this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
635 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19082 readers
3686 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.
  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
 

Senior Democrats in US cities are preparing to defend their communities in the event of Donald Trump’s return to the White House after the former president has repeated threats that he would use presidential powers to seize control of major urban centers.

Trump has proposed deploying the military inside major cities largely run by Democrats to deal with protesters or to crush criminal gangs. He has threatened to dispatch large numbers of federal immigration agents to carry out mass deportations of undocumented people in so-called “sanctuary” cities.

He also aims to obliterate the progressive criminal justice policies of left-leaning prosecutors.

“In cities where there has been a complete breakdown of law and order … I will not hesitate to send in federal assets including the national guard until safety is restored,” Trump says in the campaign platform for his bid to become the 47th US president, Agenda47.

Trump provoked uproar earlier this week when he called for US armed forces to be deployed against his political rivals – “the enemy within” – on election day next month. But his plans to use national guard troops and military personnel as a means to attack those he sees as his opponents go much wider than that, spanning entire cities with Democratic leadership.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (9 children)

Says the guy posting Amazon links and duplicates of the same old failed bill from 30 years ago as evidence for their claims that the current Democratic party wants to eliminate the second amendment.

Yea a book and bills from Democrats...but it doesnt count.

Says the guy who thinks that 39% of a group holds more sway over policy than the remaining 61%

Lol head in sand

Says the guy who literally tried to build a no-true-scotsman strawman 2 posts ago, and then just did DARVO shit when they got called on it.

Rofl yea sure thing, it's sad that any criticism of the left, is met by the same "nuh uh" response as the right wing idiots. Also you're the one doing the no-true-scotsman by suggesting all of my links are not democrats...

There's only 2 options here. Either you're a conservative troll...Or, you are using conservative troll fallacies to "back up" conservative troll propaganda, and you just can't recognize it.

I'm not either, but you really should look in the mirror and ask yourself why your rebuttal is literally the same shit the idiots on the red team do.

So what's it gonna be?

It's gonna be, I'm getting tired of the deflection and you putting fingers in your ears... you're boring me now.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (8 children)

Also you’re the one doing the no-true-scotsman by suggesting all of my links are not democrats…

Quote me, jackass.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (7 children)

https://lemmy.world/comment/12954770

Lol literally you saying none of my links count, and that 39% doesn't count...fuck outta here with your double speak bullshit.

Also find it hilarious you're at the name calling rebuttal lol

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Look at that, you can't quote me, because I didn't fucking say it.

As for the name calling, you're the one lobbing false accusations at me, an insult beyond me calling you out for the stubborn donkey that you're acting like.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Lol sure thing kid. You're entire rebuttal was basically "those don't count"....so yes you absolutely did say it. Stop acting like you didn't.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, my rebuttal was that you posted a bunch of bullshit opinions pieces, 30 year old theater bills and a fucking Amazon link as "evidence" that the Democratic party's platform wants to repeal the second amendment.

Your whole argument that I think those people don't count as Democrats (a no-true-scotsman) you invented in your 2nd comment to me. In case you fucking forgot, here it is.

So those %39 aren’t really Democrats? Got it…

This is literally you, building your own argument and attacking it instead of countering the argument that I put forward. Literally that is the definition of a strawman.

From Wikipedia :

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.

Enough of this though, here is the DNC's platform for 2024

https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/

Feel free to look through it, and see what Democrats actually want to do, instead of believing bullshit republican propaganda about the Democrat platform.

Learn some shit, and then get lost. You're done here.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 0 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

instead of believing bullshit republican propaganda about the Democrat platform.

Lol yea....all my links and the poll was republican propaganda.

Learn some shit, and then get lost. You're done here.

Lol ok kid

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Your links are fucking laughable. No amount of Amazon shit, and opinions pieces are indicators of the platform for a political party. The most substantial thing was the 2 links to the same failed performance bill from 1994... Which was never intended to pass, it was intended to signal the alternative if we couldn't get an assault weapons ban.

You'd fucking know that if you were alive in the early 90's...like this "kid" was. You fucking lost, get over it.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Yea 39% isn't substantial. Got it.

Like 90s hahahah.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

Listen to me... 39 Smaller than 61. Say it with me

39 is smaller than 61.

So let's get this straight, are you saying that the 39% are more substantial than the 61%?

My whole point is:

The idea that Democrats want to repeal the second amendment is fear mongering propaganda fed to the "muh guns" people by Republicans.

Democrats do not want to repeal the second amendment. It's not part of the platform, it's never been part of the platform in my entire life.

No, you can't just cherry pick a few opinion pieces and Amazon links as supporting "evidence" for your claim that Democrats want to repeal the 2nd amendment. A group of people is not a hive mind, it's a collection of individuals who have their own stances on every single issue presented. In the poll you posted, 8% of gun-loving Republicans wanted to repeal the 2nd amendment... Are they not Republicans because they disagree with the part on that issue? Do they matter? Of course they do, and it would be silly to deny it, but that minority does not determine policy positions for the party.

Democrats do not want to repeal the 2nd amendment, full stop.

If you said, "most of the people who want to repeal the second amendment are Democrats" I'd agree with you. If you said "more Democrats than Republicans want to repeal the second amendment" I'd agree with you, but saying that "The Democrats are hiding their desire to repeal the second amendment" is plainly false. It's not supported by the statistics, it's not supported by history. The only thing that supports it is a handful of opinion pieces and a few Amazon links.

Honestly, if you still can't understand this now, then you are either not representing yourself in good faith, or you are too far down the rabbit-hole to recognize logic or irony anymore. Either way, we should be done here. Unless you can come back with something substantial, like a recent (let's say, post 9-11) bill brought to the floor by a majority of Democrats in Congress, or a platform statement by Democrats setting a goal to repeal the 2nd amendment, or a poll showing more than 50% Democrat support for a 2A repeal, then your position, that Democrats want to repeal the second amendment, is not based in reality.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)