this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
270 points (96.6% liked)

politics

19103 readers
4166 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
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] M600@lemmy.world 37 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

How is it not illegal for her to say these things? Like is that a threat against the United States?

[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 20 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (5 children)

Depends.

Protected by the first amendment, one can legally advocate for the dissolution of the Union ~~through bicameral ratification outlined constitutionally~~ by constitutional amendment. To advocate for armed insurrection or violent overthrow of the federal government is sedition and considered quite illegal.

[–] MrPoopbutt@lemmy.world 14 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Is it really illegal if the law isn't enforced? Is anything a Republican does illegal anymore?

[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 11 points 11 hours ago

I've always loved this quote about conservatism:

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition: there must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

  • Francis M. Wilhoit
[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago

"illegal" is rather a quaint notion.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dharmacurious 28 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Honestly, with what I'm genuinely concerned is going to happen, that would probably be preferable. Give everyone some notice, and we can escape the nutjobs by being homeless in California and New York instead of concentrated in camps in Florida and Georgia. I mean, it'll inevitably make the blue state nation more conservative as they blame southern refugees for all their problems, but it'd still be better more than likely

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago

The notice is now. I’m getting out of Ohio for that reason.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 52 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

Don't threaten me with a good time lady.

[–] GetOffMyLan@programming.dev 5 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

Right? The country is split basically 50. This seems like the obvious thing to do.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 140 points 23 hours ago (25 children)

.......yeah, ok. Sounds good.

moves to California

load more comments (25 replies)
[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 37 points 19 hours ago (4 children)

So they know that Texas doesn't have a GDP high enough to even run all their red catastrophies, right? I'm kidding, I know they don't know. They probably also don't know that CA would be the third largest super power if they ever let us go. Which they won't. At all.

[–] Draces@lemmy.world 38 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Californians are in an abusive relationship. Blamed for everything and not allowed to leave

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago

And we pay them more money than we use for ourselves.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Quill7513 68 points 22 hours ago

that's not… usually what you do win you win. so like… honestly… okay, kick me out, let me be governed by a saner government. also DC is between two blue state so good luck evacuating back to your conservative safe space, dumbass

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 44 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

I mean... as long as California takes Colorado and New Mexico with it, I see no real issues with that. We get the economy, the nature, and the nukes.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Aren’t the nukes in Montana and the dakotas? Though I’m under the impression we also keep some silos in the rural northeast.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Here is a handy map of some of our nukes as of 2006 https://uploads.fas.org/sites/4/NotebookMap.pdf

But also? The expertise to maintain and build nukes are very much California and New Mexico as that is where the three major NNSA labs and their support facilities are.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Did not expect the distribution to be like that, especially with blue states having nearly as many as red and swing states combined. For anyone curious: Blue state nukes-4324 Red state nukes-2266 Swing state nukes-2454

Washington really surprised me but it makes a lot of sense actually. I knew there were none at Wright patt because you learn that growing up in Dayton, they can’t risk the aliens.

And yeah I knew albequerque is one of the most critical cities for our ability to project nuclear force and that we make and test them in New Mexico and that Colorado is home to norad command. I just had also thought there were some hidden in Appalachia in upstate New York or something or one of the other eastern mountain ranges

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 38 points 19 hours ago (5 children)
[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Something that I learned recently makes this flag make absolutely no sense.

The bear on the flag of The Republic of California, is extinct, and has been since the 1920s. Therefore in the Fallout universe, that bear is also extinct. None of them could have mutated into the two headed version. Where the heck did this flag come from?

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

They still would have had the original California flag; the NCR flag would have been based on it, probably to deliberately harken back to the time before the restructuring of the country into the 13 Commonwealths divided the state in two

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 17 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

We'll bring along Oregon and Washington, at least the west halves, and call the country the Collective of American States.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 67 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Predictable. The donvict-humpers supposedly "win", and then get even MORE angry. Why so angry?

I suspect it's because for this brief period of time, anyway, it's hard for them to avoid just how HATED they and their precious golden donvict truly are. They thought they'd "win" and all the normal Americans around them would just disappear. And yet, Karens like Green continue to get confronted by normal people.

[–] Sludgehammer@lemmy.world 49 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

The donvict-humpers supposedly “win”, and then get even MORE angry. Why so angry?

Because we've stolen their martyrdom from them by losing.

[–] cmbabul@lemmy.world 24 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

This is outrageously anecdotal but the trumpers I know were all grins on the day after until they realized we weren’t gonna just get over this and they just labeled themselves. They seem pissy now, and one in my office in particular that used to chat with me about sports is really broken up I don’t want to anymore

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 23 points 18 hours ago

They seem pissy now, and one in my office in particular that used to chat with me about sports is really broken up I don’t want to anymore

Yeah, the Professional Left did an entire section about this and they mentioned the case where some husband is completely gobsmacked that his wife filed for divorce.

But yeah, I've seen the same thing and heard about it from others. Lots of quiet interactions about how so and so is a big proponent of donvict; don't invite him/her to {whatever social function}.

The refrain of "yeah, but let's just agree to disagree" - I can see why many people, especially those most at risk thanks to what they wan, are thinking: "YEAH, FUCK THAT. You just voted to harm me, and you want to act like it's just a disagreement?"

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›