this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2024
199 points (85.4% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3797 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
[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 43 points 4 months ago (3 children)

A couple years ago? Sure

Now? We are on the brink. The supreme court is so corrupt that they have given trump immunity for everything he has ever or will ever do. This includes a literal violent fucking insurrection where he attempted to lynch congress and the VPOTUS.

In a world where people gave a shit about any of the above? Yeah, this would be a problem. But Democrats and The Left are hellbent on tearing down their candidate for a multitude of reasons and have consistently refused to do anything that could possibly have prevented the current mess of a supreme court.

Attempted political violence doesn't make stopping trump harder. Yes, it emboldens his base but nobody else is going to feel sympathy and the Democrats were always going to kill their own chances anyway.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

nobody else is going to feel sympathy

The undecided voter who only pays attention to the news when something "big" is happening doesn't like assassins and think fist pumping after a bullet flies by your head like a cheesy movie scene is super cool.

Beyond that, the rhetoric of violence just kind of validates all the claims about might making right that fascists hold on to anyway, which is probably a bit to esoteric for a lot of people to see but I'm pretty sure it shows dividends that will undermine future efforts at a better society. I won't say violence is never justified (e.g. self defense situations), but just as a political tactic against fascism assassinations are like cutting the head off a hydra.

e;

We are on the brink.

This I emphatically agree with.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 17 points 4 months ago (2 children)

If an "undecided" voter decides to vote for trump because he got shot? They are the dumbest mother fucker in existence and were looking for an excuse to vote for a fascist anyway.

I’m pretty sure it shows dividends that will undermine future efforts at a better society.

That ship has sailed. We are no longer fighting for a better society. We are fighting for a society period.

If the end result is "This nation is fundamentally broken and we need to re-assess the constitution before we engage in full blow civil war... again"? GOOD.

But that self awareness is not going to happen under the fascists who are openly undermining the country and planning to make trump a king.

[–] iltoroargento@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 4 months ago

Agreed, however, I think a lot of voters are vying for the title of "dumbest motherfucker in existence" so I will definitely keep fighting tooth and nail to make sure people I know vote and fight against fascism.

[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Therein lies a massive problem with the US electorate. Be it due to modern media, poorly funded schools, or more probably, both of those things, you're going to need a plurality of the dumbest motherfuckers in existence to vote for you if you want to win just about any election.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 months ago

Yes. It is The struggle

But if something as trivial as "his ear was too close to a speeding bullet and he bled a bit" wins him a vote? That voter was never going to be YOUR voter.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Failed political violence makes stopping Trump harder.

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Political violence may stop Trump the man, but do you think it'll stop Trumpism? No. It won't. Instead, some authoritarian jackwagon who actually knows how to play the game will step up into Trump's shoes, and ride his assassination straight into the White House. Then they'll dismantle Democracy so they can't lose again, and the only way we get them out of power is by bleeding a whole fucking lot. The good news is it's some unhinged Republican who took a shot at Trump, so it may take some of the wind out of Trump's sails on this.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They'd still need a figurehead to become the President. Who could it even be, without splintering Trump's coalition into disparate factions?

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If you truly believe this, I don't know what to tell you. If enough of the Left believe this, we're lost.

Ron Desantis will GLADLY step up and take over from Trump. And he's a bit more competent than the Shitgibbon.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

He can't win, though. He's a loser.

Pretty much all of Trump's hangers on are losers. They have zero charisma and voters hate them. Without Trump they're toast.

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Wow. You are sure of yourself there. Absolutely no way at all that Desantis, Haley, or Ramaswamy might not pick up SOME of Trump's votes? Especially if Trump was assassinated? No chance at all the MAGAts won't line up behind whoever takes on the reins?

All I think would need to happen is the candidate stepping in for Trump says he's gonna make the Left pay by making sure everything Trump was going to do gets done. I don't share your optimism that assassinating Trump will make our job any easier. In fact, I think there'll be plenty of Trumpers with rifles looking for a few Liberals to make pay for their guy being killed.

But you do you. I'm done here.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

But Democrats and The Left are hellbent on tearing down their candidate for a multitude of reasons

Reasons like he may not be fit to do the job, he's trailing in the polls, and is likely to lose?

and have consistently refused to do anything that could possibly have prevented the current mess of a supreme court.

