this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
292 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3743 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
[–] spider@lemmy.nz 40 points 11 months ago (4 children)

"Get the government off the backs of the great American people."

-- Ronald Reagan

Well, so much for that...

[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] spider@lemmy.nz 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

see: Moral Majority

(which, by the way, was neither)

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 8 points 11 months ago

He said backs. Nothing about uteruses!

[–] Toribor@corndog.social 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Get the government off the backs of the great American people

And into their bedrooms, pants, classrooms, libraries and everything else... apparently.

[–] spider@lemmy.nz 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

And into their bedrooms

speaking of which...

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

They never meant it. Ronnie Raygun was employing racist AF stuff, too.

[–] ATDA@lemmy.world 36 points 11 months ago

I left my usual round of asshole political voicemails this weekend. After another call I accidentally tapped Paxton's 800 number again today and it was not accepting calls or overwhelmed.

Good fuck them.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago (16 children)

We could have codified Roe, but keeping the filibuster was more important than women.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Keeping the filibuster is pretty important. Without it, Republicans would simply have un-codified Roe in 2016.

Followed by repealing the Voting Rights Act and Medicaid, privatizing Social Security and the Post Office, enacting a regressive flat tax, etc.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Keeping the filibuster is pretty important.

...for blocking progress. Republicans don't have to put any work into blocking progress since Democrats do it for them.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It also blocks Republicans from repealing any progress.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

And Democrats from implementing any. Popular progress would make Republicans very unpopular indeed if they repealed it. Just look what happened when they finally caught that car they'd been chasing for decades and killed Roe.

Imagine if they had to undo the law first and then get the Supreme Court to strike down Roe. They would have taken the same popularity hit twice. Imagine if the John Lewis Voting Rights Act passed instead of being stopped in its tracks by the filibuster. All the fuckery Republicans are trying to pull at the state level would have to get through a popular civil rights law first. But no. The filibuster is a relic of the Jim Crow era, and holds back civil rights to this day. And that's how centrists like it.

Since it provides Democrats a way to pretend their hands are tied, they prioritize its preservation over the civil rights of their constituents.

Of course, this also means they have limited accomplishments to run on. Which is why the only message right now is "not trump".

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (17 children)

Yes, what happened after Republicans killed Roe? Kate Cox had to flee her state to get an abortion, that's what. Republicans are doubling down, not backing down.

I'd rather have small, permanent progress than constantly watch Republicans take away what we gained.

By the way, state legislatures don't have filibusters. Having seen what they are doing, I don't want more of the same at the federal level.

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 12 points 11 months ago (2 children)

My girlfriend just made a cross-country trip from Florida to WA state. She took a southern route across and actually went around Texas to avoid giving them ANY money (gas, food, etc). Yes, it delayed her trip, and cost a bit more, but knowing she didn’t support a bigoted and hateful state government was worth it.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why'd she pick the farthest state in the continental US?

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago (6 children)

Didn’t want to drive a smart car (what she was picking up) with two cats through maintain passes in December.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I wonder if she is considering leaving the state for good. What a dumpster fire.

I bet these Republic of Gilead states try to prevent women from traveling or moving out of their shithole states next. Or charge them with something when they get back after getting medical care in a free state. We can't be having these uppity women thinking they live in a FREE country or anything.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The announcement came as Kate Cox, 31, was awaiting a ruling from the Texas Supreme Court over whether she could legally obtain an abortion under narrow exceptions to the state’s ban.

A judge gave Cox, a mother of two from the Dallas area, permission last week but that decision was put on hold by the state’s all-Republican high court.

She’s been in and out of the emergency room and she couldn’t wait any longer,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which was representing Cox.

“The pervasive ‘climate of fear’ among the Texas medical community is certain to be made worse by this case and the State’s actions in opposing the abortion Ms. Cox needs,” read the brief, which was filed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has defended the state’s strict anti-abortion laws for nearly a decade, argued that Cox did not demonstrate that the pregnancy had put her life in danger.

Doctors told Cox that her fetus has a condition known as trisomy 18, which has a very high likelihood of miscarriage or stillbirth, and low survival rates, according to her lawsuit filed last week in Austin.


The original article contains 557 words, the summary contains 209 words. Saved 62%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] radioactiveradio@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago
load more comments
view more: next ›