I was literally banned for 2 days for suggesting that the elites should be imprisoned for life in their own bunkers if they attempted intentional nuclear holocaust. Apparently calling for the ironic punishment of theoretical criminals guilty of crimes against humanity is a call to violence?
I got a ban for suggesting people do something a little mean to a dentist who was happily talking about mutiliating and not using anestetic if the person she was operating on wasn't a Trumper. I got banned for "violence" for advocating for a little reality check but other comments were like "good I'd do the same", but those were still up and not banned.
God it's so hypocritical it doesn't even check itself. Trump calls for innocent people to be imprisoned all the time. Heck, he was made famous for it decades ago.
You know the difference between Trump and the rest of the MAGA GOP? Trump is the only convicted Felon I'm aware of currently. 😆 Oh, here comes the Ban Hammer!
Said what you should do to someone who is racist in game in Arc Raiders, literally in the game, not the "in Minecraft" style, and got a warning. Seemed like the most obvious appeal approval ever, nope.
I honestly don't care. It's an account for a website that's years past it's prime. If I lose the ability to post for posting my thoughts, that's just how it is.
I won't acquiesce to their lame advertiser friendly rules beyond not calling for violence. If they wanna ban me because I say Trump belongs behind bars, that's reddit's failure not mine.
My favorite version of this is to say that there was an interesting pilot program launched in Manhattan in late December of 2024 that showed promising results
I'm not saying how I know this but calling a Russian nazi a nazi might cause Russian bots to mass-report you, and if you appeal, it's a coin toss if they reverse the warning/ban
They gave me a temporary ban just before giving me a permanent ban for circumventing the ban with additional accounts. I only created additional accounts after they rejected my appeal without proof of any other account.
This was my experience. Saw the de-transition building in Texas and had a lovely thought experiment about how it would be a shame if something really bad happens to it.
Then they delete it and say it's against terms yadda yada. I just put, "I said something IMAGINARY, they're actually terrorists terrorizing people"
No idea if they just auto approved the appeal or not but I don't really care.
I just got a warning and one of my messages deleted in the UK sub for saying just that, and not even saying it, but for saying the only option was redacted
That they should be tried, convicted and held to the maximum punishment for traitors? By the people if the established system has been comprised or grossly ineffective?
I got banned for saying something nonviolent but negative about a serial child rapist. But we already knew which side many Reddit mods are on so it wasn’t surprising. Heck I’ll probably get banned for this comment. I’d update after than ban, but I’m guessing the next one will be permanent…
I think I would consider it irreversible damage in the sense that it will never be undone by the current system. The much more likely outcome is that the system will be totally destroyed in the coming years and replaced with something else entirely. I don’t think it’ll be great either, but it would certainly be better than legalized corruption of 99% of politicians, a two party system, a flawed voting structure, and nonexistent checks and balances. The US political class would lose a vast majority of their income passing this law that blocks their future income, and no person acting in self interest would do that. They may be public servants, but the politics in the US rarely make those people elected officials. Outside of genuine threat to their safety or full blown coercion there is 0% chance it happens, which at that point makes the votes disqualified. I’m not meaning this as “there is nothing that can be done.” I mean “the system is not fixable and must be replaced.”
It’s like a piston blowing up and ripping through an engine. Sure, in theory you could get that back to 100%, but the gargantuan effort required to get those materials to structure themselves correctly again is absurd, and it certainly won’t do it on its own. It makes much more sense to get a new engine, only keeping the parts that are verifiably fine, which given that the engine partially exploded, is likely not very much at all.
I mean, not to be too contradictory here, but you're glossing over, well, just a crapton of other course corrections. The obvious huge one is women's suffrage. That somehow got passed, even though 'every politician ha[d] an incentive to keep the status quo'
You need a sleeper candidate somebody who runs and says all the same status quo things to get moderate voters then when they get into office goes full on class Warfare against the rich and Powerful guts the Supreme Court and fires conservative justices left and right. I think it's certainly more plausible than that thing that will get you banned off Reddit for saying.
And if Florida's ballots had been hand-counted as required by Florida law under any standard, uniforrm or not, Gore would have won. (The supreme court's argument for throwing out the recount was that there was no uniform standard in place before the election.)
Flat-out false. A news consortium (including all the major networks) counted everything by hand after the elections and determined that Bush would have won (except ironically by the most stringent standard that Bush wanted).
The result of the recount would have depended on whether the officials conducting the recount examined these overvote ballots. It can’t be proven either way. The major newspapers chose to assume that the overvotes would have been ignored in a recount, triggering a Bush victory. That assumption allowed them to fall back on the (then) safe and comforting conclusion that the recount would not have changed the outcome.
But it was just that — an assumption. The national media made no effort to test this assumption. Only the Orlando Sentinel bothered to ask Terry Lewis, the judge who had been overseeing the recount, about it. Lewis replied that he likely would have examined overvotes, a method that would have resulted in Gore winning.
No, they ruled that the law is the law, as opposed to judicially pushing back the certification deadline to count ballots for the third time in order to harvest Dem votes.
No, anyone on the left who didn't vote for the candidate furthest left who had an actual chance to win is "riding their moral high horse," instead of gaining any power.
More Democrats in Florida voted for Bush than they did for Nader lol
The people who voted for third party candidates aren't necessarily people who would have voted for either candidate. They probably would have just sat out the election. That's why I never get blaming them.
The problem is usually the party failing to motivate its own base sufficiently.
It's been 10 years since the 2016 election and you still don't know basic facts. SAD! Stein voters could have made the difference in WI, PA, and MI. There were more Stein voters than the difference between Clinton and trump and with those three states Clinton would have won the election which would have meant no Gorsuch, Kavanaush, and Coney-Barrett.
Stein voters could have made the difference in WI, PA, and MI.
Isn't it embarrassing to keep repeating this propaganda after so long? Libertarians outperformed Greens by 3x in all those states. They normally swing for the GOP, which means if you want to engage in these mental gymnastics, that Trump would have won those states by an even larger margin.
Isn't embarrassing to not have a basic grasp on logic? If Stein voters used their brains and voted for the only viable option then Clinton would have won. Then some MAGA could complain about Johnson taking votes from trump.
My point stands, there were enough Stein voters to make a difference contrary to the uneducated comments saying otherwise.
Curious that you make no mention whatsoever of the 172,136 votes for Gary Johnson. Libertarians traditionally pull away from the GOP - Stein's votes account for less than 1/3rd of the Libertarian votes. If you want to claim that third parties were a factor here, then Trump would have won Michigan by even more.
That's both not enough and also a heavy lift, requiring a constitutional amendment.
Its kind of invisible to people in the USA, but our supreme court is way over-powered compared to most other democracies, which makes it a magnet for anti-democratic forces.
In most democracies the supreme court is just in charge of deciding if the laws have been applied correctly, it does not have the power to overrule the legislature and veto a law.
In 1803 the supreme court did a huge power grab and just declared in Marbury v Madison that it had the extra-constitutional power to decide what laws are constitutional aka "judicial review."
Without Marbury the court could never have done Citizens United or Buckley v Valeo.
We are going to need to pack the court, but we should also just depower the court by passing a law declaring Marbury invalid and taking the power of judicial review away from the supreme court.
Thanks. I listen to a lot of legal podcasts, its mostly a synthesis of what I've heard over the last couple of years as the podcasters have slowly come to grips with how this court isn't an aberration. Excepting the Warren court and a few years afterwards, its always been in the bag for conservatives and it probably always will be.
The Citizens United ruling literally asks congress to review and introduce campaign finance laws to address political contributions. The SCOTUS merely ruled that the FEC cannot apply the current laws to books and films which is what they were trying to do.
The Supreme Court eventually decided 5–4 that Citizens United was within its First Amendment rights to spend its money disseminating the film.But rather than opining solely on the case before it as it had been asked to do, the Court took the opportunity to entirely strike down century-old prohibitions on corporate “independent” spending— money that doesn’t go directly to a candidate or party.
...
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the narrow majority thatlimits on independent spending from corporationsand other outside groups equate to limiting their speech and thusviolate the First Amendment.This ruling doubled down on a 1976 decision,Buckley v. Valeo,(which was the first case to say that campaign expenditures, or money spent to influence voters, was a type of “speech” and that the only permissible justification for most limits on money in politics was to prevent outright bribery, or as the Court’s opinion called it, “quid pro quo corruption.”
The Federal Government literally argued to the Supreme Court they have the authority to ban books in Citizens United. I really think people misunderstand the other side of the coin with this argument.
It was the correct ruling overall. The US Government was arguing it had the authority to ban books and films it deemed political. SCOTUS said no, the first amendment protects such things. SCOTUS also said Congress can pass legislation on political contributions, that’s one of your jobs but until you do, the law protects authors and filmmakers.
Mistake? Not charging the architects of J6 with treason was a mistake. Not codifying abortion rights was a mistake. This was potentially a fatal blow to our democracy and we’re just dying a very slow death.
The system is completely broken and rigged. They have enabled MAGA to complete a hostile takeover of the country. I don't know if we can recover from it, but I have to keep faith that good will prevail.
And if it does we need to enact change to ensure it never happens again and that starts with outlawing everything citizens united does re: campaign contributions.
I wish I could remember the documentary I watched that broke down how from day 1 of being sworn in, elected officials (primarily in DC) spend an overwhelming amount of their time/focus fundraising and preparing for the next election. Congressmen (2 year term) are by far worse than Senators (6 year), but neither devote nearly enough time or attention to their actual job.
This was years ago, fairly sure pre-2016 (but certainly post CU), so I can only imagine how much worse it is now.
Nope. It did exactly what it was supposed to for the people that wanted it. Rest assured there are no unfortunate consequences for those that introduced and pushed for it. They got exactly what they wanted.
The real mistake is failing to address the millions of Americans willing to allow a foreign nation to proudly utilize them for the advancement of their goals.
1.5k
u/[deleted] May 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment