this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
517 points (98.1% liked)

politics

18651 readers
3611 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

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] 114 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Uh violating First Amendment rights? The parade organizers are a private entity not the government. It's too bad a representative in state legislature doesn't understand the Constitution.

Also

Basabe responded, writing, “You have no right to exclude me, not as an individual nor as an elected official, nor may you attempt to set me up again with a bogus ‘public safety claim.’ I have always attended this parade peacefully.”

So he's saying the security/safety claim is bullshit.

He also accused organizers of allowing “extremist” protesters “to agitate the crowds and incite violence against me for political purposes” during last year’s parade.

Now he's saying it isn't.

I thought the GOP was all about private entities refusing service to whoever they want and in a bigger sense less regulation from the 'nanny' government. I guess that only applies when they are being 'discriminated' against.

[–] [email protected] 50 points 4 months ago (2 children)

the goal is to bankrupt the organization as much as possible and he's using the legal system to do so; if the organization doesn't respond, he automatically wins in this legal system, so they must spend $$$ on lawyers to fight the lawsuit.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If he wins he opens the door for people he doesn't like to do the same.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

That is a fight for tomorrow, right now this private entity needs to "respect his authoritah" and FIRST AMENDMENT rights.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

An organization like this already has lawyers on staff, and it should be trivial to get this case dismissed before it starts.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The GOP is all about conservativism. Conservativism is abject narcissism dressed up like a political ideology, but there are no fundamentally conservative ideals. I suppose you could call it "hyper-intersectional identity politics," but really it's just selfishness. The conservative will say or do anything as long as they believe it benefits the conservative. They are righteous because of who they are, and they are justified by their faith in themselves.

So when it benefits the conservatives to support a private business refusing service, then it is a moral absolute that private businesses can refuse service. When they are refused service, it is a crime against humanity to create such inequality. These two ideas appear contradictory, even hypocritical, from the outside, but they are fully rational to conservatives who are inside the circle.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

It's the "outgroups to bind, in groups to protect" thing. That's all.

Or the other angle on it: "you don't tell me what to do. I tell you what to do."

It's a shitty world view held by shitty people.

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

I agree with what you are saying but you are confusing Republicans for Conservatives. I believe it is possible for a reasonable Conservative to exist, that has different priorities than Liberals but has coherent arguments and the ability to work with others. I don't believe a reasonable Conservative could support the Republicans.

In a reasonable country a reasonable Conservative would probably look a lot like Joe Biden.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

It is not possible for a reasonable Conservative to exist, because Conservativism isn't a reasonable ideology. There are no permanently conservative priorities, because each conservative defines conservative values around their own definition for who is included in their version of conservativism.

I know you're probably running down a list in your head of all the values that you associate with stereotypical conservatives, but there isn't one of them where you won't find exceptions and rationalizations for why it's OK for conservatives to ignore those values. Their position inevitably changes when the position is not benefiting their in-group. They are anti-abortion, until they want an abortion. They are anti-inmigration, except for immigrants from their home country. They want low taxes, for themselves, and want to reduce spending on anything they don't directly benefit from.

Just about the only thing you could argue is exclusively conservative are most forms of bigotry. While there are certainly bigoted progressives, bigots are welcomed and supported in Conservative parties as long as they fit within the defition of the self.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Get out of here with your "logic." /s