Such as? Everyone says this but never gives the next sentence, what they should have done.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Stack the supreme court to better represent a 50+ state country of 340 million people. Or, as of the recent ruling, use an Official Act or two to fix the fucking courts.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Needs Congress, and there's barely a Senate majority. You think Manchin is going to play ball for that? We couldn't even get rid of the filibuster.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I think this is the kind of situation where you pull out every single stop because it is literally the future of the country. I don't care what back room deals are being made. I care about there being a future.

You know, rather than having a ruling that is basically "Anything that is an official act is legal and if there is a dispute we'll eventually rule in favor of the republicans when it gets to us". Which... opens up the kind of options that this article is saying would help trump even though they clearly wouldn't.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world -5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Stack the court how? Congress can set a different number, what's the plan to get it through the House and Senate?

pull out every single stop

Like what? You don't have the numbers. This is my issue, this is the equivalent of saying "stuff, just do stuff".

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The President no longer needs to get anything through Congress. He can just do it unilaterally and dare SCOTUS to overturn its own recent opinion.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world -4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

But he actually can't. He can't expand the court and he can't seat justices. You're just saying nonsense.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

You really need to read Sotomayor’s dissent in Trump v. United States.

He may need Congress' "consent" for some things but he can Seal Team Six any Congressperson who doesn't "consent," so effectively he can do whatever he wants.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

You're completely missing the fact that the final arbiter of what consists of an "official act" is SCOTUS. They can unilaterally decide (and will) that Biden's actions are not official acts and therefore not immune. They won't apply the same standard to conservatives, I promise you that.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 months ago

The SCOTUS is the final arbiter.

The SCOTUS that got smeared across the wall by seal team six and are being replaced by people who will say "Well, that was legal at the time so no harm, no foul. Now let's get rid of that fucking insane decision and fix this country, shall we?"

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

You’re completely missing the fact that the final arbiter of what consists of an “official act” is SCOTUS.

You're completely missing the fact that if Biden were to actually use the powers SCOTUS granted him to their fullest effect, the three liberal justices would be the only ones left alive.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

No I'm not missing that at all, it's insane and not remotely helpful. It's pretty goddamn naive to think that assassinating 2/3 of SCOTUS somehow puts us in a better position to fix the country but you do you.

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

First, do you think Seal Team Six would carry that order out?

Do you think Seal Team Six wouldn't possibly take Biden out after he gave that kind of order?

Do you think that some members of Seal Team Six might be highly Conservative and loyal to Trump and the Supreme Court, and not to Biden and an order to take out the Conservative Justices?

Do you think Team Red would idly stand by while Biden orders the assassination of the leaders they knuckled down for TWO DECADES to get installed?

Pro-tip: You're on loony island right now. What will happen here is that Seal Team Six would reject the obviously illegal order, report it, and Biden would have horrible egg on his face. There's a damn good chance that he'd then either be 25ed away, or outright impeached for illegal orders, and then arrested and tried for attempted murder, completely bereft of any of the protections you think he has. Trump would then sail easily to election over a Harris ticket, simply by pointing out that he was right all along and Biden and the Democrats were bloodthirsty murderers just looking for an opportunity to kill Republicans and impose a Socialist Communist Dictatorship on Mama's Apple Pie and all the Bald Eagles in the world. And then we'd get a REAL Fascist Dictatorship where Republicans could roam the country looking for people they don't like and oppressing them.

And you really have to disrespect Biden to think he'd even BEGIN thinking about doing this. The man's a good person. He's not looking to join Team Republican in the new Fascist paradigm.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You really need to read Sotomayor’s dissent in Trump v. United States.

I have.

He may need Congress' "consent" for some things but he can Seal Team Six any Congressperson who doesn't "consent," so effectively he can do whatever he wants.

  1. He wouldn't. 2. If he did he'd be prosecuted. 3. This was never meant to allow Biden any power, R is the in group, D is the out group. 4. Republican ideology doesn't treat in and out groups the same, the rules are different.

So please stop.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)
  1. If he did he’d be prosecuted.

By who, a SCOTUS well within Seal Team Sixing distance?

You claim you read that dissent, but you clearly do not fully understand it.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 3 points 4 months ago

No no no, you see: Democrats can't do that because it is... perfectly legal?

And obviously the replacements would vote along republican party lines to make it clear that ruling was specifically for trump.

I don't know what that person's problem is but it is pretty clear they are actively arguing in favor of rolling over for the republicans.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

By who, a SCOTUS well within Seal Team Sixing distance?

