537
Donald Trump didn’t win by a historic landslide. It’s time to nip that lie in the bud
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2024
537 points (96.2% liked)
politics
19248 readers
2392 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes and no. All power, ultimately, depends on compliance. Even autocracies. There would not have been a "divine right of kings" if kings did not have a pressing need to assure people of their right to hold power.
The "mandate" narrative is aimed at convincing everyone that their objections are in the minority. That even if they stand up and say something, they'll simply be the odd one out.
Power ultimately depends on violence. Violence can create compliance and vice versa, but the violence and compliance with violence is what's fundamental. These politicians are very capable of overwhelming violence. It's a crucial part of their function. It's been the norm as long as states have existed.
There wouldn't have been the "divine right of kings" if kings were unable to torture and murder people.
The state's ability to use violence is entirely contingent on compliance.
There are approximately 1.3 million police officers in the US. That number doubles if you were to throw in the entire US military. That is about 1% of the adult population of the US (~260 million).
The only reason state violence is possible is because people accept it. If every time a police officer tried to arrest someone, an entire neighbourhood rolled out to stop them, no amount of military grade weaponry would prevent a total breakdown of government control. This is what is meant by "policing by consent". It is the understanding that policing only works because people consent to be policed.
One could reasonably interpret the entirety of the modern era to be the upper class's quest to push us as close to that point as possible without quite getting there. They've already pushed it pretty god damn far with very little meaningful resistance. If the public's line in the sand is on the far side of fascism then that line may as well not exist at all.
Well, yes, exactly. It's all about creating sufficient compliance, something they've gotten very good at.