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
That was never debated, absolutely there can be violence. There is a difference though between a structured organization planning to terrorize people (Patriot Front, Patriot March, Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, Texas Freedom Force) and antifa, which is simply a network of.people unified by only one thing - antifascism. As such, antifa has no structure, no commander, no single person to listen to or be ostracized.
Which means involvement is limited to a specific task, not large scale terror efforts. These two things are not the same.
But let's ignore that for a second, and consider the other part mentioned to "equate" the violence. Protests. Specifically shooting at police stations and setting fires. And yet, that's not what happened - those were right wing provocateurs.
https://www.businessinsider.com/far-right-extremist-pretended-blm-pled-guilty-to-rioting-2021-10?op=1
In fact, of those who were left wing and arrested, most were not affiliated with any group.
https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-race-and-ethnicity-suburbs-health-racial-injustice-7edf9027af1878283f3818d96c54f748
Because the idea of antifa and BLM being organized violent groups on par with the hate groups / terrorist organizations I mentioned is specifically a right wing talking point, a complete farce.
Which leads us to the blue maga bit - this is another right wing talking point (as well as a tankies talking point, mostly to bolster the right in some weird hope for a civil war, which I will never understand).
In any case - these are not talking points of moderates. They are exclusively found within extremist groups/positions. Blue maga doesn't exist.
I'd recommend this comment right here:
https://lemmy.world/comment/12762297
That is beyond unfortunate, effectively you are providing your vote to Trump. This is not a point for debate, that's what is happening. All third party candidates up for this Presidential election are spoiler candidates and nothing more. I've recently detailed out all the elements related to Jill Stein, including one of her supporters, at Jill Steins rally, specifically calling out their intention to make Harris lose. She literally serves no other purpose.
Make no mistake, what you are doing is the sane as voting for Trump. Again, you can do as you choose, just dont pretend what you are doing is anything but bolstering Trump, especially if you live in a battleground state. Because you are.
Thanks for the clarification, its been quite a while since I've been around many of my friends who do speak Hebrew, mostly due to covid.
I do have to add - your vote, which is effectively a vote for Trump, will ramp up what's happening. With Harris there is an opportunity for things to change, more than just words, but let's be honest here - she can't say that or she'll lose a significant group of voters in key states.
Trump has called himself Israels "protector". He also said:
So just to be clear here - a third party spoiler vote is voting for ramping up the bombing.
By all means, continue to look. But every comment in this thread they made is riddled with right wing talking points. This is not a moderate.
At best, they've been been tricked so thoroughly they are parroting all the maga hate talking points.
At worst, a paid poster.
I hope you have a good night too, and I sincerely hope you reconsider throwing away your vote.
The first part, we agree. The J6 rioters were fascist insurrectionists, most certainly not Antifa or Black Bloc.
I don't agree about voting third or not voting is for her that I shall not name, but I'll concede it was not that long ago that I would have agreed. I've simply had a change in perspective.
The way anyone who disagree with the mainstream parties' are virulently attacked as being either "radical leftists/Communists" or inversely, "fascists/Russians/bots"...I can see where Blue Maga makes sense. I would hope you would take time to consider that. Cult of Personality doesn't just apply to Voldemort or the prosecutor. In Living Color and Disposable Heros of Hiphoprisy both addressed that in those exact words and in so many words, respectively, but it's been a multitude of years ago, with songs that were rather popular, at the time. Fred Hampton, MLK and other leftist icons (if one can consider MLK leftist) did, as well.
Although we agree on certain points, and disagree on others, I'm glad you engaged in conversation with me. I think it's been productive, and humanized us more for each other. I'll certainly continue to give your sentiments more consideration. I hope you do mine, as well. May you be happy and well. Brightest blessings for you and yours, sincerely.
Your perspective on this isn't really relevant, and neither is mine.
Its pure math. Not voting Harris bolsters Trump, whether its a third party vote or not voting at all.
I will absolutely not, because its a completely false equivalency. Maga is so much more than accusing someone of shilling. It is in absolutely no way comparable, and is in no way an idea worth entertaining.
Its garbage. Its intended to mislead. And you, right now, are a perfect example of someone falling for it. You're taking a minor item, which then becomes an equivalent of literally violent fascists who have no problem being in bed with white supremacists and christian nationalists who want a white christian nation.
No. It is absolutely not worth contemplating. That is absolutely farcical.
I always do consider what others say. I will not, however, waste time on those ideas which are 100% intended to mislead, especially those ideas championed by racist, hateful, fear mongering fascists. Those aren't worth my time. I don't think they should be worth yours either.
Have a good night!
Thanks. You too.
Just wanted to mention (from another discussion on here) something I thought was relevant.
The Working Families Party is a social democracy and progressive party. What is key about them (and decidedly different than green) is that not only are they working towards better, they collaborate (and use electoral fusion where its an option) to side with Democrats to keep Republicans out, where by themselves they would lose.
There is actually a WFP member running under the Democrat ticket in my area, who already had my vote, and I didn't even notice was a member of the WFP. These are the sort of 3rd parties who are actively working to make things better, and ensuring the far right doesn't make gains. These are the sort of 3rd parties that are, imo, worth being members of.
You can check them out here: https://workingfamilies.org/
Their candidates, and the limited number they've endorsed that are Democrats (like Harris), are here: https://workingfamilies.org/candidates/ - you'll see at the top of each state if they have an org in place, which they do for CA, CO, CT, DE, GA, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, TX, and WI.
You'll see a big difference with them, notably the number of them who are running in local and state elections. Where they don't have ballot access, they work with the Democratic ticket. Where they do, and where a far right win is not going to happen, they run as WFP. Philadelphia has a few members on their council.
Hope you take a look!
Thanks so much! I've voted WFP in the past and there are definitely candidates running as WFP now that will get my vote. Of course they're branded as "radical leftists" and they are getting my vote. I don't know when feeding a hungry child and spending money for decent homes and quality healthcare for our own people instead of blowing up other people and policing the whole world became radical, but it's time to normalize it.
It seriously is...
And what I like about WFP specifically is they smartly target, where they don't have ballot access they collaborate, where they risk a loss to the right wing they move their support to the furthest left they can (which, lets be candid, is still centrist for most of the Democrats).
I'm excited today because I had no idea they were even running candidates in my area, because they were running on the Democrat ticket (they don't have ballot access here just yet, still too new). They are the kind of 3rd party I get behind, because that strategy is crucial. We need more social programs in the US. I make my kids lunch every day. I also put more in there than I know she will eat, because I know there are kids on assistance (its nearly doubled in the past year in our school district), and while those kids get free lunch... the ones who are just above the line to be eligible don't. Which is why I push for free lunches for all (even though I'm still going to do homemade lunches).
Why is feeding kids "radical" to these idiots? I will never understand them. Don't want to. Going to see if I can help WFP in some way, unfortunately can't do the canvassing efforts, but maybe I can help in a different way in the meantime. I'd love to get the republican rep we have out.
For anyone interested, here is a list of Working Families Party candidates.
I think our friends and neighbors who are opposed to feeding a person who is hungry, despite the reasons, are coming from a scarcity mindset, and politicians don't really do much to discourage that, rather they stoke it. The earth is abundant, and there is plenty for everyone on it. It's a matter of not pouring out milk, smashing eggs, letting grain rot, letting crops rot in fields to keep prices artificially high, and logistics. That's all.