this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2023
-2 points (47.8% liked)

politics

29200 readers
2952 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The Democrats are not authoritarian in that they promote democracy, protect human rights, and promote political plurality.

that's a lie: "vote blue no matter who" and accusations against the green party highlight this. tehy also arrested jill stein at the debate in 2012.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Vote blue no matter who is a political slogan, not an order with any weight. It's not like people are prevented from voting Republican in any way.

Stein was arrested because she didn't meet the polling threshold to be eligible to be considered as a candidate and then tried to force her way on stage. It's no different than you or I going to hear a band play and trying to force our way on stage because we thought we could play guitar better.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

again, it's a matter of interpretation. you making excuses for it would look bad if the prevailing opinion matched mine.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Facts are facts. She was not a political opponent because she did not get enough support to even participate in the debate. She was arrested for breaking the law, not for being a political opponent

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

she was a political opponent. she opposed them politically and challenged them for election.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

She challenged them the same way a fly challenges an F-16.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

this is just rhetorical posturing. she had opposing political positions and was denied a platform with others vying for the same seat.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Denied because she had insufficient support to qualify. That's a requirement in every democracy on the planet to be considered a serious candidate.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

the United States isn't a democracy

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's a representative democracy. If we can't agree on at least this, then your opinions are not grounded in reality and there is no point talking further.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

it's a fascist oligarchy with the trappings of a representative democracy.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So there is no point in talking further. Your views are not based in fact or reality.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

we are working with the same facts. it's been a matter of interpretation this whole time.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You decided on your interpretation regardless of the facts. I am not going to continue a discussion with a dishonest person who cannot admit to plain fact.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

your accusation of dishonesty is, itself, intellectually dishonest.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

this is another baseless accusation that belies a lack of intellectual honesty.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

And yet you continue to respond without proving a single thing you have said unlike my proof. Just like a troll

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago

this is just more rhetoric and empty accusations. I've been very congenial with you.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago

Denied because she had insufficient support to qualify.

those requirements are arbitrary.