this post was submitted on 11 May 2024
247 points (98.1% liked)

politics

18645 readers
3602 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
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 69 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Databases of gun owners? "DoNt ImPeDe On My FrEeDom"

Database of pregnant women? "Great idea"

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Maybe if pregnant women were in the constitution, your argument would make sense, but they're not!

See, you've got your:

- First Amendment: The right to tell you to shut the fuck up

- Second Amendment: The right to shoot you the fuck up

- Third Amendment: Combination of the first and second—shut the fuck up or get shot the fuck up

This has been another episode of "People must actually believe this shit." Thank you for your time and remember what totally real, lifetime-appointed supreme court judge Brett Cavendishbananana patriotically once said:

"😭I like beer"

- Brett Cadaverknob

[–] [email protected] 58 points 3 months ago (3 children)

It would also, most concerningly, create an online government database called “pregnancy.gov.”

This website would have people with unwanted pregnancies provide their name, zip code, and contact information and direct them to anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers near them. (CPCs are facilities that rarely provide actual health care and exist solely to convince someone seeking an abortion to remain pregnant, or delay them from getting an abortion as long as possible—all while luring abortion seekers onto their premises by pretending to offer abortions.) As Axios notes, the site would not allow resources for abortion clinics and it would also award grants to anti-abortion nonprofits.

Jesus fucking Christ, do they really not recognize how horrifyingly fascist this is?

[–] [email protected] 33 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The fascism is the point. They are mask off at this point.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 months ago

They are recruiting fascists for the presidential transition.

It is quite out in the open.

https://www.project2025.org

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago

They know it.

[–] tigeruppercut 10 points 3 months ago

Submit Katie Britt's name to the database every day.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago

Another one that sees "The Handmaid's Tale" as a manual to follow.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

Inb4 inclusion in this database will be required for anyone using Medicaid or other government assistance. You know ... for totally legitimate medicine reasons.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

She seems like a nice lady. /s

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

Stepford Wives face.

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

Useless grandstanding. It will never make it out of committee. On the insane chance it did, Biden would immediately veto it.

But, if you want to keep track yourself, here it is: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/4296/all-actions?s=2&r=2

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

You can call it useless grandstanding but bills get re-introduced in later sessions all the time. If Trump wins, this sort of thing could become law