this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
611 points (98.3% liked)

politics

18651 readers
5053 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 46 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Peaceful protesting only works for so long.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 2 months ago (3 children)

That's where the second amendment actually does come in for once

[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 months ago (2 children)

If you don't have enough people to win the war by picking up pens and voting, you definitely don't have enough to win by picking up guns and shooting.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Depends. You might not even need to shoot. Those anti mask fuckers got what they wanted by protesting while armed to the teeth.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

If they lose by less than the margin of Covid deaths that's going to be hilarious. Until they realize that it was a conspiracy all along and they were tricked into not masking.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No. You're going to have to walk me through the thought process that led you to ask that. My whole point is if you can't win through voting, don't try to start a war because you aren't going to win that either.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Sorry that was half a thought. The country is divided 50/50, both sides see themselves as good and the other evil. Anyone starts shooting and you got a civil war.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago

Not 50/50. The MAGAts are severely overrepresented in the government.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

Republicans have already started shooting. Just look at the rise in hate crimes over the last 8 years.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

The country is divided 50/50, both sides see themselves as good and the other evil

Well one side views it that way. The other side sees themselves as intelligent, compassionate and informed while they see the other side as confused, angry, misinformed and violent.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I do, but I don't represent most folks on the left.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

It’s the literal reason for the 2nd amendment, there is no arguing that fact.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

where is Tetsuya Yamagami when you need him?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

I just finished Lost Judgment, he's probably out prosecuting his own client for a different crime at his own defence appeal as we speak. Oh, I thought you said Takuya Yagami.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Have you tried voting for the party that wants to remove corruption and expand the packed court?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Not with First Past The Post voting still a huge factor in how things play out. I do vote local, however.

But violence solves lots of problems.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

???

FPTP reduces your options to 2 (sometimes 3) and one of the options literally holds the stances you express worry about.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

FPTP prevents 3rd party candidates from being viable. Until we get an Alternative Vote, there's little that can be done to get third parties successfully winning elections.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

and? Just vote for the candidate who best represents you. Bonus points if they want election reform.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why bother limiting it to candidates? I could just write down the person who best represents me.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If they've got a 0% chance of winning then you're throwing your vote away and paving the way for the worst candidate. As I mentioned, FPTP reduces the number of viable candidates, but you still have a choice.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

Everyone other than the top two have a 0% chance of winning. I could write down a fictional character and they would still get the same number of EC votes as a third party on the ballot.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

A fine weapon of choice for the humble keyboard warrior, fair play, and better than the alternative to be sure.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not sure if you're a conservative or just lazy.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Neither, just think keyboard warriors calling for violence is lame and also, they're full of shit.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Throughout all of human history, the only treatment for a plague of conservatism has been direct violence. Pacifism has never cured conservatism.

It's unfortunate that the normal people must walk on egg-shells when discussing the cure for a disease while the diseaae itself publicly calls for extermination of the normal people. If the normal people are to survive this, we must prepare and train together. That means discussing this issue and how to solve it. Unfortunately, there has never been a peaceful solution to this problem. Violence has always been required.

If you have an alternative treatment for this disease, please feel free to share it. Otherwise, why insult those of us who are willing and able to address this problem?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Violence requires a very high bar that has not been met. Not yet anyway, and those who have gone through it would tell you it's wise not to be so flippant. And that bar hasn't been met for you either obviously, regardless of the key clacking, but cool user name.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Slaughtering neighbors may not yet be appropriate, but the appropriate time to discuss our defenses, train and prep is right now. Avoiding or discouraging the discussion is counterproductive and only assists those who are champing at the bit to slaughter us first.

Why should conservatives be permitted to openly discuss oppressing and killing the normal people yet the normal people be disallowed from discussing our defense?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Roger that, colonel. Keep the powder dry.