politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Okay cool, so you're saying the ends justify the means and it has absolutely nothing to do with hindering your political adversary? So when your side is the one defying the constitution and the right takes antidemocratic steps to stop them, that will be justified and in no way will you complain?
It's literally a constitutional amendment my dude. This is how the democracy is structured, at the very foundational level. If you try to attack the lawful transfer of power, you aren't eligible for office anymore. If a Democrat tries to engage in insurrection, then they too won't be eligible. That you think defying the constitution is just something that everyone does sooner or later is very very weird.
Was Trump found guilty of insurrection? I must have missed that. My mistake.
The actual Confederates this was targeted against weren't found guilty either. There's a reason "convicted" doesn't appear in this amendment.
Explain to me how Trump's actions rise to the level of Confederate soldiers who literally killed fellow Americans. I bet you also think "silence is violence".
The insurrection killed fellow Americans. I'm not even sure what your weird quip is supposed to reference. Sounds kind of like some bullshit you pick up in the make believe version of liberals presented by rightwing media and swallowed without question by gullible conservatives.
It doesn't say found guilty. It says he done it.
You're suggesting the constitution isn't totally democratic? That's a shocker.
I'm not 100% sure I agree with the particular clause of the 14th amendment, but the beauty of the constitution is if we don't like it, we can change it. Nevertheless, the amendment writers' position isn't baseless and Donnie proves it.
The other side takes anti-democratic steps all the time. If they kept them within the spirit and letter of the Constitution, that'd be a nice change.
There have been plenty of Republican candidates that have never sought to interfere with elections. In fact, of presidential candidates, there has only been the one, as far as I know.
This isn't a "tank the Republicans", this is "we can't abide Trump, specifically". No one accused McCain, Romney, Bush, of anything like this.
It's funny that you mention THOSE Republicans because I'm old enough to remember when all three were hailed as the second coming of Hitler by the left. Weird how that's changed...
I'm old enough to remember and I don't recall anything so severe as the second coming of Hitler. The worst I recall was Gingrich and Dick Chaney being considered pretty vile, and Bush Jr being seen as lacking competence.
Trump feels unique in how obviously corrupt he wants to go.
As a point of comparison, no one ever even broached the topic of impeachment with W Bush. As disappointed as folks were with facets of his presidency, currying personal favors and working to subvert elections were not anywhere in sight.
Meanwhile, I recall Obama being hailed as the anti Christ. What of it?
They could be, but did anyone try to disqualify them from the ballot based on things they didn't do?