politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The party of small government has always been the party of NO government. Because once democracy is gone, they can take over and do what they want. The south never stopped waging the civil war, they just kept waging it by other means. They always hated the Union, and because they weren't stomped out completely they came back, like an infection when you don't finish your antibiotics.
They want to destroy it, because they know that they cannot and will never be in charge as long as us, the common people have a say.
This is why I can't get on board with anarchy. Who would protect us from the grandchildren of the confederacy, or the fourth reich?
Stable systems are worth maintaining when they protect us from far worse things. One of the big issues with the current situation is how severely it's destabilizing the system. That's their goal, as you state.
I'd much rather have incremental progress within an imperfect system, than a catastrophic failure followed by a gamble on what takes its place.
Honestly, nobody really "wants" anarchy. It's just an intermediary stage. Remember the 1991 LA riots? People always say "if you want change, violence and burning down your own neighborhood is dumb", but that is what anarchy is. It is a last resort. A total revolt against society. The social contract has been ripped in half- anything goes. If things burn, they burn. If they loot, they loot. If they kill, they kill. A suspension of all law and order. A reversion to the Hobbesian natural state- a life, nasty, brutish, and short. Because that is what happens when there is nothing left, when all other recourse has been thwarted and when supplication has failed over generations. On the most fundamental metaphysical level, society is a contract, and agreement. If the counter party does not uphold its part of the bargain, who the fuck are they to demand shit? Nope. We refuse. If they don't uphold their end, why wouldn't we stop? That's how unions operate. We stand in solidarity with one another, because we want to cooperate. But if you can't, if someone wants to subjugate you, or treat you unfairly, what are you to do? Play along? "Just pick yourself up by your bootstraps", hey FUCK YOU, YOU pick yourself up of the blazing fire I am about to start if I'm not treated equally. Alas I wax revolutionary. But I'm really just trying to illustrate a point.
"You should have revolted with less violence!" is the weak retaliatory cry of the bourgeoisie.
You hit on an important topic here, because in a polarized world where everything is either black or white, and there are no grayscales, anything other than perfection is not good enough. Which is ridiculous. It's like gun control issues, just to take an example- "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns". Yeah. Yeah, and that's bad, we want to make sure to catch all the outlaws who have guns when they shouldn't. I don't know if that makes sense, it makes sense in my head right now, but ok, so let's say... Let's say some gun legislation cuts school shootings by 5%. Is that not enough? It isn't. But it's a fucking start. "Those laws don't work" is such a dumb argument because that's like saying "murder is illegal, yet people murder! Curious!", they claim that if it's not perfect, which it will never be, it's useless.
"There is no bother voting, because both parties are bad. One is worse than the other, but they're both bad, so I don't vote."
That is letting perfect be the enemy of good. "I support Kamala, but one of her cabinet members doesn't pray five times daily towards Mecca, therefore I'd rather abstain, or vote Trump". Like, how does that work in people's heads? Surely we can acknowledge that progress is slow and imperfect. Surely it is better to take a step forward, than take one back.
Anyways, thanks for interacting, I appreciate if you read all that, if not, then that's all good, too. One love. Peace upon mankind.
"The child is unruly and needs to be restrained, lest it hurts itself, or us."
Never a question whether perhaps the parenting isn't all that fucking great and there's good reason to lash the fuck out.
Just my $20.
Intermediate? Who do you think would come out on top after an extended time of might-makes-right and unhinged violence?
I think if you want me to answer you, you better address the whole idea I took time writing out with more effort than a single sentence ending in a question mark. Or two.