this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
368 points (95.8% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3362 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] IHeartBadCode@kbin.social 128 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Remember. He is a felon. That means he cannot vote in an election, but he absolutely can be elected to created laws. It's so weird thinking about that out loud.

[–] space_gecko@lemmy.world 68 points 1 year ago (2 children)

To be fair, allowing felons to run for office means that a leader's political enemies can't be charged with phony crimes in order to prevent them from running for office. It's a safeguard against authoritarianism.

[–] trebuchet@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 year ago

But ironically in this case, it means someone who illegally rebeled in support of an authoritarian overthrow of democracy is given another chance to support authoritarianism.

[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 year ago

Yeah we don't want political shenanigans to happen that easily. Looking at you, India.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Actually? He served in the military (US navy,) and took an oath to defend and uphold the constitution,

The 14th absolutely applies, and he is ineligible to hold any public office - including city-level positions.

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Of course, we want him to be ineligible. Yet, there's zero legal authority that has ruled him ineligible.

Keep dreaming that it'll happen. We're truly in the "Twilight Zone" of retardedville.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

The constitution has zero legal authority.

Huh. TIL! Edit: 1, 2, 3.

The constitution is the single highest legal authority in the US. No law may be written violating it. It sets the legal basis for the existence of the US government, describes the nature of how it is to be run, and who is eligible to hold office. It esposues rights and processes.

the entire basis of the legal system depends on the us constitution, and it's amendments, both as the guiderails and the source of authority. So when the 14th amendment, section 3 says that a person who having previously taken an oath to defend the constitution and then leads an insurrection is ineligible; they're ineligible. There's really no mincing words on that one.

Unless perhaps, you're arguing that the insurrection on jan 6 wasn't in fact, an insurrection. (perhaps you suggest they were just... tourists?). Even though their stated goal was to disrupt and stop the lawful proceedings of congress- specifically counting the votes as cast by the electoral college.

Jacob Chansley served in the US navy, therefore he's taken an oath to defend the constitution. he particapted (most... LARPishly...) in the jan 6 insurrection.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't disagree with you, but I would make the argument that laws only matter when they're enforced. If the law says "You can't do X" and a bunch of goons do X, what happens?

Someone backs down, or violence, probably.

So if the 14th amendment says he can't run, that only matters if it's enforced. Do you think it's going to be enforced?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Bingo, the tea party basically created the "do you uphold your oath" shit to cops, they should probably know better.

[–] TheJims@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

Remember, he’s also a moron.

[–] Jomega@lemmy.world 86 points 1 year ago (5 children)

"Libertarian party endorses man who fought to install authoritarian dictatorship."

Whatever happened to the whole "Don't tread on me" slogan? Oh right. I forgot it was all bullshit.

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

“We want a small government! And by small we mean a permanent fascist dictator with all the power and no accountability!”

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yep. "Libertarian" is just a mask-on way of saying "I want all regulations removed so I can fully indulge my psycopathic thirst for greater and greater wealth" because if they were honest, even the most gullible middle-class voters would be escorting them to the guillotine.

I can guarantee that sleazy neoliberal circles have done the maths on the most profitable political system to back and the results were almost certainly...

  1. Fascism (because slaves)
  2. Libertarianism (because using child workers to dump toxic waste in public waterways counts as "freedom")
  3. Conservative neoliberalism (because you can mostly get what you want by donating bribes and don't need to worry about morality)
  4. "Left-wing" neoliberalism (mostly the same as above but you have to be slightly less greedy and look sad doing it)
  5. Progressivism (because they'd have to pay for taxes, workers and the environmental cost of their products)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tbird83ii@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 year ago

NO STEP ON SNEK!

[–] Commiunism@lemmy.wtf 12 points 1 year ago

Wage labor is already very totalitarian in principle - they determine what you wear, what you do, when you eat, when you go to the bathroom, basically it's a private government of their own, and people are selling themselves into the servitude.

Libertarianism seeks to go even further with that by removing regulations and letting free market do its thing, which, considering the first sentence of this comment, would make Libertarianism authoritarian if you're not a business owner or someone rich, and the "Don't tread on me" slogan only applies to those people.

[–] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 51 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Doesn’t the 14th amendment have him barred already? This seems a non issue as it can’t happen.

[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As far as I am aware, it has never been tested. Clearly he should not be able to run, and clearly neither should Trump, but laws only have meaning if they are enforced.

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

[edited:] That's what the Trump cases in MN etc are about. The MN(?) judge punted, though, and declined to say whether he was ineligible for office, saying instead, basically, that the state didn't have any rule against insurrectionists being on primary ballots.

Parties are welcome to nominate someone who might never be allowed to take office - that's a party problem, not a state problem.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Additional_Prune@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I listened to him talking on a podcast. Not just satisfied with every conspiracy theory out there, the guy makes up new ones, for example that a mall in Arizona has underground passageways to facilitate the trafficking of children.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

I think authorities really need to be looking into these people that are this obsessed with child trafficking. Like yes, it's awful and we all want to stop it. But the fantasies these people come up with... If anything, it makes it harder for people and organizations that actually do give a shit and put their money where their mouth is.

[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Dude was in near solitary confinement for 27 months. He's really just another example of how broken the American prison system is, he comes out even more aggressive and deranged than when he went in

[–] theodewere@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

that's because Libertarians are nothing but trolls

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They are Republicans with weed and a bigger hard on for Ayn Rand.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am really fucking sick and tired of the Libertarian Party giving all libertarians a bad name.

For the record, not all libertarians are motherfucking an-caps. Some are leftists.

[–] Stopwatch8200@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 1 year ago

I like Penn Jillete's brand of libertarianism. He says he's a classical liberal and is pro roads, schools, libraries, social safety nets and so on. I think Ancap is an interesting mental exercise but it'd be crazy to attempt on a state or national scale. So, I don't see a place for them in national politics, currently. But I'm cool if they wanna go and start their own communes or something.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah this is the party we’re talking about

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CaptainHowdy@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

JFC I used to be a libertarian and I still agree with some of their values, but over the last 20 years they've really just become a joke. Not as much as the GOP, who intentionally associate with Cruz and MTG, but this is getting there.

It's like someone said "it can't be worse than Ted Cruz and Margie..." And the libertarian is all "hold my beer."

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They've always been a joke. You've just grown up.

Same here.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] icepuncher69@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] thorbot@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] thorbot@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] thorbot@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] bustrouffi@leminal.space 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Luft@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

Don’t worry, once they find out he’s Vegan, he’ll be unelectable

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (13 children)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] VintageTech@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

Do most U.S. Libertarians not see themselves this way?

[–] DeathWearsANecktie@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

He's just a twat in a hat

[–] hrimfaxi_work@midwest.social 5 points 1 year ago

I'm a shamanic practitioner irl and this guy's nickname pisses me off. The guy pisses me off, too. His ancestors think he's a cunt, I bet.

load more comments
view more: next ›