politics
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
view the rest of the comments
I see this sentiment a lot. "Why aren't Americans doing anything? Why aren't leftist militias rising up to take back the capital? Etc. Etc. Etc."
First of all, asking "why aren't Americans doing anything" is a highly unaware question. We are doing things, but they aren't going to give any airtime to the protests, marches, boycotts, and legal efforts taking place, because the media is now firmly on the side of those with power, not the common people.
Second of all, it's pretty heartless of you to just casually ask us to "exercise the second amendment", because when you ask that, you're asking for at least some of us to die. Put yourselves in our shoes, and be honest - if you were in our position, would it be so easy and casual to just pick up a gun and join a violent revolution? Would you be willing to risk death in that situation? Personally, I'm not a soldier, I've never had an interest in guns, I'd be less than useless in that capacity. So I'm looking at other things we can do before escalating to that.
I get that everyone's scared because the nation with the most powerful military on earth is falling into fascism. That's terrifying to most Americans as well, and I think a lot of us are still frozen with that fear. I understand and agree that this problem is on Americans to fix. But I hope the rest of the world will be willing to help when we call on them, instead of just sitting idly by wondering when that magical second amendment is gonna kick in.
Yeah the people making 2A arguments are seemingly asking people to murder people on their behalf with zero regards to how that plays out. Not surprisingly most gun owners are in fact not looking to murder people.
Also, even if they were, who do they have access to murder? It's almost begging people to take their frustrations out on their neighbors, which will only make things so much worse.
Exactly, the people in the Trump sphere Im closest to is I knew some people whose fathers knew Trump. They are/were nice and decent people. I would he really sad if anyone hurt them and would have a hard time seeing how it would improve anything.
We should be amassed outside the homes of our legislators and judges demanding they stop this.
I have plenty of guns and ammo to use for the defense of myself and family. As a disabled vet I can barely feed my family, let alone March alone from Colorado to overthrow the President.
When they come to me, then I can fight. I can't afford to join a secessionist movement because we still have a group of people that still are supposed to fight using the law and wors before the guns come out. The 1st Ammendment is 1st for a reason. The 2nd is the last resort which most sane gun owners don't want to have to use.
There's supposed to be an opposition party to fight the executive encroachment.
Probably because they expect your military to start murdering them with zero regards to how it plays out within the next 4 years.
This is essentially what happened within Nazi Germany before World War 2
I think the second amendment is pointed out so readily, because most of the world has watched America and their guns and ridiculous gun problems, and that is usually what is pointed at in some kind of gotcha defence. Second, we do see the protests and legal efforts, and honestly looking in, seems like that's pissing into the wind.
As for myself committing violence in an situation similar to America's? Can't honestly answer one way or the other until I am in the situation myself, but don't think it would be a hard no, I'm not opposed to violence in the correct situation, and boy you guys are, if not there already, very very close to that correct situation.
The answer is no, most of these people calling for violence are cowards themselves.
Not cowards just have sense, better someone else dows the violence rather than your own life get ruined the end goal is you having a better life if you do the violence your own life gets worse objectively.
We all want luigis, but none of us are desperate enough to be luigis, because we obviously dont want our own lives to goto shit? There is no happy ending for them
You can try to justify it any way you want. If you call for someone else to commit violence in your stead, you are a coward.
Or not an idiot with a sense of self preservation, you call it coward, I call it not a dumbass who was born to die
You can be that, without calling for violence. The moment you do otherwise, you are a coward unless you're fighting yourself.
There's also the fact that people with consumer grade weapons aren't going to be doing shit against the military, which is what would be brought out against them. If I knew there was even a good chance that I could do something leading to my death that would do a damn bit of good, I'd do it. But there isn't.
That's the whole argument after every school shooting.
Uhh, what? The argument is to arm ourselves after a school shooting?
Let me know when clever chants and signs held by a few hundred people bring about change
It has before. Women didn't get the right to vote from a massive war. Martin Luther King wasn't an army general. You're being just as dismissive and ignorant as the other guy.
