this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
233 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19166 readers
4011 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
[–] Maggoty 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Congratulations, you've put words in my mouth. You beat that straw man so good! I never mentioned just shifting it to the DA. We have an entire civil service to use.

And yeah they were flawed, but apparently less flawed than you. Because they understood that the people are to be protected from the state, not the other way around.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

..... ..... Haven't put any words in your mouth. You're just too ignorant to recognize that you're arguing for more centralization of power.

You're still doing. Is this non-existant civil service you want to create elected, or just another branch of the executive.

Just to restate, you actually believe creating an entire new civil service with less public oversight would be easier then just combating corruption in people with elected positions? A civil service that would be less likely to become corrupt with less oversight?

You do realize the founding fathers you venerate intentionally created three Manchus of government intentionally to protect people from the state, right? One of those branches, the one you want to get rid of, is called the judicial branch.

Jesus, you know next to nothing of American civics and you have the gall to completely misrepresent the founding fathers to justify undoing their work to accomplish what they already created for the same person.

I'm amazed you can even spell strawman.

[–] Maggoty 0 points 2 days ago

I never said I wanted to get rid of the judicial branch either. This isn't going to be much of a conversation if you keep tilting at these strawmen.