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
So, fuck the law altogether, then? This is not the "solution" people think it is.
When the rules get broken, there need to be consequences. You don't just throw out the rules, instead. This is seriously the dumbest timeline.
The rules were thrown out during his first term. The dude has taken over our capital and armed them, and is now going to take over NYC, Chicago and a few others. This isn't the time to go along, we have a corrupt SCOTUS as well. What do you suggest?
Defend the Constitution from all threats, both foreign and domestic. But that doesn't have to mean "fighting fire with fire".
Do not split and no cracks. You don't have to agree with how they are fighting the system, but keep your thoughts private and instead, explain how your system is awesome.
https://sh.itjust.works/post/42969194
I have no problem with protesters clashing with unlawfully deployed police. What I do have a problem with is the idea that, "if they can break the rules, then so can we". That, I will criticize. Because that indicates that we are not on the same side anymore.
It's not “if they can break the rules, then so can we." It's "They're taking over our country by deploying armed troops everywhere, ICE, a corrupt Scotus, EO's that break the law and presidential immunity. There are no rules to be broken anymore. We must save our democracy or we'll be sorry we didn't."
Following an unjust law is worse than disobeying a just law.
What, specifically, does it mean then?
When one party plays by a set of rules and the other doesn't the rule-conforming party will necessarily be disadvantaged. Fighting fire with fire is the only way to meaningfully fight fascism, setting aside whether the Democratic establishment is even capable of that.
Going full fascist, in order to fight fascism isn't going to defeat fascism.
Who said anything about going fascist?
Yeah, that's not what that word means...
We need to codify the rules into actual laws & constitutional amendments before we go blind from eye-for-an-eye politics.
yeah. that way it can't be broken like habeus corpos and due process!!! /s I have been thinking of some limits I would like to see. Like no more than one member can be in a constitutional position from a family where the set is bounded by who you can't marry so first cousins. Once someone wins or is appointed office it locks out the relatives to do the same until they die/leave the position.
We don’t have rule of law. There’s no point in appealing to the rule of law when there is none.
No, it just means that Democrats will work in the letter of the law, not only its spirit. Laws as written and contort them to get what you need.
I agree with you, and your point is valid, but the larger context is that it probably doesn’t matter.
The U.S. has been fucked since… well, probably when it didn’t prosecute Nixon, but definitely since 2011.
Apologies for the WP link - I’m sure better people than I could have provided an archive link. It doesn’t present a paywall to me (or even an Adblock warning, which is interesting…)
Several nations have tried to restore democracy after populist strongmen. It was never the same.
Short of pushing all the way through and becoming something else entirely, I don’t see how the current system can be fixed. And I don’t have much faith that ‘something else entirely’ would wind up being better for the people of the U.S., given that its media and all of the leading political figures are in the pocket of the oligarchy, some of whom have already prepared to rewrite the U.S. constitution (the Koch’s) and are salivating at the opportunity to implement a government that is even less useful to the populous (read: even more friendly to their interests).
My point with sharing this is basically… well.. despair. I guess my horrible, mediocre comment can be summed up as “The U.S. is fucked, so it might as well keep choosing the lesser of two evils. Sorry. 😕”