this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
118 points (99.2% liked)

politics

19047 readers
4931 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
top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] IHeartBadCode@fedia.io 24 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

calls for a “benevolent dictator” to run the US

These chucklefucks keep getting this part so wrong. No dictator stays benevolent for long. We've got something like 60 centuries of history to back that up. Eventually they demand unwavering fealty to their, and only theirs alone, lineage.

I feel like sometimes dressing up as Gandalf and smacking these idiots over their head and reminding them "only one who can bend them to his will. And he does not share power!"

Like for fucks sake this is such an ingrained human trait we're making fucking fictional stories based off it and needing zero additional information on why anyone would desire such a monopoly on power.

I swear the lot of these people have their heads firmly planted deep into their lower digestive tract.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 1 points 26 minutes ago* (last edited 22 minutes ago)

These chucklefucks keep getting this part so wrong. No dictator stays benevolent for long.

Not just that, the implication here is that “benevolence” is objective, which is a fundamentally religious point of view. But in the real world, one man’s benevolent dictator would be another man’s tyrant.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 hour ago

These degenerates are also completely incapable of choosing someone who would be benevolent even for a moment. They just want someone who hates the same people they hate to be able to bypass checks and balances to hurt the people they want to hurt. There's no deeper political philosophy here.

[–] kat_angstrom@lemmy.world 21 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The Verge basically just copied the notes from the Behind the Bastards episodes about Curtis Yarvin. A frustrating experience to listen to, and read about as well considering how Yarvin is so very full of bad ideas

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 3 points 38 minutes ago

Link to part 1 for those interested , and yeah, frustrating as fuck to listen to, considering what we're watching go on in the American political dumpster fire.

[–] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world 10 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Of course he does. He used to work for known neo feudalist Peter theil

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 3 points 53 minutes ago
[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 8 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Pretty sure monarchism consists of one idea

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I mean, you'd be surprised.

For one, without reading the full thing I may agree with the headline. If you're a Constitutional Monarchist who thinks having the head of state be a symbolic figurehead with no real power or capacity to intervene in politics I may not disagree with you.

The US could elect Trump as king and let him spend his days waving at crowds and attending weddings, maybe doing the jerk-dance in receptions with other monarchs. A remarkable number of democracies operate this way and do alright. Certainly better than letting him run any country for real.

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 10 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Trump isn't the problem. His rhetoric is. Giving him a a figurehead position just hands him a megaphone to spout more of it.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

You're taking the joke a bit too seriously. But hey, in any case it doesn't seem like he's struggling on that department. I haven't seen so much media attention devoted to unbearably annoying ramblings applied to a monarch. They mostly just sit in the corner and try to avoid reminding people that ceremonial dynastic positions are an anachronism.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

because he’s a candidate. if he loses a second time that will change.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I mean, talk about an incentive to go vote for Harris if you can.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

yeah, that’s usually how it works.

[–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 2 points 51 minutes ago

Yup. Absolute power.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago

weird that the article doesn’t clearly link monarchism in general and RAGE specifically to Project 2025.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -5 points 4 hours ago

The Verge - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Verge:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.theverge.com/2024/10/16/24266512/jd-vance-curtis-yarvin-influence-rage-project-2025
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support