671
After blocking hundreds of promotions, Tuberville said the US has 'the weakest military than we've probably had in my lifetime' (www.businessinsider.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
144 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Tuberville failed to mention that he's personally prevented hundreds of officers from being promoted because he disagrees with a 2022 Pentagon policy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -70 points 2 years ago (8 children)

Why would competition continue to exist if the precedent of being able to abolish the competing party ever holding office were already set?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 35 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    precedent of being able to abolish the competing party

    Nobody said that, quit arguing with things in your head honey

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -25 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Read the first comment in the thread. Or learn reading comprehension.

    Or I suppose you can continue spouting random shit and appending honey at the end.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    honey you are seriously reaching if you choose to interpret "should not be allowed into office" as "we must abolish them"

    should not vs shall not, ironic telling someone else to practice reading comprehension

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -15 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    A political party which should not be allowed into office, is what? Turning a major political party into your high school group is not abolishing. Trolling has to have a limit man.

    Edit: as I was typing this, I reread your comment and realized you have chosen option 2. Well played, and good luck.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    A political party which should not be allowed into office, is what?

    the loser, the statement was encouraging a voting position

    "everyone I disagree with is trolling"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    the statement was encouraging a voting position

    the phrasing didn't indicate that. "Should never win an election" would be much more clear than "should not be allowed" which implies prohibition.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    the phrasing didn’t indicate that

    the phrasing certainly didn't indicate that they wish for the abolition of the GOP, you came up with that on your own

    "should not be allowed” which implies prohibition.

    you're thinking of "shouldn't be able" bud, at the end of an election there can only be one party allowed into office

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    you're thinking of "shouldn't be able" bud

    Actually, I view it as the opposite. Really this is subjective language differences. But should not be allowed to me implies there is rules prohibiting, where's shouldn't be able to implies that they should just fail to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    Hmm, it seems one of us has misinterpreted the statement. I interpreted the should not be allowed in office as, "a law should be passed saying that".

    While you, perhaps correctly assumed that it means people should not vote for them. Sorry I thought you were being willfully obtuse. Still, I am not completely convinced my interpretation of statement was wrong.

    But regardless, we are both apparently in agreement on this point.

    But, my second point stands, that you are an unpleasant person using intimate and friendly words as an attack.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What's the value of a party that refuses to represent the people they're charged to, restructures the economy to let them ransack it for personal enrichment, remove rights from people, refuse to do their job, remove protections, allowing businesses to run roughshod over the people, and manufacturing a panic about CRT, ANTIFA, immigrant caravans, Jewish space lasers, stolen elections, Trans people?

    Wouldn't replacing that with a party that represents voters better than the Democrats - let alone the Republicans be nice? It's not as though the GOP is even popular - it's only gerrymandering that gives them a shot at power - when did they last win the popular vote in a federal election?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -21 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What’s the value of a party

    That people votes for them, and we cannot remove them because we dislike them.

    Wouldn’t replacing that with a party that represents voters better than the Democrats - let alone the Republicans be nice?

    No, because only the voters can decided who represents them, not us.

    It’s not as though the GOP is even popular

    Majority? No. Popular, yes, its just wrong to say otherwise. They still get 10s of millions of votes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Nobody but you said anything about abolishing a party.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Because we currently have two right-wing parties and no left-wing parties that are competitive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -21 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That depends how you define left and right wing, which is not really something that has entirely agreed upon definitions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Lol, according to whom? They've been clearly defined for decades. Political scientists don't like it as it's a two dimensional axis that lacks the ability to more accurately describe political views, but there's no question on what it means.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago

    That's not entirely true. The definition of left and right wing generally isn't followed when actually applied. My personal way of defining it, is that most people consider left-wing = socialism, so imo the more socialist it is the more left it is, the more free market it is the further right it is.

    Oxford says this for right wing:

    the section of a political party or system that advocates free enterprise and private ownership, and typically favours socially traditional ideas; the conservative group or section.

    So, how exactly, is Nazism far-right? They did not advocate free enterprise at all. Same with fascists that are corporatist. Yet, people like Richard Spencer are called far-right, because they're racist? That makes a term like far-right a pejorative and not actually describing an ideology.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    This dude is like a straw man machine lol

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Look, as an non American I want to try and explain to you that at this point if you don't have more then two parties there is almost no chance that you will after it is reduced to one. You needed to have more then two parties all the way back when the bull mouse was a thing. It is too late now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Imo, US parties essentially act as coalitions of major factions within the parties.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I don't think a one party state with internal factions can be called a democracy. I think you are describing something like China.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The different factions within the CCP are not based on ideology but instead on power.(Generally with the exception of maybe some like Zhao Ziyang) Furthermore, the major factions repress minority factions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Yes, and you think a one party system in the US would somehow operate differently?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No? I oppose a one party system in the US?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Then why the odd explanation of the CCP factions? I am lost on how this is a poor analogy for a one party US. Just like in China you would have some sort of fake vernier of democracy (or communism for china) that is just objectively not true. I would imagine the US would make their one party something stupid like the freedom party or keep the democrat party name (even though by definition you can't be one in a one party system).

    Both national parties have factions big enough in them to be parties on their own. Your country and others need to stop consolidating under bigger and bigger tents with the sole goal of maintaining power.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago

    That's not the precedent though. The precedent is that parties that try to subvert the U.S. citizens should be disqualified immediately. That includes the current republican and democratic parties.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    As of 2020, six parties have members in the federal parliament of Russia

    Do you think, by your measure, that America will ever achieve the same level of democracy as Russia?

    Or is it possible that your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Looks like someone doesn't know the difference between the US system and a parliamentary system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I'm sorry, do members of each party not sit in all branches of government and judiciary?

    Guess you were wrong with the usual exceptionalist yOu cAnT cOmpArE nonsense

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Please inform yourself about how parliamentary systems work. More than 2 parties are viable in that system because parties can form a coalition government with other parties that may agree on some things, in order to keep the "greater evil" party out of power.

    That's not how it works in the US. You're comparing apples to oranges.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I never said more parties means more democracy. I did say prohibiting the primary opposition party from holding office was less democracy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You mean we should tolerate insurrectionists because we must hold up the principles of democracy until the bitter end, at which point they will eviscerate them?

    It's a wildly bad take, I'll be honest. And hopefully you see how you missed my point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •