245
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago

So, fuck the law altogether, then? This is not the "solution" people think it is.

When the rules get broken, there need to be consequences. You don't just throw out the rules, instead. This is seriously the dumbest timeline.

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 year ago

The rules were thrown out during his first term. The dude has taken over our capital and armed them, and is now going to take over NYC, Chicago and a few others. This isn't the time to go along, we have a corrupt SCOTUS as well. What do you suggest?

[-] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

Defend the Constitution from all threats, both foreign and domestic. But that doesn't have to mean "fighting fire with fire".

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago

Do not split and no cracks. You don't have to agree with how they are fighting the system, but keep your thoughts private and instead, explain how your system is awesome.

But what is happening in Hong Kong is they come up with a slogan, which is translated as Do Not Split, which is, we know that some people are willing to be confrontational with riot police.

And when they are, that’s going to cost the state in terms of not only resources, but it’s going to cost the state in terms of political capital and support. And we know that there are some people who are not willing to do that. And we are going to abide by the protocol of Do Not Split, which means that we’re not going to criticize them openly, and they’re not going to criticize us openly.

If we’re the pacifists, we’re not going to have them criticize us for being sort of like, I don’t know, limpid or flaccid or not courageous or whatever. And we’re not going to criticize them for being more confrontational. And the thing is that the support is also tacit.

https://sh.itjust.works/post/42969194

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

What, specifically, does it mean then?

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 8 points 1 year ago

When one party plays by a set of rules and the other doesn't the rule-conforming party will necessarily be disadvantaged. Fighting fire with fire is the only way to meaningfully fight fascism, setting aside whether the Democratic establishment is even capable of that.

[-] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

Going full fascist, in order to fight fascism isn't going to defeat fascism.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 1 year ago

Who said anything about going fascist?

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, that's not what that word means...

[-] mercano@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

We need to codify the rules into actual laws & constitutional amendments before we go blind from eye-for-an-eye politics.

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 3 points 1 year ago

yeah. that way it can't be broken like habeus corpos and due process!!! /s I have been thinking of some limits I would like to see. Like no more than one member can be in a constitutional position from a family where the set is bounded by who you can't marry so first cousins. Once someone wins or is appointed office it locks out the relatives to do the same until they die/leave the position.

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

We don’t have rule of law. There’s no point in appealing to the rule of law when there is none.

[-] bookmeat@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 1 year ago

No, it just means that Democrats will work in the letter of the law, not only its spirit. Laws as written and contort them to get what you need.

[-] Monument@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago

I agree with you, and your point is valid, but the larger context is that it probably doesn’t matter.

The U.S. has been fucked since… well, probably when it didn’t prosecute Nixon, but definitely since 2011.

Apologies for the WP link - I’m sure better people than I could have provided an archive link. It doesn’t present a paywall to me (or even an Adblock warning, which is interesting…)

Several nations have tried to restore democracy after populist strongmen. It was never the same.

Short of pushing all the way through and becoming something else entirely, I don’t see how the current system can be fixed. And I don’t have much faith that ‘something else entirely’ would wind up being better for the people of the U.S., given that its media and all of the leading political figures are in the pocket of the oligarchy, some of whom have already prepared to rewrite the U.S. constitution (the Koch’s) and are salivating at the opportunity to implement a government that is even less useful to the populous (read: even more friendly to their interests).

My point with sharing this is basically… well.. despair. I guess my horrible, mediocre comment can be summed up as “The U.S. is fucked, so it might as well keep choosing the lesser of two evils. Sorry. 😕”

this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2025
245 points (98.0% liked)

politics

30930 readers
1865 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS