Politics

Hey folks. I just want to check in with the community about a post that was recently removed. My intention is absolutely not to create drama or stir anything up, but I'd like to make sure you all understand my reasoning for removing the post. Also, I'm aware that I'm not as good at articulating these kinds of things as some of our folks, so don't expect a classic Beehaw philosophy post here.

The post in questions was a link to a twitter thread providing evidence of the IRL identity of "comic" "artist" stonetoss, who is unquestionably a huge piece of shit and a neo-nazi, or at least something so indistinguishable from one that the difference is meaningless.

The post provoked some discussion in the Mod chat and several of us, myself included, were on the fence about it. I understand that there are arguments both for and against naming and calling out people like stonetoss. I find arguments in both directions somewhat convincing, but ultimately the thing that a number of us expressed was that the act of calling someone like this out and potentially exposing them to harassment or real-world consequences for their views might be morally defensible, it didn't feel like Beehaw was the right place for it. We really want Beehaw to be a place that is constructive and kind, and that this type of doxxing/callout didn't seem to fit our vision what what we want Beehaw to be. At the same time, we're all very conscious that it would be easy for this kind of thinking to lead to tone policing and respectability politics, and that is also something we want to be careful to avoid. All this to say that I made what I think was the best decision in the moment for the overall health of !politics as a community, as I saw it.

On a personal note, I find that our Politics community is one of the communities that is most prone to falling into some of the traps that Beehaw was created to avoid. That's very understandable - politics are something that cause real and immediate harm and stress in a lot of folks' lives; they're complicated, contentious, and often make us feel powerless. I'd like to remind folks as we move into the general election season in the US, though, to remember the founding principles of Beehaw when discussing these topics, no matter how stressful they may be: remember the human, assume good faith in others, and above all, be(e) nice.

Thanks,

TheRtRevKaiser

Just in case you thought maybe the Dems had finally seen the light after Rafah. Nope! How about even more bombs for Israel?

The pillow guy is apparently advocating that people commit election fraud in order to throw doubt on electronic voting machines. It's astounding how brazen they are about trying to steal the election.

Sorry about the picture quality, laptop screenshot.

Today, we had European elections in Germany.

We have the Wahl-O-Mat, a state-funded service, where you can answer 38 questions, and then match your positions against a selection of or all political parties that could be elected. It then shows you how much overlap (a percentage) you have with the various parties and their answers to those questions.

I find this to be a very important and useful tool for citizen information.\ Campaign adverts are shallow and colorful PR. Broad slogans.\ Individuals are not necessarily what the broader party policies are and how they vote. Personal sympathy can even be misleading in that a sympathetic person may not hold the values and positions you do.\ Voting for a party, I think their program and stances should be the primary decision factor. (Alongside assessment of whether you can trust them of course.)\ It obviously and drastically shows you misconceptions about parties and your alignment, and shows you parties relevant to you that you may not have known about before.

Do other countries have something/things like that too? A tool to match personal stance against political parties' stances? [In a concrete and up-to-date way.]

Sorry if I disturb your regular schedule, I just want to remind you if you're an European citizen like me to go out there and vote for your representative in the European Parliament. If you're Romanian as well, like me, go out there and vote in the local elections as well so we can kick those comassed corrupt assholes in the but. They can't steal as much as we can vote!

Muie PSD! Muie PNL! Muie AUR! Muie SOS!

Archive.is link needed please.

> Fifty-eight percent of GOP voters said in the new survey convicted felons should be allowed to become president if they are elected. YouGov noted that just 17 percent of Republicans held that opinion in April.

> In February, 34 percent of GOP voters said criminality was among their least desired traits. Now, 19 percent say the same.

Incredible.

If you want to see weaponization of the courts against a political opponent, THIS is the case to look at.

The ATF Form 4473 is the Firearm Transaction Record and has a list of checkbox questions which, in a normal country, would not be questions at all, but a bullet point list of disqualifying criteria, such as (shortening for clarity):

• Are you buying the gun for someone else?
• Are you a citizen or legal alien?
• Are you a convicted felon?

Rather than simply saying,

• You cannot purchase the gun for someone else.
• You must be a citizen or legal alien.
• You cannot be a convicted felon.

This is done in order to create a criminal charge of Making a False Claim if one of these is not fulfilled. Note that for many of these, you will in fact fail the background check (FBI NICS system) and be unable to even purchase the gun, such as if you are not a US Citizen or Green Card holder, but you could still have just become a criminal based on your 4473 answers.

Most of the questions are very 'reasonable' in their objective, but then you reach question 21f:

> f. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

At first glance this is pretty straightforward: possession of an illegal drug is a crime, so of course you can't buy a gun if you admit you're committing a crime!

But note, it also calls out addiction. Being addicted to something is not illegal, and is not even the same as being intoxicated, but is grounds for rejection under this. Moreover, that addiction can be to legal controlled substances as well, and still run afoul of this question.

And who decides if you are addicted to something? That's not spelled out here, and can be determined by a doctor either before or after arrest for this.

This is extremely unusual for courts to retroactively pursue, especially years later. That Hunter Biden is being pursued on this is 1000% only happening because of Republican pressure, in order to smear Biden so they can try to equate his family to Trump's, in their corruption.

Then again, many laws (especially around drugs and guns) were put in place to target minorities and Leftists non-Conservatives so this is really just the law being used how it was intended.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/16414235

> The Ugly History of Dual-Loyalty Charges Ilhan Omar recently deployed an accusation that’s been used against religious minorities for years. > > Interesting article, showing how treating Muslims as non-loyal to a country is the same bullshit already done against Catholics, Jews and other religions in USA.

You crooked motherfucker

> President Joe Biden has suggested he will appoint progressive justices to the Supreme Court if he wins a second term in the White House in November.

> "The next president, they're going to be able to appoint a couple of justices... Look, if in fact we're able to change some of the justices when they retire and put in really progressive judges like we've always had, tell me that won't change your life," he said during a campaign rally in Philadelphia on Wednesday.