435
'It's very possible': Trump floats imprisoning his political opponents
(www.nbcnews.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 05 Jun 2024
435 points (98.0% liked)
politics
19144 readers
1768 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
Wait...
So you give an example of when the Dems ran a candidate further to the right than their voters want...
Which resulted in the Republican winning...
And you blame voters?
And now, when the Dem party is running a candidate further than the right than Dem voters want...
You're already blaming the voters?
You still haven't realized the solution is running candidates that appeal to voters?
Did you forget Bill Clinton and Barack Obama happened in the middle?
You charismatic candidates who ran progressive campaigns that led to decisive wins?
Lol, that's what they said about 2016, and 2020..
It's what you're saying about 2024...
But next year, next year will definitely be different?
So, you forgot about the January 6 coup attempt?
You two seem to be somewhat talking at cross purposes.
As far as I can see, what they're saying is that the Dem candidate needs to apeal to Dem voters and those who could be persuaded to vote Dem, to ensure their vote. If Biden turns enough of them off and they don't vote he risks losing. On the other hand dyed in the wool Republican voters probably can't be turned, so there's no point trying to apeal to them.
You seem to be saying that not voting for Biden, despite him being unpopular, risk letting Trump in. That is also true, and it is vital that Trump is stopped, they're just pointing out that that is easier if Biden listens to his base, rather than population wide surveys.
No.
Read this guys words and you'll see he's just throwing words around trying to stir things up.
I said that the Left doesn't have an overwhelming majority, and he disagrees. A few lines later he says that the GOP has a lock on 50% of the overall vote.
I'm surprised he hasn't blocked you yet. Givessomefucks likes to do that when people confront him.
I'll just ignore him going forward. Thanks
I think you're significantly misunderstanding whst they've said, or at least I get something entirely different from it.
The two of you seem to actually agree on almost everything, including that the Dems don't have an overwhelming majority (I can't see where they've said otherwise anyway). You seem to be saying that people should vote Dem regardless of what they're doing, which they, and I agree with. They're trying to point out that a) the Dems probably can't win over solid Rep voters, and that trying to by making policies that would appeal to them risks alienating the Dem base, and more importantly swing voters and b) making policies that appeal to the Dem base and potential swing votes, despite the fact they might further alienate Rep voters is likely to result in a larger voter turnout for them.
A lot of the things Biden is currently doing seem to be aimed at trying to get Republican voters on-side, but are quite unpopular with the Dem base. Precisely because they don't have a large majority losing any voters could be catastrophic.
The two parties, and their presidential candidates, are fairly evenly balanced in votes at the moment, both with a solidly entrenched core, a periphery of less commited voters, and the swing voters inbetween the sides. The candidate that wins is likely to be the one who loses fewest of their periphery voters and alienates the fewest swing voters. Making policie to try to 'poach' voters from the other party's core is a lost cause, but might cause some of your potential voters to stay home even if they don't vote Rep.
And it makes a lot more sense to get those people off their butts and vote then it does to change 75 years of US policy quickly.
We still have an embargo with Cuba, and the Cold War ended decades ago.
If people think they are too moral to vote for biden, tell them to look up the former slaves and women who were working for candidates back when they weren't allowed to vote. None of the people they backed could promise to change things, but they knew slight progress was better than none at all.
Oh I absolutely agree that making sure people actually vote is important, and it's something a parties supporters can do. You can bet that Republican voters will be pushing each other, and Dems need to be just as dedicated. The thing is, that's a whole lot easier when your candidate is saying and doing things you agree with, and not doing stuff you abhor. That's the nit the party and candidate have control over and should be tuning. It wouldn't be easy to make big changes, but even more moderate changes would be helpful. Biden seems to finally be changing his tune on Isreal a bit at the moment, the question is whether he's irreconcilably alienated too many voters already, or if he can win them back.
Expecting people to vote for Biden despite disliking his policies because the alternative is worse is logical, but might, I fear, be excessivly idealistic. The more Biden and the Dems listen to their base the easier this will be.
New York Mayor Ed Koch had a great line.
"If you agree with me 51%, vote for me. If you agree with me 100%, see a psychiatrist."
The issue is some people really support the horrible shit Biden is doing, and if the Dem candidate won't do it, then they'll vote Republican.
It happened when Obama managed to beat Hillary in 08. Moderates had a movement to vote Republican over Obama, and they did.
