politics
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
view the rest of the comments
I'm just now getting back to respond to notifications on here. Do you think the june 14th no-kings protest was enough?
Also, what do we do once we have lots of people? Controlling optics to accumulate confidence and focused, actionable outrage into positivity is good. But what then? Because I'm worried about what team Trump is working on, now that his pp is more shriveled from his metaphorical birthday spanking.
It was over 3.5%. Now we need to maintain it. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world
Tldr: against a fascist, much, much more lawbreaking and potentially rebellion has to take place, not just protesting.
Idealizing the solution as simply protesting nonviolently is...naive. It's a good start, but by absolutely no means the end goal.
It seems that BBC article doesn't quite do more than correlation over history, and doesn't touch so much on what it seems to largely point to, which is "civil disobedience".
I felt compelled to define that term, so I looked into it, and the underlying theories and differing philosophies that seem to contrast each other.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience
Civil, specifically nonviolent, Disobedience seems to be pointed at regulation and policy, rather than a fascist coup on the government. Read the Wikipedia article's section on Theory. It's complicated and seems to be excerpts of various authors and philosophers trying to define and correlate how to correctly apply morality over law to the goal of successful change.
Howard Zinn, notably does not condemn means of violence: rejects any "easy and righteous dismissal of violence".
It's not a map of political change, by any means, but I think blind adherence and blind condemnation without strategy is going to backfire in the long-run if it fails, which, even when nonviolence civil disobedience is applied to simple policy change (which this is not, it is violence from the bourgeoisie who have claimed all of the top political power positions in government) only has about a 50% success rate in history; if this movement fails and people place all their hopes on legal (civil disobedience is very clearly, overwhelmingly illegal, it's in the name) and nonviolent protesting in large numbers, their spirits may be crushed.
I saw questionable picketing signs on Saturday, and the corrective level of commitment to what I believe to be bordering on revolution, is... There will be many who are awake and willing to do what is actually right, but there are also many who remain asleep with weak constitutions and who will face a terrifying and harsh reality.
I wish this weren't the case, and I do believe protesting in massive numbers is the correct start for most people. But, escalation is almost all but ensured, and we must not naively be unprepared.