this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
285 points (99.3% liked)

politics

19233 readers
2400 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Raiderkev 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Hate to break it to ya, but marching in the streets won't solve this. More drastic measures would have to take place, and frankly I don't see that happening.

[–] fluxion 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

If SC tries to hand the country over to a lying fascist insurrectionist there will be drastic measures. If they don't respect the rule of law then that's the breaking point where we stop respecting their laws. Biden has insane immunity coverage courtesy of the SC so we can start with some "official acts" of removal and see how all this plays out.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

LARP. Sounds amazing, really. But they stopped respecting the law long ago and nobody has done or will do jack shit about it.

[–] Raiderkev 5 points 2 months ago

I like to think so, but I honestly think people would maybe protest a bit but then everyone would go back to work and shrug their shoulders. I'd love to be wrong though.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago

Liberals have never had the balls to start a revolution, and revolutionaries in the US know better than to let liberals goad them into anything resembling unified action after the last several times

[–] Maggoty 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

On the contrary a massive number of people on the streets is the only way we've seen effective change in the past couple decades. Violence has led to protracted conflicts with a low rate of success.

[–] wolfpack86 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] Maggoty 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Ukraine is probably the most recent example. Russia invaded them but before that they threw their president out purely with people in the street.

In Egypt they caused a change of governance that wasn't a total improvement but was an improvement.

In Tunisia and Algeria they got favorable changes in government.

[–] wolfpack86 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Maggoty -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

1964 civil rights act

Suffragette movement

Prohibition

The original crowd in Boston that started our country

[–] wolfpack86 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, little known fact that the dudes in Boston accomplished so much through non violence, that the American revolution was actually just for the sport of it. Kinda like pro wrestling.

[–] Maggoty 0 points 2 months ago

Look at you professionally missing the point.

[–] bigpEE 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Yanukovych fled because people started raiding armories and shooting at Berkut. In Egypt the army sided with the protestors. Don't know Tunisia and Algeria off the dome but I doubt there was no violence or threat of imminent violence

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Of course there was some violence. You think the cops are going to be peaceful? Ha!

[–] Maggoty 1 points 2 months ago

Once you have enough people that is the threat.

That's what so many people in this thread are missing. Without a visible critical mass of people showing support they're going to be dismissed as a small group of armed dissidents and everyone will stay home and cheer when we kill the terrorists.

With that critical mass of support the "government" would be forced to either abdicate or deploy force in the most immoral manner possible. Against an overwhelming show of support. Which swings it all the other way. This is why dictators shut down the Internet during protests.

So they may still get what is clearly their wish. But for the good of the country it needs to be done the right way if Trump steals the election.

[–] WoahWoah -4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

They don't have any, they just know you're supposed to say "take to the streets" because they think they're a 1960s radical rehearsing boomer protest tactics. As though things might not have changed in the last 60 years.

Counter-protest tactics have continuously adapted and evolved -- from technology to legislation to media manipulation. Protest tactics have not kept pace, evidenced by the fact that this person thinks street protests have created effective change in the last 20 years.

[–] Maggoty 5 points 2 months ago

Buddy, I just fucking woke up. This isn't a voice conversation.

[–] IchNichtenLichten 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] WoahWoah 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

If you follow the thread here, this is in a US context (the "we" referenced by the commenter), and it's about "non-violent" protests, given the commenter said violent protests have been "protracted" with "low rates of success." Euromaidan activists seized the government quarter by force and stormed Yanukovych's mansion.

While I take your point, this isn't a particularly illustrative example in this context.

[–] Maggoty 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

No this is exactly what it looks like. They filled the streets and they didn't go into his mansion until he fled after the Army turned on him for using lethal force against the crowd.

Just like the water hoses and dogs picture was very resonant in the US. The 1964 civil rights act was passed the next year after that photo went viral.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The 1964 civil rights act was passed the next year after that photo went viral.

A year is an extraordinarily long time with an illegitimate occupant of the White House, pardoning himself for anything he chooses to do.

I don't think the measures that were effective during the civil rights era are at all suitable for addressing such a fundamental breach of the constitution.

[–] Maggoty 1 points 2 months ago

That was because the remedy protestors asked for was legislative and they accepted legislative lag as a reality.

The remedy if Trump or SCOTUS fucks around is immediate abdication.

[–] WoahWoah -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes, as I mentioned, 60 years ago.

[–] Maggoty 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There have been plenty of more modern examples given as well. At this point you're just willingly ignoring them

[–] WoahWoah 0 points 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Maybe we watched the news and saw it happen. Egads!