this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

politics

29551 readers
1059 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
top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years 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 2 years 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 -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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.

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years 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 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

Belling the Cat

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years 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 2 years 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.

[–] Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years 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.

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

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

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

[–] TipRing@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] retrospectology@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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.

[–] retrospectology@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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.

[–] rsuri@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years 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 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years 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"...

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years 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.

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years 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!

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years 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.

[–] Magnus@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 2 years ago

Giant nothing story