this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
501 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2610 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] aggelalex@lemmy.world 56 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

Imagine if Biden with his newfound immunity decomissions the entire Supreme Court and raids it with military force just for the sake of tragic irony

[–] Phegan@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Everyone seems to be missing the "in an official capacity" clause of the ruling. That is intended to force each of these cases to the supreme court, allowing them to rule what is and isn't official capacity. Meaning, they can simply rule that Biden didn't act in an official capacity and is not immune. The ruling is even more sinister than it seems on the surface.

[–] aggelalex@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

He can make it official. He can make it as official as it gets. He can literally publicly sign this, in his office, with the press. Just because the constitution doesn't explicitly say he can do it doesn't mean it's unofficial. The constitution barely mentions what authorities the president does and doesn't have in the first place.

[–] Sabata11792@ani.social 9 points 4 months ago

Its going to be hard to rule against the president after you been killed by the president.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] randompasta 55 points 4 months ago

This should scare the shit out of everyone.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 49 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 32 points 4 months ago (8 children)

Except when the terms of what an official act is not defined, the Supreme Court gets to decide, after the fact.

[–] firebyte@lemmy.world 19 points 4 months ago

I've been thinking about this a bit, I'm not sure it's been considered and I may be going out on a random tangent...

Isn't this whole 'immunity' decision just another power grab, or rather further cementing of their power, by SCOTUS? Think about it. They're essentially the arbiter of 'right' and 'wrong' now, as there's no further avenue of appeal save for amending the U.S. Constitution.

Put aside the vagueness of 'official' vs. 'unofficial' acts for a moment.

  • Trump did something definitely illegal, and Trump argues was 'official', like his classified records case. Immune.

  • Biden did something questionably legal yet unofficial, such as forgetfully retaining classified documents after his tenure as VP (which he immediately returned). Supreme Court decides 'not immune', and some idiot decides to prosecute.

Trump might end up as a king, but the conservative majority of SCOTUS are the kingmakers and protectors.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Eh. Not if Biden just says “no. Fuck you. That was an official act.” And then just categorically ignore the court. Which is precisely what Trump would do if presented with a mirrored version of the situation.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 41 points 4 months ago (36 children)

Yet somehow Biden is powerless to stop him. 🤔

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 26 points 4 months ago (7 children)

Are you hoping that Biden now sets a precedent by using his newfound king powers to assassinate his opponent? I want Trump to lose in a fair election and go to prison for a very long time. Biden using this “the president/king can do whatever he wants” would lead to an immediate civil war

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 41 points 4 months ago (4 children)

What?! No! This is like a riddle. You assassinate the Supreme court first, THEN pack the court. Then have the new Supreme Court strip the presidency of these new powers.

[–] EvilBit@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Yes but my cabbage is still on the wrong side of the river

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 41 points 4 months ago (7 children)

The time for a president to not act like a king was before a corrupt court awarded the powers of a king to a president. The only way to turn it back now is for a non-corrupt king to break the corrupt court and then divest himself of powers before a corrupt king ascends to the throne.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

That seems logical, but can we try wishful thinking first?

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 23 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (6 children)

Weird how if Biden uses any of the power he has to stop Trump from becoming Fuhrer then it will cause a civil war, but when Trump actually uses that power to become Fuhrer he will face no obstacles.

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (16 children)

It will still cause a civil war. Also, that was a wild edit from “you’ll fucking wish Biden assassinated Trump”

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I changed my mind about what I wanted to say, but was I wrong?

EDIT And I changed my mind again. If Trump is so dangerous, the only way to really stop him is for Biden to win decisively. Instead, he's behind in fucking New Jersey in the latest polls. If he wins it'll be razor thin, maybe only by the electoral college or a few counties, and then the fascist Supreme Court will give it to Trump anyway. Lose/lose, at least if Biden does something really funny before he resigns he could make sure Trump can't become fuhrer.

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The forces that produced Trump remain and will birth a new "strong man" for the masses to get behind, and the GOP does another attempt for Christian fascism.

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

And liberals can't actually confront those forces, because some of those forces are the ones who donate to them. Yeah, I get it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 months ago

I want Trump to lose in a fair election and go to prison for a very long time.

I mean, 2020 happened, he lost in a fair election. He did do crimes that should have landed him jail.

Now what? You’re saying it’s gonna happen this time?

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

As if that’s not gonna happen when Trump uses said powers? Indecisiveness will doom America. Act! The Heritage foundation, Trump, and the Republicans do. They ask for forgiveness, maybe, but not permission.

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

Indecisiveness = not assassinating the opponent?

America is doomed. Now both sides are calling for their chosen king to execute the other king. The experiment is over, hyper capitalism disguised as theology won. I want to vote for my chosen president in this election. This thread is telling me I should support my king executing the other king. Even if he gives up that power right after said execution, the president has made a precedent that the “checks and balances” are broken.

My prediction is that if an execution / forceful power grab is to happen, China will immediately invade the Phillipines and Taiwan, seeing the instability of the US, possibly Japan right after, since our new king will be too busy with the civil war or dismantling the government.

After that NATO and the EU will remove the US from any seat we have during said civil war, as we are no longer a democratic state.

The US arms companies will move to supplying the civil war in addition to just pumping Israel full of guns, maybe Russia too since it’s profitable and what even is regulation at this point.

By the time the US does stabilize, we’re a corporatocracy, as the only things left with real buying power are our tech companies and arms manufacturers, which at this point have their own mercenary security to defend against potential profit loss or have moved to other nations (Apple’s risk management division absolutely has these papers and plans drawn up seeing the political climate)

Canada will absolutely close its borders, and probably will be a hotbed of attempted immigration, ironically their right wing leaning government fighting the effects of our right wing government.

But yeah, we should yell at our king to assassinate the other potential king, instead of organizing, donating, campaigning and voting

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yes. Pretty much. Exactly. The alternative is Trump. So, yeah. Glad someone else recognizes America as we knew it is over.

You know the thought experiment where you go back in time and kill Hitler? We’re there. Take out Hitler.

The alternative is to do what Weimar Germany did and pretend it’s not happening, or, it won’t be that bad.

Learn from history.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 5 points 4 months ago

Hell no, this "When they go low, we go high, bullshit!" is why Roe Vs. Wade was overturned and if we continue that nonsense it will be why Gay Marriage is overturned.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (35 replies)
[–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 33 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Does anyone else just not bother reading articles when they see it’s from The Daily Beast? I just don’t have the energy to deal with their paywall.

[–] Geobloke@lemm.ee 7 points 4 months ago

There wasn't one this time

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I feel like their paywall has gotten more strict recently. I used to almost never get them (edit: on my pc with an adblocker. I did get them on mobile but now I’m seeing them on my pc too)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›