this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2024
0 points (NaN% 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 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Get these fairy-tale-believing cunts out of government.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I will do my part by not voting in protest! That will surely work! (/s)

[–] retrospectology@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Protest voting would be aimed at reforming a democratic party that's unfit to confront fascism. It's a legitimate strategy whether you agree with it or not.

Another Biden term will not do anything to mitigate Democratic complicity with fascism. Establishment dems are quite literally worse than useless.

[–] TipRing@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Politicians famously consider the opinions of people who don't vote. /s

[–] retrospectology@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

That's why you vote uncommitted. There's no way to ignore that message or use any of their usual excuses.

But the Democrats understand what they need to do in order to win election, they're just so latched to the corporate tit that they won't do it. Think they can get a few more gulps of that sweet lobby money before things get "serious". The pigs are too busy feeding to give a fuck about our democracy collapsing.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Wow, that’s pretty fucking blatant.

But so were the last dozen things we’ve discovered about the Tribunal of Six.

Unfortunately, I expect nobody will do anything about this in an official capacity, due to obstructionism by the right, and because politicians on the left would probably think iT’s toO diViSiVE

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We as civilians should gather outside the Supreme Court and demand he be removed.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

His response will be

laughter fuck you, eat shit

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not if you're peacefully protesting and practicing your right to bear arms at the same time. Rubepublicans hate that shit.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I mean, if you try that in DC, you’ll get arrested. They require permits for concealed carry, and open carry is not legal outside of law enforcement and military.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well they're squashing protestors all over the place. So get ready.

I mean if you’re preparing in the sense I think you are, you shouldn’t be posting about it

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ever wish you'd stumble onto a Death Note? To hell with that psycho manually scrawling the names of whoever pops into his head. Strategically study and pick off corrupt and fashy leaders with a variety of cardiovascular illnesses and aggressive cancers. Maybe the occasional shanking of a child molester, accidental head trauma for an ultra greedy megachurch pastor, or quiet suicide for life- & planet-wrecking ceos and tycoons. All randomly spread out and just enough to keep their organization stagnant or sliding backwards. I mean if you have the power of a deity at your disposal it's not that hard to use it strategically for the benefit of humanity.

[–] fukurthumz420@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

find the part of the fantasy that doesn't require supernatural powers and manifest it into reality.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

ITT: children, grandchildren, or great grandchildren of settlers in America realizing that the separation between church and state was just a power grab between white people.

The state sucks, so does the church. Which is just the state with more rituals.

[–] VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

He's surprisingly right, even if he is part of the problem.

The current political climate in this country can't last into the long-term future. I dislike the idea of conflict but many of the current right's ideals simply cannot coexist with those outside of their cult. The right has also been more aggressive about dismantling the country in several areas as a means of takeover. They really do see this as a battle or a war.

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They accomplished the majority of it by simply showing up. They didn't need their guns or elaborate criminal conspiracies, they just applied for positions of power (however minor) and used that power to push their agenda and support their dogshit friends doing the same.

Meanwhile, progressivism on the internet has been taken over nihilistic neckbeards that just sit back and watch it all happen, making worthless promises about how if it gets too bad, their for-profit firearms will bail them out.

We used to get arrested.

[–] retrospectology@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I've got news, it's not progressives standing in the way of fighting this. It's the morons who cling to "bipartisanship" because they still think this is about protecting the corporate money hose with their GOP pals across the aisle.

Meanwhile every Republican will vote like an ideolouge whether they are ir not. Neoliberalism has failed, utterly and completely, to confront fascism. Instead they bury their heads in the sand, ignore their growing base of Millenials and GenZ, and think they can protect a status quo that's dissolving beneath their feet.

People like you need to wake up. You're not going to get "slow progress" out of the lesser of two evils, you're going to get a negligbly slower slide into fascism. There is no protecting your comfortable bubble at this point.

[–] Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The guy can say anything he wants. It's not like if he does something illegal that the supreme court is going to convict him. He doesn't need to ever win an election, he's there for life.

This will just upset the people who already know the guy is a problem and are already upset with him.

I wish justices had term limits.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's not like someone is going to get mad enough to off him...

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

The folks mad enough to off a SC justice are more likely to point their guns at Jackson or Sotomayer.

Liberals will just frown and send polite letters to their Senators to maybe consider having a hearing or something.

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

By law, religious people should not be allowed in government or policy making. Delusional people cannot be trusted with such work.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Who would pass such a law? Hell, who would even vote for such a law? Churches have enormous influence at the ballot box.

Even at the peak of its power, the Soviets couldn't simply abolish religious leadership. And they were in a country with Atheists in the highest tiers of government, with actual money and military power to toss around. What's the plan to outlaw religious demagogues in a state founded by religious demagogues?

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Getting reasonable people into positions of power and authority will be a start

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

Belling the Cat

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Anyone can pay $150 to become a dues-paying member and rub elbows with the court’s nine justices at events like the dinner where Windsor spoke with Alito. (Tickets for the dinner were an extra $500.)

this is all it took for him to admit this stuff? anybody with 650$ could have walked in and asked him a couple prodding questions? these guys really arent even trying to hide it anymore

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

anybody with 650$ could have walked in and asked him a couple prodding questions?

Alito has a long history of running his mouth. I doubt you'd even need to pay the $650, assuming he thought you were from a conservative media outlet.

[–] rsuri@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Pressed on whether the court has an obligation to put the country on a more “moral path,” Roberts turns the tables on his questioner: “Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path?” He argues instead: “That’s for people we elect. That’s not for lawyers.” Presented with the claim that America is a “Christian nation” and that the Supreme Court should be “guiding us in that path,” Roberts again disagrees, citing the perspectives of “Jewish and Muslim friends,” before asserting, “It’s not our job to do that. It’s our job to decide the cases the best we can.”

I know John Roberts has made some terrible rulings, but he deserves credit where it's due in that he won't literally tear up the Constitution. Unfortunately he's the exact kind of Justice the Trump-era GOP tries to avoid choosing, because he puts the Constitution above Trump.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

he deserves credit where it’s due in that he won’t literally tear up the Constitution

Guy pealing big ribbons off the edge of the document for the last 19 years still hasn't shoved it wholesale through a shredder. And for that we should be grateful, maybe, unless oops he's in a 5-4 decision were the other justices decide to go at constitutional law with a blowtorch.

he puts the Constitution above Trump

Excited for him to put on RGB's "I Dissent!" necklace in the SCOTUS decision that hands Trump Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia in 2024.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

It would be one thing if there was no mechanism for accountability within the Supreme Court. Its a fundamental flaw in our constitution.

However: https://www.fastcompany.com/90243523/can-a-supreme-court-justice-be-removed-yes-and-heres-how

The way the Biden campaign is running to the right this election, Democrats will almost assuredly be losing the house and the senate, so removing any of these justices is a bit of a fantasy. If anything, we'll probably lose a liberal justice for a conservative one.

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee -1 points 3 months ago

Who cares what Samuel Alito said? It's not like he's REWRITING Laws that our Elected Representatives already passed so it aligns more with HIS Bias instead of the text of the Constitution!

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

The second flag is the “Appeal to Heaven” flag, a Revolutionary War-era banner. The “Appeal to Heaven” language references philosopher John Locke, who argued that, when earthly political appeals are exhausted, men have the right to take up arms and let God sort out the justness of the cause. While the The Appeal to Heaven flag was not always controversial, it has been revived by militant Christian nationalists and was also a potent symbol on Jan. 6. This flag was flown at the Alitos’ vacation home in New Jersey in 2023.

I didn't know the flag was literally "kill everyone and let God sort them out"...