this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
432 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19128 readers
2663 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Telodzrum 120 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Weird, per his beloved Constitution the federal government’s duty here is to ensure unmolested travel between and amongst the states.

[–] [email protected] 61 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Don't worry, the supreme court will soon reinterpret it to mean something completely different.

[–] worldwidewave 31 points 3 months ago

Thomas: “The founding fathers clearly indicated that they wanted some light molestation between the states, as women were property back then. This is no different from inspecting wheat when it enters the country.”

[–] N1ghtstalk3r 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Gotta love the Supreme Court nowadays… if you want to change the rules just cozy up to them and ask them to do it for you.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

Wish i could be rich enough to be a branch of govt.

We need some guys in there thatll take a bag of weed and some buttons or I'll never get to participate in democracy

[–] barsquid 8 points 3 months ago

Yes. The text says one thing, but what did the founders intend? Surely not the literal words. Only Clarence and pals will know after a seance. The first part of the ritual is, of course, receiving millions of dollars from billionaires.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago

Yeah but not like that, that’s against the rules! \s

[–] [email protected] 89 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Let's be clear on what that implies: it means all women travelling Interstate would have to prove at a state border that they're not pregnant. Which means proving with what?

Some form of proof you have an IUD or contraceptive? They're planning on banning that too.

Some kind of medical document, emitted less than x days ago by a doctor?

And since that would be insanely difficult to obtain, it essentially means women would be banned from interstate travel.

Welcome to Gilead, blessed be the fucking fruit.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If only the people who supported regressive, dumbass positions like JD Vance's could be swayed by thinking about things for even a few fucking seconds.

[–] CharlesDarwin 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It would be considered a feature, not a bug, if women could not travel without the permission of men.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Yeah, that's true.

It's just that based on prior arguments I've had, they're just so agitated by thinking things through. even if you put aside the overt heinousness, they just wave away the collateral damage, dismissing them as trivial details as though the whole fucking point of policy is the effect those policies will have. It's partly that they're advocating for awful things, but also frustrating that they are too willfully ignorant to realize how bad their own arguments are.

[–] NRay7882 67 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Oh, but I thought they were going to leave it up to the states. This is such a surprise.

[–] WhatAmLemmy 40 points 3 months ago (1 children)

When a conservative says "states rights" they actually mean "localized tyranny" within any locality they control. That's why they instantly apply the tyranny at a federal level whenever they are in control.

[–] barsquid 20 points 3 months ago

When a regressive says, "states' rights," they actually mean, "we tried and failed to legislate this at a federal level." You are absolutely right.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 3 months ago (2 children)

My God USA is going to a a civil war over not returning women to Southern states isint it. History really likes to rhyme.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The Bible Belt constantly yearns for slaves

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago

At some point someone needs to realize When human pops become a product you gone off the deep end. Especially with automation ramping up harder and harder.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

A new underground railroad?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Great idea. At this point US may need it again but it's just sad that it's come to that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago
[–] [email protected] 38 points 3 months ago (3 children)

That's a violation of international law, specifically article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

"Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state." "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."

[–] N1ghtstalk3r 17 points 3 months ago (3 children)

These extremists don’t care about international law, or established laws. Apparently the only laws they respect anymore are the one they make themselves.

[–] Hawke 12 points 3 months ago
[–] barsquid 9 points 3 months ago

They do not respect those, either, those laws are for poors.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] grue 15 points 3 months ago

Conservatives want the US to be a confederation, at least when it suits them.

[–] Mirshe 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The UDHR is simply a declaration, i.e. "everyone SHOULD have these and we SHOULD work towards making sure everyone have these", but it's not legally enforceable - it's not a treaty or anything like that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

You can still use it to hold people accountable, especially representatives.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sunbrrnslapper 38 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I can only assume that by picking him as VP, Trump is actively trying to lose so he can have another go at Jan 6th.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

It's what it certainly feels like, the guy is so toxic and apparently just keeps on pushing the envelope.

[–] Omega_Man 34 points 3 months ago

Maybe some sort of Fugitive Women Act? There is precedence for these types of acts in this country ...

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yup... this is really "leave it up to the states" and "personal freedom" oriented.

Just in case you're new to life the GOP never gives a shit about the rules or norms they complain are being broken... They're absolutely full of shit.

[–] CharlesDarwin 8 points 3 months ago

My favorite is when they've been crying all these crocodile tears over the plight of women under Shariah Law and so on - Republicans: "OMG! women cannot even drive in Saudi Arabia! You should be glad we are trying to make you worship the Lord here in Jesustan in the way we interpret the very same source material!"

Also Republicans: "We need to keep these womenfolk from travelin' outside our Gilead states to more free states. Because freedom and Jesus".

(They do the same crocodile tears over treatment of Teh Gheyz under extremist Islamic rule, too, by the way)

The reality is, when they bitch about "creeping Shariah Law" is that they are jealous that another brand of an Abrahamic cult might outdo them at their own game, but just call the god they both worship (which is Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah) by a name they don't really appreciate all that much.

[–] Tylerdurdon 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 months ago

Trans people: First time?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago (2 children)

But if you don't like black people wouldn't you want abortion planes? Cmon assholes, get your rhetoric straight.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago

What they like, above all else, is repressing people

[–] ohlaph 8 points 3 months ago

They need black people to work their prisons.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That federal response should be "go fuck yourself JD Pants."

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago

"Go fuck your couch, couch fucker!" also works.

[–] nifty 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The number of women who vote republican given the way some of these people talk indicates one of these scenarios:

— those women are experiencing Stockholm syndrome of some kind

— they sincerely believe the same shit, and think they’ll somehow escape the reality they want to impose on others

— they sincerely believe that women should have less rights than men

— or the worst scenario: they’re in some unsafe and vulnerable position in their family, and will experience poverty or death if they don’t espouse the same nonsense

I think the only way to break out of any of these scenarios is to show real life examples and stories of what happens to women in ultra conservative or repressive societies.

Theres no shortage of sad stories in either history or current affairs, women who vote republican don’t appreciate the gravity of the hell they’re going to unleash on themselves.

Edit to include some examples, western women shouldn’t think they’re immune to these sad things if they elect regressive politicians

https://www.hrw.org/the-day-in-human-rights/2023/07/26

They have banned girls and women from education above the sixth-grade level. They’ve banned women from most employment. They’ve imposed severe restrictions on women and girls to travel and even leave their homes. They’ve banned women and girls from competitive sports.

Also see,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

[–] CharlesDarwin 2 points 3 months ago

I always picture that women in Handmaid's Tale - Serena Joy. The first name should become a thing, just like a "Karen" has - the term Serena should be used for women that vote against their own best interests because they are incredibly myopic and just so filled with hatred for others that they don't understand the danger voting for qons presents to themselves...

[–] NatakuNox 10 points 3 months ago

JD moved his cum filled couch from one place to another... That definitely should be illegal

[–] CharlesDarwin 7 points 3 months ago

Huh. The people always jibber-jabbering about "freedom" and "liberty" don't mean a fucking word of it. Just like how they do all that performative "patriotism" and are the most traitorous and are the ones that hate this country more than anyone, possibly even more than the likes of OBL.

[–] captainlezbian 6 points 3 months ago

Oh does he not want women in Kentucky to be able to get an abortion in Ohio? A lot of our government here is of that opinion unfortunately

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

The Fugitive Slave Act was passed 11 years before the Civil War started. I'm not sure we'll have that long.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Can we give this couch fucker a 12 gauge enema, or does that count as a cruel and unusual punishment. Ya know what I dont care im an Inland Imperial morals are for men stronger than me.

load more comments
view more: next ›