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
They didnt say it was a bloodless coup. They said if they get a Republican elected there will be sweeping changes, akin to another revolution. The statement about the left was a warning that the left might become violent if they try it.
And you're proving their point pushing for violence.
When one lies about what another has said in an attempt to basically call for violence, it's incredibly sus.
You're right, he didn't outright say it was a coup, he said it was the second revolution.
Everything you said after that is complete bullshit though
In refence to how they were going to reshape the executive after they win the election. Calling it a coup is just outright lying about what was said, as what they claim they are going to do will be perfectly legal. It's scary enough on it's own. Trying to paint it as if they are openly claiming they are going to steal the government is just dishonest. Why defend this, I have no idea.
I hate defending the heritage foundation, but my love for reality exceeds that hate.
Of course you don't link to any of that. But, either way, I'm responding to the blatant lying about what they said right here.
If this is any indication of the way you "debate," I wear that tag as a badge of honor. Thank you.
This dum
And this will be the twist around, the sophistry applied to objections going forward. An accusation of violence where there is none. Granted, that’s the cluster B personality playbook: accuse others of what you yourself are doing. (See: DSM-V). And since MAGA republicans are embracing the cluster B playbook, the above is not surprising, but expected.
Bloodless coup quote extracted from a far right YouTube. The gentleman on display is the president of the heritage foundation, the heritage foundation is heavily involved in writing Project 2025. Context: discussing Supreme Court decision re presidential immunity paving the way to what is needed for the bloodless coup.
https://imgur.com/gallery/S8zn4oo
It's funny being accused of twisting something around when I'm pointing out that the poster is lying about what was said, and implicitly making calls to violence over that lie.
Except the poster didn't say "I heard this on some far right youtube thing" but made a claim about what the head of the heritage foundation said.
And how does that make the lie the top level poster made about what he said any more true? I don't follow your logic here.