MLK would get nothing done without Malcolm X. Imagine thinking the civil rights movement was a peaceful protest! That's wild you would try to retcon the history of that fight.
Women's suffrage groups used the slogan "Deeds not words." They committed arson and bombings.
I'd argue you're being naive. Every American movement has to have violence attached to it. That is sadly how everything gets done in this shithole.
Lol ok, since you want to be pedantic, let's really get into some details, because you're just wrong about MLK to start.
Civil Rights Act of 1964
How did it happen? The Civil Rights Movement itself was largely nonviolent, with most of the violence happening towards protestors. Figures like Martin Luther King Jr. emphasized civil disobedience, boycotts, and peaceful protests.
Women suffrage
Though some suffragettes engaged in civil disobedience, the broader movement relied on lobbying, protests, and legal appeals. That was the bulk. What you're calling out is one offs and trying to act like that was the norm or bulk of the movement. It was not.
Marriage Equality
Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. No violence needed.
Disability Rights Movement, also known as the ADA
Advocates lobbied for equal rights through demonstrations and legal battles. This resulted in the ADA being passed in 1990
The Fair Labor Standards Act (1938) – Ending Child Labor & Establishing Minimum Wage
Labor unions and activists pushed for reforms through strikes, negotiations, and legal battles.
The Voting Rights Act (1965) – Protecting Minority Voter Rights
The Selma to Montgomery March and other efforts, led by MLK and civil rights groups, put pressure on the government.
Title IX (1972) – Gender Equality in Education & Sports
Women’s rights activists lobbied for equal educational opportunities. This endned gender discrimination in schools receiving federal funding, revolutionizing women’s sports and education.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal (2011) – Allowing Open LGBTQ+ Military Service
LGBTQ+ advocates, veterans, and lawmakers worked for repeal.
So while you'd argue I'm being naive, I'd argue that you're not informed enough about the topic to make such statements. Especially such absolute statements like "every American movement has used violence" when that is objectively wrong. I don't remember the great Marriage Equality rioters killing people, or the War of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Please stop spreading misinformation.
Edit: lol some people are mad that facts don't line up with their world view.
You think only killing each other is violence
No I'm not?
The comment was made that violence is needed for any change. Violence happens because of issues, but violence did not help move these forward. Unless you can explain how.
The labor movement was a very bloody fight. Blair mountain, and Triangle Shirtwaist was a lot of death.
There were bombings during the Civil rights era, it wasn't just sit-ins. Lots of people died due to lunching.
Also anything during the 30's was filled with bodies due to the Geat Depression and fights like the Battle of Central Park.
Only when the President had enough bad blood did they decide to push changes against their own interests. No US political changes came without bloodshed.
Blair Mountain? These are entirely different. The labor rights I mentioned were 17 years after that. Blair mountain was in 1921, fair labor standards was 1938. They are not the same thing. And triangle shirtwaist was 10 more years before that and had nothing to do with workers rights, it was an accident that exposed safety issues, not some attack. This is more dishonesty. The incident I mentioned move forward without violence. Other instances having violence doesn't change that.
Yes there were bombings, sure. There are always radicals, tell me how it moved the needle. Doesn't prove anything.
See, the problem with the statement that there always has to be violence is that it's an absolute statement. One instance to the contrary proves it wrong. This idea also puts forward this idea that violence is the ONLY way to make progress. So if you want change, start hurting people. That's so wrong, factually.
Then you bring in deaths from the depression? What? This is all over the place, those deaths were not the result of people acting for change, those are victims of the economy. Not every death ever is for a cause.
But maybe I'm wrong, how many people died or got hurt in attacks for marriage equality? Because I remember it all being very legislative in nature. Sure there were hate crimes, but that's not violence effecting change, it was the thing that needed to change.
You've either fallen for the propaganda, or you're purposely being dismissive of the efforts currently taking place. Either way, your participation in this discussion is not helpful.