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
Liberals too, yeah.
Rational people don't go into politics.
People that believe in liberty have to go into politics if we are to maintain any of our liberty. Get your propaganda out of here.
"People that believe in liberty"
Like I said, rational people don't go into politics.
Liberty is not an obtainable goal but an ideal, defined as "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views".
This idealistic principle is fundamentally incompatible with Democratic Society, because my liberty to breathe clean air is an oppressive restriction to those who want the liberty to pollute it and vice versa.
Any political idealist who promises to support "liberty" without clarification should be treated with suspicion, as that sort of rhetoric is only useful for distracting from more specific policy goals.
Eh, there's a difference between believing in liberty, and believing in all the liberty.
Hence, the need for clarification. "Liberty" is a meaningless buzzword unless the person using it is specific about whose liberty to do what.
I dunno, I think it's pretty clear that it's basic freedoms within the law. Words like Libertarian takes over after that, going into dismantling a lot of the existing laws.
It's all over the writings around the founding of our country, at any rate, so it's not going anywhere no matter how much people fuck around with it.
Seems to me like the founders had a very specific kind of liberty in mind and a very narrow fraction of the population it would apply to..
Pretty much, yea. Things like that are why we have an amendment process though.
Sure, but the amendment process is predicated upon broad agreement between the dominant political parties and hasn't been used in 30 years, for an amendment about congressional salaries that took over 200 years to be ratified.
As justice delayed is justice denied, I don't think we can rely on constitutional amendments as sufficient. It took almost 200 years to finally ban poll taxes despite this country's constant rhetoric about liberty and justice being for all.
I don't think justice was much in the founder's minds as much as self-determination. The two are not the same at all. Justice is a more recent value.
I believe in Liberty above all else. I also believe you cannot be moral and a politician, and that voting is an immoral act.
I sympathize with your view, but cannot buy in to it
Liberty to what and for whom?
For everyone. I give no fucks who you are, live your life as you see fit.
That's not Liberty, that's not even Anarchism.
What you're describing is the Law of the Jungle.
Always easy to tell when people are commenting in bad faith.
Right? Saying they're for "Liberty" without offering a clue as to what they mean by such a vague term.