this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
907 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2131 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
all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Myxomatosis@lemmy.world 114 points 1 month ago (1 children)

America is a shithole country for allowing this to happen.

[–] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago (1 children)

As if this is the only reason....

[–] Myxomatosis@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

You’re not wrong.

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 100 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Trump is not eligible to be president. He’s been legally found by a Colorado court to have engaged in insurrection and the 14th amendment now bars him from the office of president. It’s legally very clear. Will it be enforced? Will the constitution be subverted by the Supreme? Tune in for the last season of America: Democracy!

[–] GhostFaceSkrilla@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Kleptocratic Kakistocracy

[–] Scolding7300@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I thought the supreme court cleared his way (not that I think it's right, just legally speaking)

[–] YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It I recall correctly, it was more of a punt. They said it needed to be litigated after the election because the constitution bans insurrectionists from office, not running or some bullshit. Fuck the god kings

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Hillary was right, her losing meant fucking the courts

[–] YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Absolutely. And the courts are going to fuck us worse than Hilary could have imagined unless the Dems finally take court reform seriously. Which I’m not hopeful for.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

No this is pretty much the last chance we all have

[–] lionheat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The only way to unfuck the courts is to give Dems both houses and presidency.

Yes, that is the first step. But we’ve had that bad Biden didn’t even try to get serious about the courts until like two months ago. Anyone with half a brain knew that the fedsoc six were going to fuck us all.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It is legally very clear, but not in the way you're hoping. The Supreme Court ruled—unanimously I would add—that individual states do not have the authority to invoke Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to disqualify a candidate from federal office. That power lies solely with Congress, which is probably a good thing or we'd have conservative-controlled courts in red states declaring every Democratic presidential nominee ineligible every election cycle.

While the Court left open the possibility for Congress to act, there is currently no legislation addressing this issue. For Congress to disqualify a candidate under Section 3, they would first need to pass a law, which would require 60 votes in the Senate to avoid a filibuster and a simple majority in the House. Only then could they decide the specific voting threshold for disqualification. In reality, this is highly unlikely to happen.

In the extraordinarily improbable event that Trump wins but somehow Democrats secure a majority in the House and simultaneously expand to 60 Senate seats—or, in an even more bizarre scenario, they hold only 50 seats, abolish the filibuster, and have Vice President Harris cast the tie-breaking vote to disqualify the candidate who defeated her—they could theoretically draft, pass, and enact such legislation. They could then invoke it to disqualify Trump before his inauguration. With a 17-day window between the seating of the new Congress and the president’s swearing-in, this scenario is technically possible, but politically fantastical.

Such an unlikely scenario, like a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College, would absolutely ignite a political crisis and likely a stochastic civil war in the United States.

Sadly, the fact is, none of that will happen, and Trump appears to now have a slight edge in the electoral college (he's currently about 6% more likely to win the EC than Harris according to Silver's model), it's quite possible, leaning towards probable, that Trump will win the election, get rid of most of the lawsuits against him, purge and/or dissolve several federal agencies, install loyalists at all levels of the government, and begin his deportation and vengeance tour with a bought-and-paid-for SCOTUS knocking down any attempts to stop him.

Sorry to be a bummer.

[–] SwordInStone@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

America: "Democracy"

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

You know Harris's declining probability of winning is sinking in when we're hoping the courts will defy the long sequence of continuous nothing they've done so far and will suddenly declare Trump ineligible.

If wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'd wish for it even if she had a 100% chance.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah, I know what you mean. But wishing won't get us very far.

[–] Soulg@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What world do you live in that her chances are declining

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The one where major polling aggregators have shown her chances of winning slowly slipping for about a month. Nate Silver's model now shows Trump's probability of winning about 8% higher than Harris. See the blue line slowly going down, crossing beneath the red line? Blue line go down = bad. Which world do you live in?

[–] crawancon@lemm.ee 56 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I agree but whaddawegonnadoo

¯\(ツ)

[–] ton618@lemm.ee 33 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] errer@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Storm the capitol! Wait…

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

If we did it, they'd shoot us.

[–] AlbinoPython@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] crawancon@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago

I was just gonna vote but I think your option is quicker. let's do this one.

[–] rickdg@lemmy.world 45 points 1 month ago (1 children)

At the very least, we come to these elections knowing already that half the country believes that democracy is and should be a joke. No surprises here.

[–] SassyRamen@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

After seeing these traitorous fuck faces run laps on us, I'm starting to think it is too.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 37 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If we were following the law to the letter, well....

Aren't traitors to the United States meant to be executed?

For the record this is not a call to violence, I am not suggesting, command, inferring, or anyway implying that someone should harm anyone, but doesn't the law literally say that insurrectionists are to be hanged?

[–] charonn0@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago

Treason carries a potential death sentence, or not less than 5 years imprisonment. Treason is also very narrowly defined by the Constitution, and what Trump did probably wouldn't satisfy the strict legal definition. He is guilty of seditious conspiracy and/or insurrection, which are not punishable by death.

[–] ThePyroPython@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Don't you think he looks tired?

Yeah, it's a sad, grumpy old dude.

[–] smeenz@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 month ago

If only that would work in the US

[–] WrenFeathers@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We don’t get to live in the ‘what should-be’ reality. We have to live in the ‘what is’ reality.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Yeah, I mean, what's the point of "remembering" this. He is eligible, and he appears to be winning. That ship has sailed.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

they say 3rd times the charm hinthint

[–] curiousaur@reddthat.com 3 points 1 month ago

That's why they went for the supreme court first.

[–] CondensedPossum@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

so funny when the slave colonies talk about "legality" and "eligibility"

hey how many copies of The Mueller Report do you guys use to prop up your bedframes

do you guys think it was bad to threaten mike pence or are you still confused about the definition of "hanging chads"

[–] aphlamingphoenix@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well I don't know that I'd call Mike Pence a chad...

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl -3 points 1 month ago

Remember that he lost the election the first time around and was never a president, anyway