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
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.