551
The Supreme Court is about to let religion ruin public education
(www.motherjones.com)
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 02 May 2025
551 points (100.0% liked)
politics
23371 readers
2915 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If you didn’t vote Harris, you voted for this.
Upvoting to counter the spineless cowards who enabled Nazi America.
There have been no new Supreme Court nominees since the election, so even if Harris had won, it would not have changed this.
Hey we don't know, maybe Harris would've expanded the Supreme Court!
Ok maybe we know.
No, I didn't vote for either. It was pretty easy to vote against Harris, while also voting against this. Maybe next time the Dems should run a candidate that at least pretends to care about what the voters want. That tends to help in elections.
"Next time".
Good luck with that. Chump.
So you'll never say lesser evil again, right? Since there won't be a next time?
What's your goal right now?
I would like you to say that you won't vote lesser evil next time, since you believe the idea of a "next time" is laughable and are probably an honest person.
You're going to have to connect the dots for me, I'm kind of stupid. Why would I do that?
Why not? It's not like next time is going to happen, right?
I don't see how one follows the other. Maybe you should make a diagram for me while I go fix a drink.
All of this I agree with. Unfortunately it won’t happen until all the neolibs are run out of the party.
But trying to pretend like you didn’t directly elect a dictator by “abstaining” is not only absurd, but ethically reprehensible. Much of life is about choosing between lesser evils and lesser pains. Letting the worst options win because a perfect one doesn’t (and cannot) exist makes you a deliberate, willing accomplice.
Too young to vote huh?
If you voted for Harris you voted for genocide. People who abstained did not.
You bit hard into the propaganda campaign for this.
You had two choices, bad or worse.
You chose neither and allowed worse to win.
Get down off your high horse, this does not make you morally superior, it makes you an idiot.
These people don't realize (or well, maybe they do and are lying, I can't read their minds) that asking people to not meaningfully participate in voting is like asking people to not participate in capitalism.
The argument that there's no ethical consumption under capitalism — something all leftists agree on and understand they still need to buy food, clothes, electronics etc. despite them being unethically sourced — is the same as the argument that there's no ethical voting in FPTP (and capitalism). It's literally the same argument, just centered on voting.
So these people end up doing a kind of unironic "you say you're a leftist yet you own an iPhone" but for voting — while probably typing all that from an iPhone.
To be fair, some of them are members of the Church of Accelerationism and believe that making life worse for people and offering up vulnerable populations as sacrifice will magically lead to the world getting transformed into a better place, despite no historical data backing such an idea. So, they want Nazis to win, despite claiming to be leftists who care about fellow human beings.
Yeah, there's a lot of that going around. As if capitalism will collapse precisely into fully automated luxury space communism as opposed to straight-up Mad Max (i.e. the manifestation of America's collective id).
I do not care. Tell Democrats to stop doing genocide instead of telling people to vote for it.
Harris stated multiple times that she wanted a cease fire and a two state solution. Polar opposite of Trumps “sweep them out and take over.”
Every month from becoming the nominee until the election: cease fire, hostage release, two state solution.
July: https://www.the-independent.com/tv/news/kamala-harris-says-two-state-solution-is-the-only-path-after-meeting-with-netanyahu-b2586161.html
August: https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/23/politics/gaza-israel-harris-convention-speech/index.html
September: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-harris-says-two-state-solution-end-of-israel-hamas-war-is-crucial
October: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/harris-dodges-direct-question-on-palestinian-deaths-calls-for-2-state-solution-during-cnn-town-hall/3372480
Actions and words are two different things.
As VP she literally could not take any action unless it came down to a 50-50 vote in the Senate. That's the job of the VP.
Only thing she could do is lie that they were doing everything they could.
If you pull the lever, the trolley will run over people.
If you don’t pull the lever, it will run them over faster because its itinerary includes running over everyone else on the planet BUT as everyone is run over, one after another, you can show them your hands. They will marvel at how clean they are and you will say it’s because you had the courage to not touch the lever. Your unwavering sense of justice will inspire them and they will die happy, knowing they once spoke to such a hero.
Tell your party to make a track without genocide next time.
Independent. I still voted blue because they promised less genocide and I knew not doing so guaranteed as much of it as possible.
But now that I see how clean your hands are compared to mine, I am ashamed. I mean, yes a lot more people are now dying as a result, but can you really put a price on cleanliness?
They did not promise less genocide. But you still voted for them.
Well yeah, that's exactly the idea. Choose the best of bad options, and try to improve things so that the next time there's better options.
Not choosing either usually leads to the worse option, which makes it harder to improve things.
There are no easy options.
This is how making demands works. Hope the Democratic party learned that they will not get votes like this next time.
Unfortunately, over decades they've learned who are reliable voting blocks. Not participating communicates that one sees both options as functionally the same. So if anything, it encourages then to move to the right, which is a reliable voting block.
I'm not at all gleeful about voting for them, and desperately want other options. I'm doing what I can to build parallel structures, engage in mutual aid, and in my day job I'm fighting climate change as an environmental research scientist. Unfortunately, we don't live in the best of all possible worlds, and the tracks of the trolley don't change overnight.
Yes Liz Cheney worked wonders. Very reliable. You are a political expert. Harris had the best campaign.
I'm sorry that you've misunderstood my point so deeply. Let me more explicit. The Cheneys should have been thrown into a volcano. Harris did a shit job. We all need to organize to get milquetoast liberals/moderates and fascists alike out of office.
You said right wingers are a reliable voting block. Looks like they did not show up.
No, my entire point is that they are the ones that showed up: hence why we have a more authoritarian president than perhaps ever before. Between the 2020 election and the 2024 election, the raw numbers of votes dropped for the Democrats, not the Republicans. This whole discussion has been about bleeding support from (some) of the Left.
And yes, this is because Harris and the rest of the DNC shit the bed. That they went too hard toward the right is certainly a factor: and again, to be clear,I'm not saying it's a good idea to move right. What I'm trying to get across is that abstaining is often indistinguishable from wanting a more right-leaning candidate, because then that's the candidate that wins.
If it was up to me, see my volcano comment. If we want revolutionary change in the USA, I know which party I'd rather fight in the streets against.
The Republicans because they are organized worse than a street gang.
You and those who took your route are virtue signaling morons. But at least you can look down your nose at the rest of us while our democracy crumbles and our rights are stripped away.
the genocide was also part of the tRump package, worse actually
Username checks out.
Actually no. Refusing to vote for a genocidal candidate, regardless of which side of the aisle or gender they are, is always a good choice. We are not free until we are all free. I demand my politicians not just be the lesser of two evils. I hope you can too. Cuz the drive to vote for a democratic candidate cuz they are not as evil is what got us here in the first place.
how’s that working out for you?
sometimes being an adult means doing distasteful things… both candidates supported genocide… 1 of the candidates also wasn’t racist, economically literate, determined to exterminate the poor, and destroy what little democracy you had
get the fuck over it… you have 2 bad choices and your lack of choice contributed to this
He had one bad choice and one meh choice. There was plenty of progressive legislation in Harris' platform. These people didn't get 100% of what they wanted and sat home like entitled children.