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.
- 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.
- 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
What is so hard to understand, they advertised their desire for political murder to their constituents. It wasn’t “just an ornament” in private. They made a public statement by displaying it.
Why do republican sycophants insist on removing all context from this stuff? Bending over backwards to present it in a favorable way is so slimy and manipulative.
I'm not a republican I just have principles. I know it's hard to see the difference when you can rationalize calling a christmas ornament a terroristic threat.
Politicians are trash and they all deserve a fucking noose. Every protest should have a gallows and a guillotine. And you'd be fine with that if they were 'your' people. Partisan fucking hack lemmy leftists can fuck off.
then according to my principles, yours are absolute shit. It wasn't a private display in his home. it was posted to social media for the entire world to see. A post that included people being hung in effigy. And is 100% a threat. particularly considering this guy was at jan 6 and is most definitely not a peaceful anything.
you're defending a terrorist.
Why would it matter if it was a private display? People are allowed to have and express their opinions, even if they're shitty opinions.
Legally there are boundaries on speech as well, that ornaments don't cross.
I'm not defending him I'm defending his right to have opinions. He's a worthless, abhorrent piece of shit.
by insisting he doesn't get to be charged for making threats against elected members of government? he committed a crime. the speech itself might be protected, but those protections don't protect against consequences. insisting otherwise is absolutely defending that worthless, abhorrent piece of shit.
I'm insisting his speech is shitty but political speech.
I don't think he could sanely be charged, though, either. It doesn't meet the legal requirements to be a threat. You can look up the legal threshold for speech to be considered a threat in the US.
I suppose you feel the same way when he was chanting "HANG MIKE PENCE" outside the complex where... Mike Pence was trying to do his fucking job, huh?
Until they breached the capitol, yeah. Of course. It's a fucking protest. By your definition lots of CEOs public death threats on lemmy daily. But they're just doing their jobs. Right? You're supposed to have a wide berth on speech and robust response to action. Especially political figures, even when they're doing their job.
You don't have to demonize and mistreat people having genuine dialog with you. We're allowed to have different opinions and still treat each other like human beings. Overall this is a small disagreement over human rights.
It was always their plan- including this guy's plan- to breach the capital. it was never just a protest, it was a straight up insurrection. Derrick actively encouraged people to break into the capital, and always planned on doing so. and he was convicted for being a leader in the insurrection.
i could accept it was political speech if one never went inside. There were plenty of people that got caught up in the rally. It was this guy's role, in the insurrection to whip up the crowd at the capital complex. the people that weren't part of the plan.
This is the same guy that now posted political leaders hung in effigy. Do you really believe the intent of his post wasn't to incite and encourage more political violence? because that's fundamentally crossing the line from political speech... and there was never any protection from the consequences of that speech. which, you so blithely seem to want to ignore.
I am not calling for him to be hung in a mob lynching- which seems to be exactly what Dereck was calling for, to happen to elected leaders. I am calling for him to lawfully arrested and tried for inciting hate speech. Which is a crime in this country.
I don't know his intent and I'm pretty lenient on plausible deniability. Some of the most vitriolic arguments I get in at work are about criminal justice reform and I have very strong opinions about individual liberties.
You have budged me a bit, though. I think, all strung together, a search warrant for texts and social media around those days would be in order, but if the private communications were useful for anything, it'd probably be the reason to prosecute and the rest of it is just supporting.
because a public and threatening display is a threat.
A threat against POTUS, VPOTUS and several other elected government leaders is a crime. a very serious crime.
I think it's materially different from a threat. When we talk about killing pedos is that a threat? What we say is much worse.
And, yeah, some of the best protected people in the world. The ornaments won't hurt them unless someone puts them in a blunderbuss and sneaks into the whitehouse.
Since you missed it I’ll repeat myself.
“What is so hard to understand, they advertised their desire for political murder to their constituents. It wasn’t “just an ornament” in private. They made a public statement advocating murder by displaying it.”
Words are wind, your actions show you bending over backwards to excuse this. Also the narrative that all politicians deserve a noose is what authoritarians push to keep their citizens from trying to fix things. There’s tons of money in reinforcing political apathy, because any person they convince to abandon the process is one less voice they have to care about come election season.
It’s a very terminally online take hyper focused on federal government. You think your local comptroller should be strung up? The irony of you calling me a political hack when your political philosophy is devoid of any nuance.
Yeah, no, sorry. Unless homie said "hey if I do this thing I mean this other thing" and it's insanely direct, I'm not buying your shit. They happen to be freedoms I choose to use as well.
You obviously knew what I meant you're just so focused on rationalizing your bullshit you can't manage a conversation in good faith.
All you’re saying here is you have no interest in actually critically thinking and analyzing people’s actions, instead just taking them explicitly at their word. Which is just gullibility. Do you think you’d feel threatened if someone was posting pictures of you being hung? What if the poster had a history of making statements that they thought you were evil or a threat to the country?
The sheer irony of that last paragraph is funny. You’re the one talking past me and ignoring things I say that are inconvenient. Until I force you to face it.