this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
-5 points (0.0% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2538 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 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.
  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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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 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
[–] blazera@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (64 children)

Democrats do not want democracy

[–] aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Weird thing to say about a group that routinely takes majorities in national elections.

Surely a party that, on a good day, gets 1% of the vote, and on a bad day, can’t manage to file the right paperwork to get on the ballot, is really what the people want.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Oh man wait til you hear about the Workers Party of Korea if election success is your measurement of democracy support.

[–] aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, that’s definitely a relevant and insightful comparison to the US electoral system.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If electoral success is your standard, then yes. The US is way more comparable to third world fascist states than anyone wants to admit, and a dominant political party leveraging its power to ban competition is one such similarity.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I thought this decision was made by the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court because they didn’t follow that state’s rules for eligibility.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

following a challenge supported by the Democratic donor-funded, anti-third-party Clear Choice PAC.

Every story you ever see about a candidate being thrown off a ballot is prompted by a democratic effort to do so. There are multiple such stories posted today, ill let you go look into their context.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The Pennsylvania high court agreed with a Commonwealth Court decision to bar De la Cruz and her running mate, Karina Garcia, from the ballot.

That’s the rest of the sentence that you forgot about.

Every story you ever see about a candidate being thrown off a ballot is prompted by a democratic effort to do so.

Did you even read the second paragraph because it’s about a republican effort to remove a candidate.

Pennsylvania justices also ruled against the Constitution Party's James Clymer, whose name was listed as a placeholder for the party, delivering a victory to Republicans.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

None of this addresses any of my accusations?

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I’m pointing out that your accusation is fundamentally flawed.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago

Oh whoops, i did say only democrats do it. I didnt know there even were conservative third parties still around. I democrats and republicans are anti-democratic

[–] blazera@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

For extra context the PA supreme court is majority democrat

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Are you arguing that the decision wasn’t made by the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court because they didn’t follow that state’s rules for eligibility?

[–] blazera@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] blazera@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is just a long page of comments on this post on my end.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It’s a link to an article titled ‘Claudia De la Cruz slams Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision to kick her off 2024 ballot’.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes thats what we are currently discussing. They done the paperwork, they got the signatures.

But uh oh democrats decided those signatures arent allowed, in a challenge brought upon by democrats to a democrat controlled supreme court.

Just a reminder you are arguing against letting a political party participate in an election. The gravity of that is immense to me, i think it would be to you too if you were seeing it from an outside perspective. Like we see Russia banning candidates.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I thought this decision was made by the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court because they didn’t follow that state’s rules for eligibility.

Actually this is what I’m arguing.

It’s a couple comments up if you’d like to see yourself.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes they did. They jumped through all the hoops and got all the electors they needed.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Not according to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Right, same as in Russia. Its obvious BS

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don’t think Russia has a Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

A state body regulating elections. it was even a ruling that decided some signatures werent allowed.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Can you try this comment again because I’m not picking up what you’re putting down.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The exact same thing that happened in Pennsylvania. A state body ruling that some signatures werent allowed, so the candidate is barred from participating in the election.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I thought it was in the constitution that the state runs its elections?

[–] blazera@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And russia runs its. I guess there isnt much in the constitution about free or fair elections

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don’t think Russia has a Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Does the word pennsylvania make restricting free and fair elections okay?

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court says the election is free, fair and lawful.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

So does Russia's election committee and its courts after challenge. Or maybe i should get some clarification, do you think russia has free and fair elections? I have been just assuming.

[–] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Surely a party that, on a good day, gets 1% of the vote, and on a bad day, can’t manage to file the right paperwork to get on the ballot, is really what the people want.

Well, if they are so incompetent and unwanted, then the Democrats shouldn't worry about them being on the ticket, right? So why are you all so angry about them?

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What this poster doesn't get is: when the country is divided 50.4 to 49.6, that 1% coming off the Left becomes suddenly VERY meaningful in a FPTP system like the USA. Doubly so when our antiquated electoral system means ties go to the 49.6 party due to gerrymandering. TRIPLY so when the result of that 49.6% controlling our country is Project 2025 and Fascist jackboots on the necks of disadvantaged people here. Keep in mind that there are very real efforts by dishonest actors to puh these memes to further divide the Left and ensure that the Authoritarian jackboots come out. While I won't (and indeed can't thanks to Mods tying our hands behind our backs about this effort with rule 3) say that for sure, this post or this poster is part of that effort, I will let the hyperlink above speak for itself and remind you that yes, it is happening.

[–] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

While I won’t (and indeed can’t thanks to Mods tying our hands behind our backs about this effort with rule 3) say that for sure, this post or this poster is part of that effort

What do you mean? Just what is it that are you accusing me of?

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'll have to give the poster credit for trying to bait me, but I really don't have to answer that. I said what I said, reader. Follow the links and look at this poster's posts (all of them), and make your own conclusions.

[–] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I’ll have to give the poster credit for trying to bait me, but I really don’t have to answer that.

I wasn't baiting. You've made several comments implying that I'm part of some vast conspiracy, and then you say that ya can't go into details because you have your "hands tied behind" your back due to mods.

Honestly, man, sometimes people just don’t agree with you. It doesn’t always have to be a massive conspiracy. Almost everyone on Lemmy disagrees with me every day, but I don’t go around feeling powerless because of it. Lol.

look at this poster’s posts (all of them), and make your own conclusions.

Sure, let's make it easier. Here's the link to my posts: https://lemmy.world/u/UniversalMonk?page=1&sort=New&view=Posts

Most of my posts are about socialist causes because that’s what I believe in and care about. More than once, you've said variations of, “Check his posts! Check his posts!” as if that’s some kind of threat or 'gotcha.'

But my posts are public, and I stand by all of them. I’ve even shared a link to make it easier for you.

Seriously, man, calm down. We don’t agree with each other, and that’s fine. No one, including the mods, is tying your hands behind your back.

[–] Archer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is like saying the dude blocking traffic by wandering around in the street ranting to himself is a “threat to the automobile industry’s power so they must be afraid of him”.

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago

if the automobile industry takes the matter to the state supreme Court, I would be asking if they're onto something

load more comments (61 replies)