-49
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
-49 points (7.0% liked)
politics
19097 readers
4178 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Weird thing to say about a group that routinely takes majorities in national elections.
Surely a party that, on a good day, gets 1% of the vote, and on a bad day, can’t manage to file the right paperwork to get on the ballot, is really what the people want.
Oh man wait til you hear about the Workers Party of Korea if election success is your measurement of democracy support.
Yes, that’s definitely a relevant and insightful comparison to the US electoral system.
If electoral success is your standard, then yes. The US is way more comparable to third world fascist states than anyone wants to admit, and a dominant political party leveraging its power to ban competition is one such similarity.
I thought this decision was made by the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court because they didn’t follow that state’s rules for eligibility.
For extra context the PA supreme court is majority democrat
Are you arguing that the decision wasn’t made by the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court because they didn’t follow that state’s rules for eligibility?
Yes
You might want to read this.
This is just a long page of comments on this post on my end.
It’s a link to an article titled ‘Claudia De la Cruz slams Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision to kick her off 2024 ballot’.
Yes thats what we are currently discussing. They done the paperwork, they got the signatures.
But uh oh democrats decided those signatures arent allowed, in a challenge brought upon by democrats to a democrat controlled supreme court.
Just a reminder you are arguing against letting a political party participate in an election. The gravity of that is immense to me, i think it would be to you too if you were seeing it from an outside perspective. Like we see Russia banning candidates.
Actually this is what I’m arguing.
It’s a couple comments up if you’d like to see yourself.
Yes they did. They jumped through all the hoops and got all the electors they needed.
Not according to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Right, same as in Russia. Its obvious BS
I don’t think Russia has a Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
A state body regulating elections. it was even a ruling that decided some signatures werent allowed.
Can you try this comment again because I’m not picking up what you’re putting down.
The exact same thing that happened in Pennsylvania. A state body ruling that some signatures werent allowed, so the candidate is barred from participating in the election.
I thought it was in the constitution that the state runs its elections?
And russia runs its. I guess there isnt much in the constitution about free or fair elections
I don’t think Russia has a Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Does the word pennsylvania make restricting free and fair elections okay?
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court says the election is free, fair and lawful.
So does Russia's election committee and its courts after challenge. Or maybe i should get some clarification, do you think russia has free and fair elections? I have been just assuming.
If you could, would you rather sniff Taylor Swift’s or Sydney Sweeney’s panties?
Every story you ever see about a candidate being thrown off a ballot is prompted by a democratic effort to do so. There are multiple such stories posted today, ill let you go look into their context.
That’s the rest of the sentence that you forgot about.
Did you even read the second paragraph because it’s about a republican effort to remove a candidate.
None of this addresses any of my accusations?
I’m pointing out that your accusation is fundamentally flawed.
Oh whoops, i did say only democrats do it. I didnt know there even were conservative third parties still around. I democrats and republicans are anti-democratic
Well, if they are so incompetent and unwanted, then the Democrats shouldn't worry about them being on the ticket, right? So why are you all so angry about them?
What this poster doesn't get is: when the country is divided 50.4 to 49.6, that 1% coming off the Left becomes suddenly VERY meaningful in a FPTP system like the USA. Doubly so when our antiquated electoral system means ties go to the 49.6 party due to gerrymandering. TRIPLY so when the result of that 49.6% controlling our country is Project 2025 and Fascist jackboots on the necks of disadvantaged people here. Keep in mind that there are very real efforts by dishonest actors to puh these memes to further divide the Left and ensure that the Authoritarian jackboots come out. While I won't (and indeed can't thanks to Mods tying our hands behind our backs about this effort with rule 3) say that for sure, this post or this poster is part of that effort, I will let the hyperlink above speak for itself and remind you that yes, it is happening.
What do you mean? Just what is it that are you accusing me of?
Here you go trying to bait people into making rule breaking comments so you can report them and play the victim again…
It was a quite transparent attempt by this poster to try to get my words silenced by the Mods while it spews this ongoing nonsense unchallenged. I will make this accusation: the posters in this particular faction take great offence to having their posts challenged. They get all offended and shit when people point out that their posts are full of logical fallacies, dishonest tactics, and attacks that are thinly vailed, skirting the lines of the Rules, and even occasionally exceeding the rules, testing the limits. They hate it when you point out that yes, there is an active effort to split our vote so the Republicans win and shit on everything these people claim to support, and they are supporting that effort, no matter whether or not they're willing, paid, or just duped. Just see this exchange for a perfect example.
They display that big hall monitor energy.
More like little bully kids who get shown up then run to teacher and twist words to get the kid who showed them up in trouble.
Not the person you asked, but here is rule 3 from the sidebar (emphasis mods; not mine):
I'll have to give the poster credit for trying to bait me, but I really don't have to answer that. I said what I said, reader. Follow the links and look at this poster's posts (all of them), and make your own conclusions.
I wasn't baiting. You've made several comments implying that I'm part of some vast conspiracy, and then you say that ya can't go into details because you have your "hands tied behind" your back due to mods.
Honestly, man, sometimes people just don’t agree with you. It doesn’t always have to be a massive conspiracy. Almost everyone on Lemmy disagrees with me every day, but I don’t go around feeling powerless because of it. Lol.
Sure, let's make it easier. Here's the link to my posts: https://lemmy.world/u/UniversalMonk?page=1&sort=New&view=Posts
Most of my posts are about socialist causes because that’s what I believe in and care about. More than once, you've said variations of, “Check his posts! Check his posts!” as if that’s some kind of threat or 'gotcha.'
But my posts are public, and I stand by all of them. I’ve even shared a link to make it easier for you.
Seriously, man, calm down. We don’t agree with each other, and that’s fine. No one, including the mods, is tying your hands behind your back.
Man, this is some good bait
I don't know what you mean.
Exactly. Dems don’t have to worry about her being on the ticket because she’s incompetent.
This is like saying the dude blocking traffic by wandering around in the street ranting to himself is a “threat to the automobile industry’s power so they must be afraid of him”.
if the automobile industry takes the matter to the state supreme Court, I would be asking if they're onto something