politics
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
view the rest of the comments
The minute JB removes protections for federal agents from ICE, DHS, and the FBI, and declares them guilty of state level treason, and is willing to deputize people to go after them, I'll be more than happy to assist
Unfortunately, the violence directed at them is what many on the right and even Trump himself want, because it will be used as a pretext to interfere in the mid-term elections coming in 2026.
I mean, they're going to try anyhow, and stirring up shit will just give them that much more leverage to do so.
As rage-inducing as Trump is, just biding ones time and voting and getting everyone you know to vote in the mid-terms for the Democrats - even if the candidate is an absolute stinker - is what is needed to put the brakes onto this administration.
We did that for Biden already. The Dems had 4 years to do something, anything, of significance to protect democracy and what did we get? The most feeble attempt at legal charades that I've ever seen. They ran out the clock and let Trump cancel the only real investigations into his own behavior.
Yes, Democrats are clearly better than Republicans but those limp-dicked cowards are not going to save us. Many of them can barely muster the courage to condemn what's happening now, much less convince anyone that they actually want to stop it.
Who said they were going to save us? We have to save ourselves. The reason we vote for stinker Dems is to get more time to establish our own salvation.
Maybe that's what you mean but I don't get the impression that's what most people mean when they say that voting for Dems is the answer. They want some external force to do the work for them. They don't want to be directly involved any more than checking a box every couple of years.
If we're just talking general population, then yeah most people just wanna check a box and not think about it. If you're talking about the people actually advocating voting Dem, I think my perspective is much more representative.
Who is out there saying that the Dems are great and we need to vote for them because they're actively good? The vast majority of people I see advocating Dems are very candid about it being a harm reduction strategy. It seems weird to assume that "most people" mean the opposite of what I see them actually saying.
I'm much more worried about the people finding idealistic reasons to criticize harm reduction strategies.
Almost all mainstream media that isn't intended for right wing audiences. Every person who has knocked on my door, sent me an email, or called my phone to talk to me about Democratic candidates for the last 25 years. 80% of the people I have had political conversations with in the real world who aren't Republicans. Calling it millions of people would be a conservative estimate as best as I can tell. The only people I hear saying what you're saying, which by the way isn't too dissimilar to what I have been saying for the last decade, are people in niche online communities like Lemmy and the occasional outlier politician like Bernie Sanders.
I'm all about harm reduction. I think it's a great strategy that most people can get behind. However, when I say harm reduction I don't just mean slowing the rate at which shitty things happen. I mean reducing the amount of harm in the world. So the question is, do Democrats reduce the amount of harm in the world or do they simply slow the progress of shitty people?
Now, I understand that a lot of people think slowing the progress of shitty people is it's own reward, and in a vacuum I think that's true. That being said, are we actually slowing it down indefinitely or are we simply delaying it while at the same time making it inevitable? There is a difference. Biden slowed MAGA down for sure. While he was President they could not actively pursue their goals to the same degree that they could with Trump in the White House. However, I think Bidens policies in general but especially his refusal to go after Trump in a serious manner have made our current situation more likely, not less. The only way to prevent what we have now was to clamp down hard on Trump's lawlessness and executive overreach when we had the chance or to improve the lives of the average American significantly enough that they would not fall for Trump's lies about the economy or immigrants or whatever else. Biden could have done at least the first pretty easily. Instead, he decided to mostly maintain the status quo and hope Americans made the right decision in the end. Well, given that Trump's 2016 win was, in my opinion, largely a rebellion against the status quo, that seems like a bad move. Further, giving Trump four years to strategize and consolidate power within the Republican party led to worse outcomes in 2025 than would have been possible in 2021.
There's a lot more to say here and I feel like I've been going on too long already so let me sum it all up like this; I believe that putting Biden in the White House in 2020 on the basis of harm reduction was worse than a Trump win would have been. Biden didn't do anything significant to either disqualify Trump himself or materially change the conditions that led to his election, which made Trump's eventual reelection both more likely and more dangerous because Trump and his cronies had four years to plot out their strategies. In the end, aiming for harm reduction actually increased harm.
I mean, I wasn't counting people whose job it is to promote the Democratic Party.
