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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
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
Didn't get that far. (Or I missed it skimming over the whole thing) But from what I did speed read I could only tell that the article itself was definitely written with quotes to specifically confuse liberals.
I guess I shouldn't shit on the book particularly. The guardian doesn't expect anyone to read it because of the article. What I read of the article sounds like something academic being described out of an academic context by someone not on the left.
But, no one on "the left" is "devouring" this book. It's very academic and that's totally fine. I think the libs just grabbed it because they're trying to take the book out of context to say "the far left is what will cause fascism". Which is not at all what the author was saying. Seems he was trying to categorize a difference between what we have with MAGA and historical occurrences of fascism. Which is fine in an academic context. But they just want to write "this leftist academic doesn't think it's fascism". Those were the quotes and section of the article that made me roll my eyes.
It's not a coincidence that they are putting this narrative out right now, now that there is a popular socialist movement growing in the US. "We must stop socialist to prevent Trump from turning fascist" is what they are trying to imply with this article. Typical liberals siding with fascist.