177
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
177 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19118 readers
2369 users here now
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 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
People spent the last 4 years asking for proof in response for allegations of voter fraud and the only way to not normalize the concept of voter fraud is to continue to do just that. The only reasonable thing to do is just that.
Throughout America's history we've gotten through some pretty wild shit with nothing more than the fervent belief that the framework upon which our Republic is built can withstand the test of time so long as we are willing to defend it, and have faith that people like those were counting the votes, because most of them are
Which it clearly can't. You don't need to be a genius to figure out that the founding fathers weren't the demigods they're usually portrayed as and thus weren't able to predict 21st century problems in the 1700s.
Especially since their mechanism for changing anything fundamental has been made impossible by polarization.
Like the whole "American Dream" and trickle down economics, you'd have to be asleep to still believe that it's working.
You are correct in that the Constitution alone can't stand the test of time. In fact, I implied such.
No matter how willing you are to defend it, the 1700s system you're still operating on is broken. It was never designed to be static, much less anticipate 21st century conditions.
At this point, defending it rather than fighting for it to be replaced by something better is a big part of the problem.
That's a different thing entirely. On topic:
Any constitutional oath is a directive that can be superceded by no man. If someone attempts to amend the constitution without ratification, we're bound by oath to not acknowledge such a change. If we're given orders that violate the consitution, we're bound by oath to not acknowledge those orders.
Ideally, nobody who made an oath to uphold the constitution will fuck with a ballot. They won't sieze land, they won't use force on or unlawfully detain civilians, none of that, and if push comes to shove that is a hill people will ideally fight and die on. Trump can't make us do a god damned thing if it means turning our back on the constitution. The buck stops there.
You can soapbox about how we need reform, but that's a different topic entirely