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 don’t think you’re being honest but just in case, let me help you. The implication is, this country has a fascist rot that needs to be excised before it kills us all.
Once the fascist party pretending to be conservative gets out of the way, the conservative party pretending to be liberal can take its place.
Then we might actually have a shot at a true progressive movement in this country.
Fascism is incompatible with democracy.
I’m being honest. I just don’t understand how you would make the distinction because they are all republicans. What about tankies, where would they fit in these? They are leftist but fascists all the same imo. Would Christians be killed as well? What about Muslims which have even more restrictive views on civil rights?
Where do you draw the line between who is defined as a fascist or isn’t I guess is the question, and how would you be able to tell them apart from a regular conservative?
Logistically this ends with everyone who identifies as republican getting killed. It’s the same situation with Trump and immigrants, he wants them all out but he can’t get them all out with due process because it’s impossible to do so, so the only way to get what he wants is to break every law in the process and send them to foreign gulags.
Either we believe in the democratic process or not. And let’s be clear, the democratic process means that if a majority votes for a tyrant, then democracy is working as intended. Using violence to avert such a result is inherently anti democratic. You can argue that it is the morally correct thing, which is arguably true, but we must also suspend the pretense that you believe in true democracy.
It’s also the kind of rhetoric that has given Trump the fuel to convince the masses that there’s a “radical left” plotting to destroy the country. Because this sort of idea does end with the destruction of the country and it is not clear to me that it ends in a liberal democracy and not in an illiberal democracy or a dictatorship of some kind.
This is at best a deeply naive take.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Bottom line: democracy has limits when it comes to groups that would dismantle democracy, even if they are voted in, because if elected, no one would ever have a voice again. Likewise, a free and fair society must be intolerant of intolerance.
I don’t think that free, fair society is necessarily equivalent with democracy. Democracy is simply the rule of the majority, and the majority can certainly choose to live in a society that is unfair and free except for a few. In fact that is mostly how democracy has operated for most of it’s history. You can also impose a free , fair society from the top down but it would require the ever elusive Philosopher King.
I’m just saying that if you’re willing to strike first against a political faction in what is still a free and democratic country, you’re better off not pretending that democracy is your North Star. Maybe it’s equality, or freedom, or fairness or any other ideal. But whatever the ideal is if you are willing to overturn violently what has been decided peacefully through elections, then you’re not a true believer of democracy.
I'm not the person you were originally replying to, but I think laws should be put in place to prevent extremist parties from being put on the ballot at all. Germany has the right idea.
But failing that, if a democratically-elected government comes to power and then proceeds to dismantle democracy, then it is in the most literal sense a tyrannical government, and tyrants must be overthrown by any means necessary.
I agree. It is a good mechanism to have though I worry that it can be abused.
This is why I always end up going to a more libertarian view of things. When there are rules, especially rules that are quite literally designed to be weapons, then there is a big risk for abuse. That’s why state sovereignty for me is such an important component of avoiding the bullshit Trump is (unsuccessfully I might add) trying to pull off. If the states are strong, then no tyrant can really fuck with them. Of course this also runs the risk of tyranny forming within a state, but in that case I think there are mechanisms to combat it, like the other states could embargo it etc.
My hope is that dems can recognize this and become the party of state sovereignty, though I think that ship has sailed for both parties.