No, the DoJ and the FBI, you know, the entities that prosecute people.

Immunity doesn't make something legal, it simply puts the person beyond the reach of the law. You're talking about a commander-in-chief using the military against citizens on US soil. All members of the military are trained to reject unlawful orders.

So first you're assuming seal team six accepts and carries out an unlawful order. Then the entire DoJ ignores it, or is murdered, until they accept it. Then any legislators or justices that attempt to rein in such power are also assassinated. That's what is required for your idea to make sense.

Guess what, SCOTUS is irrelevant to the calculation. Assuming you have all those things above, it doesn't matter if SCOTUS conveys immunity or not. That president is beyond the bounds of the law anyway, with or without immunity.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No, the DoJ and the FBI, you know, the entities that prosecute people.

You mean the entities that Biden, as head of the executive branch, could control as he sees fit (under the "unitary executive" theory underpinning the conservative SCOTUS judges reasoning)?

You're really, really relying on this notion that the noble bureaucrats won't comply, and also won't get replaced with lackeys who would. With Biden as president, you're likely right -- but the power is there for the next person to hold that office to take. Unless Biden does something drastic to force SCOTUS to overturn themselves, anyway.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You're really, really relying on this notion that the noble bureaucrats won't comply, and also won't get replaced with lackeys who would.

No, I'm being realistic. It's a system of checks and balances, but it only works when you have a sufficient number of good faith actors. When you have a sufficient number of bad faith actors, or those willing to go completely over-the-top in their corruption, the system doesn't work. Immunity, at the end of the day, is a moot point against that level of bad faith malfeasance, a point you choose to seemingly ignore.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

WTF? I'm not ignoring it; the entire point of my comments has been pointing it out. SCOTUS enshrined that bad faith malfeasance, and Biden using it against itself is now the only way to stop it.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

WTF? I'm not ignoring it; the entire point of my comments has been pointing it out.

You're ignoring that Biden won't do it, Dems wouldn't allow him to do it, and the bad faith actors in place aren't Democrats. So no one, at any level, is going to allow Joe Biden to take any of those steps.

[–] thestar@mastodon.social 1 points 4 months ago

Exactly congress will atleast control some things, like the flow of money.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

At the end of the day, republicans and dinos are just looking out for their own self interest. I don't care if we need to rebuild Epstein's Island and dedicate most of an annual military budget to get them on our side, we do it.

But also? As I have repeatedly alluded to: The Supreme Court just ruled that anything the president does is legal. Up to and including siccing seal team six on a political rival.

Yes, the Supreme Court are the ones who eventually decide if something counted as an official act. But there are supreme court approved ways to create openings to get more legal minded justices on the bench.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

republicans and dinos are just looking out for their own self interest. I don't care if we need to rebuild Epstein's Island and dedicate most of an annual military budget to get them on our side, we do it.

Here's the problem, they understand the power of the Supreme Court. There's nothing you can offer them to untie this particular knot, none of them are voting to expand the court.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And you continue to ignore the supreme court sanctioned method of "cutting the gordian knot" with seal team six.

So it is very clear you are not arguing in good faith since you continue to focus on how there is nothing that can be done so let's turn the other cheek so that we leave nice corpses for the republicans.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

And you continue to ignore the supreme court sanctioned method of "cutting the gordian knot" with seal team six.

This isn't a thing. If Biden ordered the assassination of justices he'd be prosecuted by the DoJ and the FBI. You're insane if you think otherwise.

So it is very clear you are not arguing in good faith

Not arguing in good faith? You cannot give a specific example of what Dems could have done to avoid this or what they can do now. You backed yourself into a corner and are now screeching seal team six nonsense.

Biden wouldn't do it, Dems wouldn't stand for it, and SCOTUS wouldn't sanction it. It's a nonsense argument to distract from the other vague nonsense you've said.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

What part of "SCOTUS just made the President a King" do you not understand? Biden could literally kill Manchin (and any other Congressperson who refused to rubber-stamp his plan) and it would be legal.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Polls haven't shifted one way or the other as of yet. If this does anything, then there might need to be a different conversation.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Polls haven't shifted one way or the other as of yet. If this does anything, then there might need to be a different conversation.

Biden has been trending down since April and has been behind in the polls since then. His an incumbent who is down in the polls.

How about the fact that he looks confused a lot too? He's very old and doddering. At his age he couldn't be a judge in my state, but he can be president?