167
all 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 98 points 3 days ago

kinda sad that the party that wears the american flag like a fucking life vest literally hates democracy.

[-] ieatpwns@lemmy.world 50 points 3 days ago

They’re confederates that didn’t get culled

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 19 points 3 days ago

Remember, The Alamo Defenders were defending their "rights" to own slaves. Mexico was a free country at the time.

[-] ccunning@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

I just wanna say, if they don’t want to work toward the unkept promise of American, they can be the ones to give up the symbol; I’m not giving it up.

[-] FridaySteve@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

Elections are designed to be democratic. Political parties are largely unregulated and can generally make their own rules about who they choose to run as a candidate. Remember this next time the Republicans get a big group of powerful party members together to say how much they don't want a certain orange-tinted fascist to be their candidate, their party could have run someone else. Winning was more important. Similarly, the democrats are well within their rights and the law to have previously committed "superdelegates" or just to skip the primary process entirely and run the vice president.

[-] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago

I wouldn't call limiting primary voters to party members to be anti-democratic so long as anyone can register for any party at any point before the election.

[-] the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago
[-] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago

I don't think you should use words if you don't understand what they mean.

It is perfectly fine for parties to decide who represents their party through a vote of party members. Up until the mid 1960s the party leaders chose the candidates outright and oddly we had a more representative legislature as a result.

[-] Bahnd@lemmy.world 19 points 3 days ago

Your not wrong, the issue is not about how the republicans internally choose their candidate, its about not giving them any legal ground to limit other parties options to do things how they choose.

If they win this case and the democrats have an open primary anyway, it gives the republicans the chance to sue them mid-prinary, and make them waste money and time. This is Calvin Ball levels of rules manupulation and pettieness.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

Political parties have no right to fucking exist at all, let alone restrict voting to their membership!

That goes double when they use public funds and government apparatus to administer said vote.

[-] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago

Under the 1st amendment right to assemble and free speech, political parties can legally exist.

[-] the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

So you think that folks registered as independent get no say in the nominees? Everyone should have a say in who represents them regardless of any party affiliation. So in this situation you are either the boot on their neck or a bootlicker.

[-] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago

Everyone should get a say in who represents them and that is what the general election is for. Why should non-members decide who represents the party they haven’t joined? That’s just entitlement.

Again you shouldn't use words you do not understand or know the meaning of.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

In a closed primary system, Independents have two options:

  1. Change their party registration so they can vote in the primary that most appeals to them.

  2. Wait for the general and then vote.

The whole point of a closed primary is to keep out non-party members.

[-] the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

I'm well aware of the purpose, disenfranchising voters is one of Americas favorite pastimes.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Nobody is disenfranchised, Independents can have their own primary, and nobody is being prevented from voting in the general.

If Independents really want to have a say in who the Republican or Democratic candidate is, all they have to do is re-register. It's free and easy.

[-] ccunning@lemmy.world 43 points 3 days ago

I grew up in a state with open primaries and no state party registration and recently moved to a state that has “semi-closed” primaries.

I think it’s fucking weird that you have to register a party affiliation with the state. Luckily “semi-closed” here means if you don’t register then you can vote in either primary. I can’t imagine why you would register a party affiliation when it only reduces your options.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 20 points 3 days ago

Presented by: a woman and a person of color.

Back of the bus, you two! AHhahahAhahAhahahaha

/s, obvs

Hey Latinos For Trump, how's everything goin?

[-] _stranger_@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

they'd call that a breeder and laborer, but same energy.

[-] relativestranger@feddit.nl 14 points 3 days ago

The suit also says the state GOP will be able to create its own registration and verification process for a closed primary if the court rules in its favor.

this would imply they have ideas that go far beyond simply indicating a party preference or affiliation when registering to vote

[-] Petter1@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 3 days ago

They want Russian style of voting: Only people approved by people currently in power are allowed to be voted for.

[-] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

So they want the Texas right to get crazier, and the left to get more progressive?

Sounds like real banger of a plan.

[-] ryper@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 days ago

Why does the Texas Republican Party need to sue the state to get this done? Doesn't it run the state?

[-] Lexam@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago

There may be a law on the books that they can't seem to get repealed through legislation. So they sue saying it is unconstitutional. And the defendant being the state of Texas represented by Ken Paxton. Ol Ken tells the judge they won't defend the case. Republican judge rules in favor of the Republican party.

This is just my armchair assessment.

[-] timmy_dean_sausage@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

I'm sure they'll have some sort of sham trial to maintain plausible deniability for the more uppity newsmax viewers.

[-] Petter1@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 3 days ago

How stupid this voting system is, in US..

Forcing people to choose sides splits the whole population.. You should add mechanics that creates nominations that fit the best for all, not just some…

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I'm surprised that state Democrats didn't file a countersuit to end primaries entirely.

"If we are forced to hold a primary, a candidate we didn't approve in advance might win it...."

this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2025
167 points (100.0% liked)

politics

25552 readers
2378 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS