and even leave their homes. They’ve banned women and girls from competitive sports.

Also see,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I always picture that women in Handmaid's Tale - Serena Joy. The first name should become a thing, just like a "Karen" has - the term Serena should be used for women that vote against their own best interests because they are incredibly myopic and just so filled with hatred for others that they don't understand the danger voting for qons presents to themselves...

[–] aniki@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That federal response should be "go fuck yourself JD Pants."

[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 month ago

"Go fuck your couch, couch fucker!" also works.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

JD moved his cum filled couch from one place to another... That definitely should be illegal

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Huh. The people always jibber-jabbering about "freedom" and "liberty" don't mean a fucking word of it. Just like how they do all that performative "patriotism" and are the most traitorous and are the ones that hate this country more than anyone, possibly even more than the likes of OBL.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Oh does he not want women in Kentucky to be able to get an abortion in Ohio? A lot of our government here is of that opinion unfortunately

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 4 points 1 month ago

The Fugitive Slave Act was passed 11 years before the Civil War started. I'm not sure we'll have that long.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

Can we give this couch fucker a 12 gauge enema, or does that count as a cruel and unusual punishment. Ya know what I dont care im an Inland Imperial morals are for men stronger than me.

load more comments
view more: next ›