this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
730 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2540 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. 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.
  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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 61 points 2 days ago (52 children)

Correct, Biden just cozying up to Trump when he should be using emergency powers to arrest this madman who under the 14th Amendment isn't even eligible to be President was absolutely sickening to me.

[–] enbyecho@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (45 children)

Right so... "let's do the thing the fascist threatens to do because we're right and it's justified" is not the same thing as the fascist saying "we'll do it because we're right and it's justified".

Easy to justify the means when you believe in the ends... but of course every one thinks they are right and that everyone else will come to believe they are right, thusly conveniently avoiding any bad consequences.

Do you have any idea what would have happened if Biden just arrested Trump?

[–] mm_maybe@sh.itjust.works 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

in this reply and the others following it you seem to be completely glossing over the most salient point here, which is that TRUMP SHOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT. Taking extreme measures to prevent him from getting access to unprecedented power is not sacrificing the rule of law for our beliefs, it is defending the rule of law, in which we believe, from a madman who openly despises it!

[–] enbyecho@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

"TRUMP SHOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT"

I agree. But in fact "should not" is a question of law and despite your assertion that somehow removing him is not sacrificing the rule of law, there is no law that says Trump is ineligible to serve as president. I'd like there to be some rules disqualifying him and a bunch of other people, but alas there isn't.

Go ahead, find the law that says Trump is ineligible and describe how you might defend that in court.

[–] mm_maybe@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

"The disqualification clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents public officials who engage in treason from holding a future public office."

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation15.html#%3A%7E%3Atext=The+disqualification+clause+of+the%2Cholding+a+future+public+office.

Yes I am aware that the Supreme Court let him stay on the ballot when they had the chance to rule on this, but that's a single ruling, not a law, and in point of fact not even Trump's own lawyers argued that he was not a traitor--they persuaded the Court he appointed to invent a technicality that has no basis in the actual amendment, nor any law, nor legal precedent.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/05/trump-supreme-court-insurrection-ruling-election

The silver lining here should be that the same Court also gave Biden the immunity he would need to step in and use the Executive branch to apply any the "checks and balances" needed to restore rule of law when all other branches fail, because that is the way our democracy is designed to work, yet Biden won't do that, and so US citizens can say goodbye to having any form of separation of powers at all.

[–] enbyecho@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

"public officials who engage in treason"

Did Trump engage in treason? Article III of our constitution says:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Trump, sadly, was never on trial for treason much less convicted of it. So like it or not (very much not!) Trump was never tried for crimes that would disqualify him from being elected president. Biden upheld the rule of law and adhered to our constitution.

I don't like it but that's the way it is.

load more comments (43 replies)
load more comments (49 replies)