this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
235 points (92.4% liked)

politics

19159 readers
4579 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
 

Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 132 points 9 months ago (4 children)

The fuck is crying about biden failing to enforce immigration policy and secure the border but yet at the same time the republican party refused to agree on finding a solution with Dems. This crippled fuck is trying to gaslight us.

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 51 points 9 months ago

Gaslight.

Obstruct.

Project.

Every accusation is a confession. Every argument is based on a false reality.

[–] Nastybutler@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (6 children)

Was the shot at Abbott's disability really necessary? He's an awful enough person that surely you can find something else to slam besides that

[–] iheartneopets@lemm.ee 10 points 9 months ago

Nah. Tolerance and respect is a peace treaty, and he violates it every time he opens his mouth or holds a pen. He doesn't get to benefit from the same grace he maliciously refuses to give others.

He's the only guy in a wheelchair I'd advocate for pushing the damn thing over and running away.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 113 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Article 1, clause 10, section 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Abbott is literally calling these migrants an invasion force, like an army or something, looking to overthrow the government. I think he's stretching things there. Texas is not getting invaded, at least in the sense that the clause refers to.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 57 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I'm on the side of the migrants. Texas needs a major change. I wish them luck with their takeover.

[–] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

Don't they just keep kidnapping them and busing them elsewhere?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 111 points 9 months ago (9 children)

But the National Guard is under Federal chain of command, so Pentagon can activate the Texas National Guard right out from under Abbott. Which honestly is probably exactly what Abbott wants so he can roll around whinging about the big mean Federal government usurping the state's resources.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 83 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Mr Abbott further invoked his own state’s “constitutional authority to defend and protect itself” for continuing to block federal agents from the border.

“That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary,” he added.

Source

I’m sorry, what?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 56 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think he's calling Texas law 'the supreme law of the land.'

[–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 77 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Motherfucker is essentially claiming Sovereign Citizen.

[–] SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I don’t think I saw him spin around three times with his eyes crossed. He is still under normal law.

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 15 points 9 months ago

The immigrants were traveling, your honor.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ThrowawayInTheYear23@lemmy.world 73 points 9 months ago
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 63 points 9 months ago (4 children)

This is bullshit posturing. He is a coward and he will back down. I don't buy this will lead to civil war for a minute. Especially not when they could get Trump in office legitimately.

[–] AshMan85@lemmy.world 42 points 9 months ago

Yeah but wouldn't be great if they get abbot for sedition too.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 31 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Legitimately? That guy can't legitimately be anywhere but prison after using fake electors. If we say the president is immune, which is bs then he should be in prison for sharing classified information to non clearenced individuals and he has admitted to it on tape... Legitimately he has one place. Life in Prison, or the death penalty as an enemy of the state. Anyone who thinks Snowden is worse than Trump (which last I checked Snowden is listed as an enemy of the state, which did not require a conviction) is a fool.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

You know what I mean.

[–] rivermonster@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

Burn it down, no reconstruction this time. That was one of the biggest mistakes post-civil war.

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

He just wants Biden to federalize the national guard so he can whine about Biden being a dictator.
Let's hope he doesn't fuck up and get anyone killed while he's playing with fire.

[–] rivermonster@lemmy.world 41 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] raynethackery@lemmy.world 29 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Sherman stopped too soon. He should have gone down to Austin and headed east then north until he hit D.C. He should have left no building standing and no crops growing. Then every confederate leader should have hanged by the neck until dead.

[–] BillSchofield@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm assuming that you have never lived in the rural South. The people who disproportionately suffer from the impact of the Civil War and reconstruction are poor and black.

I'm with you on hanging traitors, but a more devastated South would not have been good for anyone.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Well they let the rich white people keep power. Of course they legislated the burden onto other people, but it literally never had to be that way, it wasn't a foregone conclusion.

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 32 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Still in the “fuck around and…” phase I guess.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

The people in charge of "find out" are Democrats. There is no "find out" phase.

[–] Rivalarrival 19 points 9 months ago (2 children)

This will last until a federal court says it's not an invasion.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 39 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Abbott is already ignoring SCOTUS; what makes you think he'd listen to a court's definition of "invasion"?

[–] IHeartBadCode@kbin.social 19 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The point is if Abbott is really going to stick this whole path.

Abbott is going to do what he's going to do. He's just digging a hole deeper and deeper for himself and for his State.

Abbott's statement indicates that the President is violating (insert a lot of stuff) but Abbott has not made that argument successfully in court. The courts have not sided with him on this point. Which is why he's trying to do this unilateral stuff and mentioning "compact" and what have you. None of it has legal standing and he knows it.

Good example in his citation of Arizona v. United States, Abbott is not quoting the majority opinion. He is quoting the dissenting opinion, you know the one that the Court as a whole DID NOT go with. And he's using Scalia's conceptualization of Art. I § 10 C. 3 which no one else on the Court agreed with. Abbott is using legal arguments that are not legal arguments, they are the opinion of a single justice. That's how incredibly shoddy the ground is on which he is placing his argument. The Governor of Texas is just randomly selecting opinions from Justices, and ones that were not the majority opinion, to make his case.

Even more so, Ted Cruz is in the Senate trying to get a bill passed that will legitimize some of what Abbott is doing. Abbott's current argument would be like him pointing to that bill and saying "Well Congress purposed it! It didn't pass and become law, but they purposed it, so I'm allowed to do (insert whatever)." Like he talks a lot of law in his statement, but none of it is actual legal arguments. That really the thing I think a lot of people are forgetting here. Abbott for lack of a better term, it quite literally just yanking shit form his ass and calling it law of the land.

The United States is fully aware that Texas has no leg to stand on, so the US is more than willing to give Texas as much rope as they feel they need to hang themselves with. The litigation costs are already skyrocketing for Texas and I guess Abbott and Texas as a whole is feeling okay to spend another billion losing in court.

So Abbott can continue to play this game if he feels so inclined, but it's all losses and litigation bills up ahead. He doesn't have a legal argument and the fact that Senator Cruz is trying so hard to "help him out" is evidence that Abbott has nothing.

[–] Rivalarrival 16 points 9 months ago (2 children)

14th amendment. He can obey the court, or he can be declared an insurrectionist, and unqualified to hold any public office.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 31 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Jokes on you. He's already unqualified to hold any public office.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

Yes, but not yet legally so. If we're lucky, on the other hand...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Have you met our court system?

We ignored the ferdalist society for too long and theyve captured wide swaths of our judicial system.

Even if he loses every step of the way up to the SC, you really think the SC won't go along with this?

[–] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

He already lost at the Supreme Court. This is his declaration that he's ignoring that.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Reminder that Greg Abbott is a little piss baby.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

What a fucking asshole. I'm so tired of the cons.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] Catma@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago

Texit.

FTFY

[–] Ruorc@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago

Abbot is full of shit, as always.

From his letter:

Biden has ignored Texas demand that he perform his constitutional duties...thosnrefusalbtonprotect the States has inflicted unprecedented harm on the People alll across the United States>

No proof of damage except the 'I dont like brown people' that's typical of republicans. I don't recall Texas saying shit when Trump abandoned his constitutional duties to promote the general welfare of the public and let large swaths of Americans die to covid, just because he didn't want to hurt his election chances. Pretty sure that's precedent, though Abbot claims Biden's damage is unprecedented.

This whole document is to rattle supporters into a frenzy. Fuck Abbot.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 9 months ago

kinda hope these fucking assholes bring about the end of the american empire already

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Im sure theres a stronly worded letter coming his way!

load more comments
view more: next ›