this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
578 points (97.7% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3478 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Maeve@kbin.social 32 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Will his handler/s allow that?

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 32 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Nope. They need an amoral chode in place to defend white/christian nationalism.

Which is vaguely ironic considering.

[–] Beefytootz@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

After Roe v. Wade was overturned, there was a lot of speculation Loving V. Virgina would be on the chopping block next. I'd argue that's a strong contender for Irony, wouldn't you agree?

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago

so, part of why Harlan Crow (Nazis, white supremacist rich fuck) and Clarence Thomas make less-strange bedfellows is because Clarence Thomas is/was a black supremacist. Basically they make the same arguments while playing for a different team.

That Thomas was a black guy willing to fuck over civil rights made him a very useful tool to white supremacists.

Loving V. Virginia is... offensive to black assholes, too.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 3 points 7 months ago

I started reading the link and thought "wow, what are the chances they had the same last name... Wait..."