this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2024
746 points (96.5% liked)

politics

18736 readers
4013 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 192 points 6 months ago (3 children)

The GOP is about to nominate an old man who can’t remember his 3rd wife’s name who is facing 91 federal charges.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 94 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Not just some old man. An old RAPIST.

[–] Tyfud@lemmy.world 35 points 6 months ago (1 children)

An old rapist seditionist traitor

[–] makunamatata@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 6 months ago

The GOP doesn’t have a problem with that

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 25 points 6 months ago

Honestly at this point I don't think you can get the GOP nomination WITHOUT being a rapist.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 15 points 6 months ago

The GOP doesn’t have a problem with that.

[–] n3m37h@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 6 months ago

Who enjoys walking into the dressing rooms of underaged pageant contestants and also was friends with a serial pedophile who didn't kill himself

[–] PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world 49 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Who, more importantly, is literally a traitor to our country and attempted to overthrow democracy (albeit a pitiful halfhearted attempt via his angry lapdogs)

[–] makunamatata@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

GOP doesn’t have a problem with that

[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago

Nor the first part...

[–] S_204@lemm.ee 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This cognitive debate between two geriatrics is just sad to see. I'm not American, our politicians aren't qualified for other reasons, but I'm so curious to see one of them die in office and the mayhem it's gonna cause when it happens. My stock market play would be completely different LoL.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 31 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Dying in office won't produce mayhem. We have a well established process for that. The VP takes over and fights with Congress over who gets appointed as the next VP. The only drama will be who fills that role.

Dying just before the election? Now that will be a clown show. If the vacancy happens after the party convention the ballots likely wouldn't be able to be changed. However, as you likely know we are not voting for President and VP directly, we are voting for a slate of Electors pledged to the candidates. Many states bind those electors to vote according to the popular vote, and those states would need to pass quick laws changing that process.

If it's the winning side whose candidate bites it, there needs to be a ton of coordination to all this. Because there is still a process to counting those EC votes. If some votes come in for the deceased candidate at the top of the ticket and some don't, they will likely be counted separately and as a result no one would technically have the majority.

We do have a weird way to resolve that, though: if the EC has no majority, the House votes on the President and the Senate votes on the VP. But the House vote has an additional wrinkle, in that each State's delegation gets one vote. So, all 50+ of California's members get 1 vote, and Wyoming's Lone member also gets a vote. The math there favors the Republican candidate, even if Democrats control the House.

It could also result in the Republican choice being President while the Democrat becomes VP, which would make for the world's most awkward Peformance Reviews.