Weird, most of the non-Republicans I know think the Dems suck but they're better than the Cons. At best they think the Dems can be pressured into some civil rights here and there. I can't say I've encountered many fans of the Dems outside explicitly political events.
It's not like he wasn't on trial for lots of the lawlessness, he's just actually really good at dragging out trials. Mishandling that could've sparked civil war, it had to be ironclad. Clamping down beyond the proper channels wasn't a better option.
They actually did get a surprising amount of decent stuff through, but no improvement is going to make people stop falling for lies about the economy and immigrants. That's just how people are, I'm sorry.
I doubt it, the Heritage Foundation had this shit drawn up decades ago. They didn't need the extra years to plot, if anything it threw off their timing.
They already consolidated power by 2021, the Republican party was MAGA . They already had their people in their stations, they would've been more effective if the cabinet didn't have to transition out and back in.
Oh and COVID definitely would've been way worse overall too. That could've been a much bigger disaster.
So no, I don't think Biden was worse than Trump would have been in 2020. It's on us for not doing anything with those 4 years.
There's no salvation. The US isn't functional anymore.
It WILL be a Democrat or a Republican group holding power in Washington. You can pretend it won't be but it will be. It has been that way for untold decades. You cannot and will not change that.
So you either don't accept this reliable truth. Or you want Republicans in charge. Which is it?
I never said it would be anyone else in power. I said Democrats are not going to fix this problem. Those two things are not equivalent in any way.
Still, if you want to take this conversation in a totally different direction I'll play along. if you base future decisions on past outcomes you're only guaranteeing that change cannot occur. People said exactly what you just did about the divine right of kings for centuries. It was true until it wasn't just like what you're saying now.
No the summary is that you're clearly incapable of keeping your assumptions and biases from changing the meaning of what you read.
I haven't answered you directly because:
Its a stupid question. I already said that Democrats are better than Republicans before you ever responded to me. Out of all the things you have incorrectly inferred from my responses, the answer to this dumb "gotcha" question is the one thing you could have successfully deduced with ease but for some reason you're categorically unwilling to do so. Probably because you're not actually processing what I'm saying. Which leads me to:
You aren't having a discussion. You're arguing with a caricature of what you think I'm saying. People that do this usually have such an inflated ego that conversation is pointless because they're not interested in the exchange of ideas but rather word vomiting on someone in a childish attempt at self soothing. This is further evidenced by the fact that you're downvoting everything I say despite the fact that I still have not downvoted your repeatedly and unnecessarily hostile demeanor.
Since you appear fond of the TLDR summary I'll give one for this comment. You're a shit conversational partner that I have no interest in speaking with further.
For fucks sake. I literally just answered your dumbass question and yet you're still pretending both that I haven't done so and that you know what I'm going to say better than I do. Go talk to yourself in a mirror and save the rest of us some time. Blocked.
I mean, not really. We keep waffling between 45/55% of our government being controlled by fascists.
If 45% of the governing body is still fascist, that makes it kinda hard to actually do anything when most of our government requires more than a simple majority to get things done.
Just look at Trumps approval rating right now. It's still not below 40%.
Merrick Garland didn't need Congress to do his job. Biden didn't need Congress to pressure Garland to do his job. Stop making excuses for their inaction.
I agree that Biden is going to go down in history as a bad president for not doing more to prevent the current state of things, but when half the country keeps voting for facisim the problem isn't just the politicians.
Stop making excuses to once again hand Republicans future victories.
According to the Lemmy left, this is . . . *checks notes* . . com . . complissit . . librul . . bou . . bourg . . I can’t say that one - uh, compitulation.
Look at the demographic of any "left" and you generally find kids that don't understand how societal power works.
Taking a few classes on sociology and reading Marx is fine and all that, but they need to understand the framework of conformist, consumerist America and leverage that.. and as it's anathema to what Marx says.. they'll forever be smacking their heads against the walls.
Then they grow up and become Wall Street brokers.
Sause: Am 60, and have seen this same shit happening over and over - for decades.
That’s a distinction without a difference, so what’s stopping you from going after them already?
Organized leadership instead of lone-wolf vigilantism is not a difficult distinction to identify, dude come on.
The consequences before/after protections are removed are the same. No one is ever getting a free pass to hunt federal agents.
That doesn't contradict what they said at all. The absence of state-level protection is objectively a difference in consequences, too.
Please just stop with the nonsense.
Because everyone loves to talk about how they are big strong men but (understandably) never want to act.
Either that or they are just looking for a legal excuse to commit violence. See also: ICE and Horseshoe Theory
There's a whole lot of people acting, in Broadview for example. They've been hit with rubber bullets, pepper balls, and tear gas multiple times; live rounds at least once there, definitely elsewhere in the metro area; and people still show up every day. Trump keeps putting more boots on the ground on US soil. When shit pops off, it's going to make Kent State look like a pillow fight.
Or were you standing up your notion of "action" as a strawman?
This implies not acting yet.
This implies that the context has been shifted from the initial comment to the new one proposed by NuXCOM, which Triumph was replying to. Come on with this.
The greater context still applies. The comment doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It was a reply, not a standalone comment.
No it doesn't, what are you even talking about. You were criticizing the content of a comment specifically responding to and highlighting the change in context - now you're trying to say that the context is the same as that which you presented in your original comment. Please stop making stuff up to justify your position, especially in sub-discussions where your initial position isn't even the subject.
Alright, the condescending parts of your comments might be a sign that responding will be a mistake, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re engaging in a discussion in good faith.
Here’s my understanding of the discussion:
Level 1 Post linked to article about “President Donald Trump called for Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson to be imprisoned Wednesday morning amid his administration's deployment of National Guard members”
Level 2 DrFistington replied: “The minute JB removes protections … I'll be more than happy to assist”
I understand this to either mean DrFistington will help Donald kill his enemies, or more likely it’s means: when this happens, DrFistington will kill fascists.
Level 3 I replied by asking what difference it would make if Donald takes that extra step. Seems very close to what we have now. I am still interested in how this step would be significant to DrFistington. Either way, this event doesn’t seem to change the state of things much.
Level 4 NuXCOM_90Percent responded to my question with reasons that DrFistington would be saying he’ll kill people.
Level 5 Triumph responds to the part where NuXCOM_90Percent said in one of the reasons he was giving in response to my question that people are taking action against this administration by continuing to show up.
Level 6 In response to Triumph response, I referred to surrounding context to back up NuXCOM_90Percent point that no one is taking the action—specifically the action of killing fascists because DrFistington statement implied he hadn’t taken action yet, and it seems like NuXCOM_90Percent was referring to this.
From my understanding illustrated above, this is directly related to DrFistington saying he’s waiting still to do any killing. It does not seem to me to be a brand new context, unrelated to anything above. I see a thread running through the whole discussion.
I could have misunderstood any of this though. I’m happy to receive clarification or confirmation from any of the commenters.
Oh wow. I wasn't aware that Broadview had apparently received legal permission from the governor and was deputizing people on the street to ensure they would face no consequences for anything they do.
You know. As opposed to people who have decided tyranny is worth risking everything to fight back against.
(Also, I was not aware of active armed resistance with most of what I hear being VERY isolated cases alongside the normal "peaceful" resistance. Which is the other aspect of what is being discussed here).
Ah, you're one of those "unless people are doing what I think they should do, their actions are useless" ones.
... No?
I am one of those "actually respond to the discussion" kind of people.
Let's drill down on that.
Heavily implies the previous poster is not doing shit.
Implies they aren't talking about protesting and are instead talking about violence.
Your post
Seemingly describes action as (mostly) peaceful protest. Which... I have Thoughts on the effectiveness of it and am increasingly feeling like it was a decades long trap, but I also regularly work with the people organizing those and encourage people to get involved.
To be clear: People need to be aware there are consequences to peaceful protest as well. Your face WILL be recorded and plenty of the olds who marched for civil rights and the like semi-regularly get "checked in on" by local law enforcement or find themselves getting "enhanced screening".
The personal and societal consequences need to be considered. And it is very valid to be wary of sticking your neck out. Which is WHY those "parade protests" still serve a big role.
But it is also important to understand the difference between "I can't afford to get fired" and "I want to be protected while I engage in violence".