this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
682 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2837 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
 

Jay Ashcroft flopped when faced with the most dreaded predicament amongst grandstanding blowhards: a follow-up question

Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft’s attempt to justify his ludicrous threat to have President Joe Biden removed from the state’s electoral ballot spiraled into chaos over the most basic of questions: “How so?”

During a Monday interview with CNN’s Boris Sanchez, the Republican was asked how he justified his threats to have Biden removed from the state’s ballot in retaliation for recent attempts to remove Trump from state ballots on grounds that his actions in the aftermath of the 2020 election constitute insurrection. The constitutionality of such a removal will soon be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

“What would then be your justification for removing Joe Biden from the ballot in Missouri. Has he engaged in your mind in some kind of insurrection?” Sanchez asked.

“There have been allegations that he’s engaged in insurrection,” Ashcroft replied. He was then met with the most dreaded predicament amongst grandstanding blowhards: a follow-up question.

“How so?” Sanchez asked, prompting Ashcroft to demand that Sanchez stop interrupting him. “You can’t say something like that and not back it up,” Sanchez countered.

“You interrupted me before I could back it up,” a flustered Ashcroft complained. “Are you scared of the truth?”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What speech and ideas do you feel are being banned?

[–] S_204@lemm.ee -5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

They're not being banned technically, they're being run off campus which amounts to the same. The congressional hearings covered some of this, it's not like I'm putting forward a new idea here. There's testimony of student groups having their spaces taken away.

[–] jzzvid@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They are being "ran off" because they no longer hold muster and they refuse to provide any new ideas. This is how the marketplace of ideas work. Their ideas failed and are being rejected because they are unserious. Now they are demanding these ideas which have failed to be inserted back into the academic space by force.

If only there were other opinions and ideas we could discuss implementing other than "liberalism" and "conservatism" but academics won't let other ideas replace those in the marketplace because the failures are refusing the leave the square and are threatening violence if they don't get their way.

Don't both sides this. They weren't banned. They weren't mobbed. They lost and refused to leave.

[–] S_204@lemm.ee -4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Are you serious? The marketplace of ideas is violently chasing people out of their designated meeting places?

That's censorship by violence. You're justifying this.

This is literally the problem I'm talking about and you're acting like it's the civilized way to engage in disparate ideas. That's fucked up. They're going to be inserted back into the academic space legally because it's unquestionably bigoted to target a protected class, even if you're claiming it's because you disagree with their ideas. That's just fucking wild.

[–] jzzvid@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 10 months ago

You're literally defending a political camp whose supporters raided the capitol. They don't deserve to have their ideas on the marketplace because not only did they lose, their reaction to losing was to attempt the overthrow of the government. Blocking and reporting you, you dimwitted fascist.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So they aren’t banned or illegal?

I am curious to see some of your sources instead of your vague statements.

[–] S_204@lemm.ee -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

.

https://pix11.com/news/israel-war/jewish-students-locked-inside-library-told-security-they-felt-unsafe/

This is one example of a few that have been in the news lately. Do you think that targeted group is going to continue to meet on campus?

They're being discouraged with extraordinary levels of animosity and as we're seeing before Congress and in various law suits, the institutions are not really doing anything to stop it. If you can't see that as tacitly approving the behaviour, then I guess you're one of those where the context is dependent.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Your link was twenty protesters making people feel unsafe and police attending and didn’t charge anyone.

Are the cops in on it too?

What are these things you’re vaguely mentioning about congress and lawsuits?

[–] S_204@lemm.ee -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Vague?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/mcmaster-lawsuit-1.7074537

There's been a handful of similar ones filled recently. You're ignorance clearly extends beyond the news though.

Your attempts to belittle the violence faced by those kids is precisely the problem. Using violence in an attempt to mute voices you're scared of is pretty damn scary to be advocating for.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

It doesn’t state the political affiliations of the Canadians in this article so how does this fit what you are saying?