They were just statistically insignificant and Obama had a landslide win that flipped multiple red states and got us the House and Senate.
It's really really hard to get Dem voters to compromise their morals though, moderate Dems need someone horrible they can stand next to and say "we have to stop them!".
The issue is it didn't work in 2016, barely worked in 2020, and by all indications won't work in 2024.
We know what works. But the DNCs corporate donors would prefer a Republican to progressives. So they donate huge amounts during a primary and by the time it's the general there's no way for them to lose.
Have you got any source for that at all?
Sooooo many.
It's not a secret, it was openly all over the place back in 08.
But I feel old realizing some people just weren't politically active back then.
Here's a pre election poll
https://news.gallup.com/poll/105691/mccain-vs-obama-28-clinton-backers-mccain.aspx
Here's a post election article
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-were-those-clinton-mccain-crossover-voters/
Here's a pre election article
https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/26/clinton.backers/index.html
Here's the Wikipedia article on it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_and_liberal_support_for_John_McCain_in_2008
But this is something that is easily searchable and was an absolute huge news story...
If most people have already forgotten about it, maybe that's the disconnect I've been experiencing? Why people don't realize how much Dems have changed in the last three cycles?
They just genuinely don't know what it was like before trump?
That actually makes a lot of sense, and honestly I should have thought about that.
Before we can get people on board with what we should do, we need to make sure they're aware of what has happened. People don't understand how much they've lost over just a few decades.
So, by the stories you posted yourself, there were people who switched from McCain to Obama after Obama beat Hillary.
Kind of like the 2008 election had two good candidates who respected the system and each other.
Nice try.
https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/26/clinton.backers/index.html
You missed one I guess
Well. At least one.
You're hilarious.
Yes, one person is exactly the same as a mass movement. The subject got headlines because she was rare.
You were trying to imply that after Obama got the nod there was a mass migration from the Dems to McCain, and that loss was only made up by a massive Left tsunami that had sat out the primaries.
So you didn't read the Wikipedia link either?
Or the poll it referenced? I linked that too
Nope, I said:
Like, it seems the issue is your drastically underestimating how disproportionately moderate party leads represent the very very tiny percentage of Dem voters who are "moderate". The moderates are not the bulk of the party, they never were.
But to be honest, it doesn't seem like you're interested in actual talking about this, you keep trying to turn this into an argument...
So, literally no mass movemnet by "Moderates" trying to screw over the Left.
I don't want to talk about it because it's meaningless.
Recap of "ancient" history:
On 9/11/01 terrorists attacked America...
This made everyone embrace a shitty leader and even questioning them led to social outcasting for years
The facts that 08 matched the first election since 9/11 is too illustrate how fucking huge it was...
But honestly, if I don't block you now, you're going to say something else that is so easy to explain I take the two seconds. You haven't learned anything yet, I doubt you will if I put more time in.
Bush won in 2004 by about 3 million votes, 50.7% of the vote to 48.3.
I was actually around in 2001 and went to numerous marches against the Iraq invasion. New York City, which was the place hit hardest on 9/11 went against Bush. They also hosted a few of those anti Iraq invasion marches.
You're the one who keeps rewriting/reimagining history.
There it is.
That was a rabbit hole I should have never gone down. Have a nice weekend
You too my friend. Enjoy yourself
Nope.
trump will do it again in fact. Every election he doesn't win is going to see a 1/6 like event, or at least that's what we need to be ready for.
Which is why beating him is so important, and why Biden needs to stop caring about what people who will never vote D want, and start caring about the people who will never vote R want.
Because the people who go back and forth between the parties are statistically insignificant.
But you keep jumping around a lot, Everytime I explain one point, you pivot to a new one about why Biden shouldn't be held to any standards and trump has to be stopped.
I agree trump has to be stopped.
But even from your historical example, the way we do that isn't running a candidate more conservative than what voters want.
The way we do that so running candidates like Obama and Bill. Not Humphries, Biden, or Hillary.
2020 was the lucky exception, not a new rule.
Given that Biden will be ineligible to run again? Yeah.
Trump has repeatedly tried to come up with reasons and justifications to not adhere to the two term limit described in the Constitution.
The party is running exactly the candidate that the majority of voters want. The "party" picks the candidate only in the sense that the party is the primary voters. To pretend this is not how it works is Trumpian level bullshit.