733
Biden Condemns Trump as Dire Threat to Democracy in a Blistering Speech
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024
733 points (95.9% liked)
News
23376 readers
2943 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
as a german I'm not that up to date but is it still possible that this orange, wig wearing cunt can run for presidency?
We're working on that. So far 2 states (Colorado and Maine, which have 10 and 4 electoral college votes respectively out of a total of 538) have taken Trump off their election ballots, but this will likely go to the supreme court, of which 3 out of 9 judges were appointed by Trump.
Despite 3 of the judges being appointed by Trump, they have made it clear that they won't do his bidding, so far, so there is hope that he won't be eligible.
I'm disappointed he's not already in prison.
Colorado was overturned a few hours ago, he'll be on the ballot.
https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/colorado-secretary-state-certifies-2024-presidential-primary-election-ballot-trump-ballot/
Don't quote me As I'm not a lawyer, But because the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal I think it puts an injunction on the original ruling making it unenforceable until after the SC makes their ruling, but please correct me if I'm wrong because this is just an educated guess.
And the SCOTUS will likely not rule until after the election, citing "huge backlog" of other "more important" cases.
Actually they're moving fairly quickly. Oral arguments begin early February.
He can still be ineligible to run for office though, even if he wins a primary.
Fuck :(
The decision is paused until the Supreme Court renders judgement, this was always going to happen.
It shouldn't be happening. The law and precedent is clear. But it was going to anyways.
The only question is exactly how compromised the newer additions are, what Harlan Crow wants, and whether Roberts will remember he supposedly cares about the Constitution as a sacred institution.
I think people are missing something important here - this ruling is merely that he can appear on a party primary ballot, which is something not explicitly covered by the constitution. Even if he wins a primary the supreme court can then rule that he's still ineligible to run as president.
They have said that, but have they convincingly demonstrated it?
please work harder and also good luck to you
He will likely be allowed to run because so much of the country supports him, there is some legal gray area (he has not been convicted), and the courts are "conservative." I personally think he will win because Biden is getting even worse at speeches, much of the population doesn't think their personal lives improved under Biden, and a lot of people are upset for how Biden has/is handling the Israel war.
A lot of things could happen before the election that would hurt Biden as well. A recession, expansion of Israel war, and losses in Ukraine are possibilities that could hurt Biden. I don't think anything could hurt Trump. I think he could win the election from prison. Trump voters will eagerly buy any conspiracy theory to keep supporting Trump, and they don't care about democracy or human rights. Democrat and Biden voters are much more critical and fickle.
"He hasn't been convicted of insurrection" isn't a legal gray area, that's just misdirection by his supporters. Just like most other legal proceedings this one isn't dependent on the result of other legal proceedings. The supreme court will decide for themselves whether he was "involved in insurrection" - the law here doesn't depend on him being previously convicted of "insurrection", a different charge which has a much higher legal bar.
There's overwhelming evidence that he was "involved" in this insurrection so he'll almost certainly be held accountable. But whether the supreme court decides to disqualify him depends mostly on their interpretation of the clause naming the offices which he can be banned from. Given that the supreme court are republicans will they rule that "public office" does or doesn't include the presidency since it isn't named explicitly in the clause?
No they won't. That has already been found to be fact in the Colorado Supreme Court. They have to decide on it despite that finding. They have to find a way to support their boy despite having to admit he engaged in insurrection.
According to another random lemmy user, the clause actually did originally include the president explicitly, but it was then removed saying the language already covered it so it wasn't needed.
Not sure if that's true at all, but apparently it's recorded history, so if it's true it's hard to refute it and say they didn't mean it?
But maybe they removed it because they saw it as unnecessary? It'd be restating the obvious since it already says insurrectionists can't be officials, then goes on to list a few examples which were pertinent when the law was created in response to the aftermath of the civil war. In the end it depends whether they decide to interpret part of the clause literally and as more important than the intent of the clause, which seems pretty clear. How they interpret it seems to be a bit up in the air given their party affiliations.
Legal Eagle does a really good run down of the legal aspects here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krVNdQOWYk4
Yes, and he's just as popular with his voters as he was in 2020, if not more, because they're sympathetic to his claims that all the charges against him were politically motivated.
The 14th amendment hasn't been tested to anywhere near this extent ever, so the Supreme Court is likely to rule in his favor because there haven't been any convictions yet and we have literally nothing to use as precident (and because he personally appointed 1/3 of the justices)
That will likely come down to a decision by our supreme Court, who haven't been known for making very reasonable (or ethical, or logically consistent) decisions as of late.
My personal hunch is he'll be allowed to run. Happy to be surprised, though.
He will still lose when he is allowed to run. Because if he is allowed to run EVERYONE will show up to vote him out. Because he's got way more people that hate him than love him. He lost by a lot last time. And it's even worse now that we have had to hear about him non stop since he has been in the spotlight.
I suuuuuure hope so
That sounds a lot like how I thought in 2016. I hope you're right, but my faith in my fellow citizens hasn't been restored yet.
It's tired and worn out, but my faith is so low that I look both ways at a roundabout.
He'll only lose if everyone who comes out votes for the same guy. If people protest vote for a third party, Trump will win.
He isn't polling very well against Trump... I have my doubts
Polls are only for boring people with nothing else to do but bicker. There are plenty of people that vote that don't bother with all the grandstanding before the actual elections.
The Supreme Court with a majority of Republican originalists would bend over backwards to let Trump run for presidency
everything here has devolved into a state by state issue with state trumping federal laws
it depends on who each individual state decides to put on the ballot to allow the people to vote for
Yes absolutely. It will be up to the Court to decide.