658
Trump Says Jan. 6 Was an Insurrection
(www.rollingstone.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 09 Feb 2024
658 points (97.7% liked)
politics
19090 readers
4415 users here now
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. 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.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
We should, because it's the brain that has to beat Trump. We don't have any better options, unfortunately.
We have better options; the DNC and GOP both refuse to present one.
I really thought in 2016 Bernie would splinter the democrats and we’d have a true left party. I also thought trump would create a new party on the right and the republicans would go back to being republicans. Can you imagine a 4 party system!
To my surprise, the trump dragged the republicans even further to the right, and the democrats moved even more center-right to appease ex-republicans. So the whole nation just moved right, which is sad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
FPTP tends towards a two-party system. CGP Grey made a video about it.
it's been moving to the right my whole lifetime. i'm 64. we're not right at the fascist line, with our right wing party actually over the line, and no far left at all.
Wouldn't last.. you'd end up like Australia where they just form coalitions and it's the same result as if they never split
The Republicans recently had a split with the Tea Party, that's where we got Ted Cruz from. Then they lost the election to Obama and came back to republicans
What better options? What names are well known to people? What people that are well known can overcome incumbency bias? Do any have literal decades of experience in congress and the white house?
I would have preferred Bernie but throwing out names only a small percentage of the electorate will know is a fools gamble. And the DNC using marketing to get them well know would have been a huge waste of times and resources to build someone up when there's already a good candidate sitting in the oval office. You're not going to throw out a sitting President unless he's WILDLY unpopular.
Barack Obama wasn’t very well known when he ran for president t. And he won twice.
I think the point is that both the Dems and GOP are pigeon-holing themselves by only allowing one candidate to run. Why does it have to be that way? So what if there are 10 dems and 22 GOP to choose from? Or whatever.
Make them actually have to work for it and let the American people decide. Scrap the first past the post rule and ditch the electoral college. Give the people their voices back. The way it works right now does not work. It’s high time everyone just admits to it.
He wasn't trying to primary an incumbent either.
I’m down for Gretchen Whitmer.
He is wildly unpopular. A majority of Americans thinks he is too old to be an effective president. This has nothing to do with his record, but with the simple biological fact that our minds decay as we reach our 80s.
For that same reason Trump is a terrible candidate as well, and I actually am not worried that a younger candidate with some name recognition will be able to defeat him. I am much more worried about Biden.
Name literally one.
Gather every D senator and congressman into a giant circle and toss a stone into the air. Whoever it hits is likely better.
Bob Menendez.
(Sure you qualified it with "likely" but I couldn't resist)
Granted, the odds are in your favor, but there are definitely some much worse options in that crowd.
Are any of them running? Actually, forget that. Anyone currently running is probably a moron.
Do they have the name recognition and wide appeal? Can they raise the money and give a good speech? Can they argue with a madman and win? Are any of them leaders, and if so, where the fuck have they been?
A friend of mine suggested Michelle Obama and I was like... That could actually have been a realistic option 🤔
No it absolutely could not. She doesnt want it and this is a racist and misogynist country. The GOP literally believes she's a trans dude and their media tells them that every day.
Stop trying to make MO happen. It's not gonna happen.
It's not as if any Democrat candidate was going to be sold as being great to the Republicans by their media so I don't know why you think that's an argument...
The US has already elected a black president twice so I guess the racists don't win overall? She's also seen in a much better light than Hillary Clinton, I do think a woman could have won 2016 if she had been not-Clinton.
Obama is a reaction to Bush and Iraq. Biden is a reaction to trump and fascism. Obama got shellaced in 2010. Democrats still do not control the Senate. Nothing has been the win you think it is.
2008, Obama's popular vote? 52.9%
2012? 51.1% (funny how he got elected twice with more than 50% of the vote in a country that's so racist it wouldn't elect a black person if it wasn't for Bush? 🤔)
2016 Clinton's? 48.18% (46.09% for Trump)
2020 with Harris as vice President? 51.31%
Looks to me like it's not that a woman or a black person can't win on their own merits, it's that the electoral system is fucked up in the USA.
Looks like you made my point for me as none of those are strong showings and still desplay reactive voting over proactive voting.
So Obama being elected a second time was a vote against Bush... That wasn't a eligible candidate at that point because he already was elected twice...
Yeah so I'm just going to ignore you from this point on because clearly you must have something against women and POC and don't want them in politics or something.
Wow look at all the slander you had to make up to cover your pathetic loss.
Jon Stewart.
I would vote for him for anything, but he doesn't want the job, and he isn't running. Those are two important prerequisites to voting for the guy.
Katie Porter
I vote for her as president in a heartbeat.
Our system rewards fund raisers. Why is it someone who able to raise money should run the country, I don't know. Just how it is set up.
Maybe he decides to step down. I think the people are pretty well set on voting either Trump or [person against Trump]
Nah, I don't think Harris has the charisma to rally the party. Biden needs to survive the election, and then he can step down after beating Trump if needed.
Don't get me wrong, I will vote for just about anybody over Trump, but I think it's going to be a close race.
party has no choice but to rally itself under current circumstances.
Everyone rally around the genocide, record oil extraction and arming of the border! Congratulations you saved America from Trump! Lol.
Sounds like y'all need to start over if this is the pinnacle of 250 years of political evolution.
festering
I know this is nothing remotely new, but I feel like it's justified to keep repeating it:
US elections is a shitshow.
Apologies for being that guy, but just a FYI, only because you keep repeating it, it should be US elections are a shitshow, not 'is'.
Honestly, that's quite intriguing to me. I had originally written "politics" but decided to change it. Would that make a difference, or would it still be "are"? Also, I find it abit strange to use "[plural noun] are a [singular noun]", but maybe this is just me repeating it too much, making it sound weird.
I can think of one but Katie has other ideas
In the Idiocracy timeline i think Joe Rogan gets elected.