this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
288 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19108 readers
4843 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.
  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 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 78 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

If your organization knowingly tolerates any number of Nazis in its ranks, you have a Nazi organization.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

something something nazis at the table

[–] [email protected] 49 points 10 months ago

Republicans are NOT Nazis! They just want to be able to associate with Nazis!

[–] [email protected] 22 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I mean that's basically a rule that says they can't associate with other GOP members, so it's not surprising they'd reject it.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago

They know their audience.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago

Of course I know them, they’re me!

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Wow, the US GOP is both nazist and zionist. I did nazi that coming!

[–] FlyingSquid 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They're Zionist because they believe that all the Jews have to go back to Israel and claim it as a new kingdom and rebuild the temple for Jesus to come back. Then he'll throw all those horrible little Jews into Hell where they belong.

So it's not the contradiction you think.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Evangelical Christianity is a death cult dedicated to the end of humanity just so they think they'll be able to say "I told you so!".

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

“It’s the same photo.”

[–] NewPerspective 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

To be fair, this sounds like a poorly written law. A photo or video can look like association but even more important is that nobody knows the full contents of somebody else's brain. This person I've never met before, are they a Nazi? What if today they're normal but they spend too much time on YouTube? If they're a Nazi tomorrow then what?

Not that they'd vote yes on a better written law, but still...

[–] troglodytis 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not a proposed law. It was a proposed rule for the organization, by the organization.

[–] CharlesDarwin 6 points 10 months ago

That's what I was trying to understand from the article. They cannot even give themselves proper standards for their party. They are truly disgusting.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah I have to agree. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Banning anything based on on the thoughts and opinions in someone's head feels a little too much like thought police to me.

[–] CharlesDarwin 7 points 10 months ago

As rules for their own party? The GOP seems just fine with excommunicating Liz Cheney for upholding the rule of law, even if she agrees 100% with the platform, but they cannot keep Nazis out of their party? Weird.

[–] TheJims 7 points 10 months ago

Republicans will never turn their back on their base.

[–] CharlesDarwin 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Is this a ban they themselves would have been enforcing for their own party rules, or....?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yes; it would have been a rule requiring themselves as a group to stay away from Nazis.

Not a law impacting anybody outside the Florida Republican Party leadership

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


In a 32-29 vote on Saturday, members of the Texas GOP’s executive committee stripped a pro-Israel resolution of a clause that would have included the ban— delivering a major blow to a faction that has called for the party to confront its ties to groups that have recently employed, elevated or associated with outspoken white supremacists or antisemitic figures.

In October, The Texas Tribune published photos of Fuentes, an avowed admirer of Adolf Hitler who has called for a “holy war” against Jews, entering and leaving the offices of Pale Horse Strategies, a consulting firm for far-right candidates and movements.

Rather than calling for a break from Defend Texas Liberty, the faction proposed general language that would have barred associations with individuals or groups “known to espouse or tolerate antisemitism, pro-Nazi sympathies or Holocaust denial.”

The party’s internecine conflict has exploded into all-out war since the impeachment and acquittal of Paxton, a crucial Defend Texas Liberty ally whose political life has been subsidized by the PAC’s billionaire funders.

After Paxton’s acquittal, Defend Texas Liberty vowed scorched-earth campaigns against those who supported the attorney general’s removal, and promised massive spending ahead of next year’s primary elections.

The day prior, Sen. Bob Hall — an Edgewood Republican who has received $50,000 from Defend Texas Liberty — was also at the Austin hotel where executive committee members were meeting, and in a speech condemned attempts to cut ties with the group based on what he called “hearsay,” “fuzzy photographs” and “narratives.”


The original article contains 1,151 words, the summary contains 248 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!