509
submitted 4 months ago by mozz@mbin.grits.dev to c/politics@lemmy.world

This stupid topic again

But sure

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Omgboom@lemmy.zip 158 points 4 months ago

I will vote for any Democrat but I would prefer it not be Kamala

[-] dudinax@programming.dev 78 points 4 months ago

I preferred not to vote for Biden but he turned out to be a good president.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 55 points 4 months ago

He turned out to be a decent president, except for the massive, glaring failure to build any sort of meaningful bulwark against fascism. He had, like, the absolute best justification and mandate to aggressively crack down on the neofascists with Jan 6, but he pussyfooted around and dragged his feet on fucking everything so much that basically nothing has been dealt with or constructively changed since the coup attempt occurred.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 30 points 4 months ago

I love how you skip the part where Congress blocked everything the SCotUS didn't. That's so efficient.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 18 points 4 months ago

There are a LOT of things he could have done in a lot of areas that require neither Congress nor the courts.

Not to mention, he was so goddamn focused on “reaching across the aisle” that he picked a guy for AG that clearly doesn’t have a strong interest in, you know, preventing the fascists from winning, because he’s in the same party as the fascists.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

There are a LOT of things he could have done in a lot of areas that require neither Congress nor the courts.

Go on

[-] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Well he has absolute immunity now. Could hang them all on the Whitehouse lawn. /s

[-] tootoughtoremember@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

/s ?

The President using the armed forces to assassinate a political rival would be immune to prosecution under this ruling.

A President's use of the military is a power granted to them under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. In order to prosecute for this hypothetical assassination, they would first need to prove that providing orders as Commander in Chief was somehow an unofficial act.

This is one of the specific examples Sotomayor listed in her dissenting opinion on this ruling.

[-] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

SCOTUS would just rule that political assassination was not an official act, assuming they were a Democrat of course. It's not like they're consistent.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

That's why if Biden were to ever use this power, he'd have to go after SCOTUS first.

[-] tootoughtoremember@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.

Determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.

The President's authority as Commander in Chief is a core constitutional power, as granted in Article II, Section 2. This example is not hyperbolic.

[-] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

SCOTUS would just rule that political assassination was not an official act, assuming they were a Democrat of course. It’s not like they’re consistent.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

What should he have done against fascism?

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Well, not picking an AG with no interest in prosecuting perpetrators of a literal fucking coup attempt would have been a start.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Very true. I'm wondering if Garland is still holding out hope that he somehow gets on SCOTUS, as well.

[-] Scallionsandeggs@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I'm not exactly excited about Harris, but putting a former prosecutor in office at least makes me think she couldn't possibly put in a worse AG than Garland, at a time when we desperately need a firebrand in the position.

Plenty of opportunity to be proven wrong though 🙄

[-] NewNewAccount@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

He’ll be remembered fondly if he doesn’t fuck up this election (i.e. not stepping aside).

[-] b34k@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

But what if he doesn’t step aside and wins reelection?

[-] NewNewAccount@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

Yeah that’d work too. But it won’t happen.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] hddsx@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 months ago

I would vote for any viable candidate not Trump. I would prefer not Biden and not Harris. In fact I’d prefer a sane Republican… but there seems to be a distinct lack of them.

I’d vote for AOC though. She reminds me of the principled republicans of yore, albeit with different views

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 57 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

In fact I’d prefer a sane Republican…

This is a trap. Even with a "sane" Republican in office, the administration will still work to accomplish the policy goals of the GOP.

[-] retrospectology@lemmy.world 29 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yup, Project 2025 is not just Trump and a few MAGA extremists, it's signed off on by all the right-wing think tanks. If people want to avoid Project 2025 they need to make sure Republicans are out of power for multiple election cycles at a minimum.

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee 4 points 4 months ago

How about implementing Ranked choice voting so there is a chance Republicans would vote for a more moderate group of people ?

[-] retrospectology@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

I'm all for ranked choice, there's no real downside. I think though that Republicans, rather than become less extreme, would simply challenge ranked choice when it started to benefit the left. They are actually doing this now in Alaska, where there is ranked choice voting and they're trying to make it illegal with a ballot initiative.

They'd have to have their judicial power reduced I think. With the extremist supreme court there isn't much in the regard that would stand I don't think. Could be wrong though.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Yes, this. No Republicans at all should be allowed into office. Ever. Don't let them fool you, the agenda marches on regardless if they are "moderate" or "reasonable" or not.

[-] MammyWhammy@lemmy.ml 48 points 4 months ago

Basically all sane republicans have been pushed off the national stage in the last 8 years.

[-] retrospectology@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago

There's never really been such a thing. Anyone who would be an old school republican today has just become an obstructionist right-wing democratic, so arguably worse than a Republican because they sabotage from the inside.

[-] NewNewAccount@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

Besides McCain, which notable sane republican existed in the Obama era?

Pre-Obama we were dealing with the Bush-era neocons.

They haven’t been sane for at least the last twenty years.

[-] lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 4 months ago

Compared to today's Republicans, I'd argue Mitt Romney was relatively sane, though he's still quite problematic.

[-] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Sane in a, "I'm a total Mormon and all the shit that comes with that" type way. I blame the Bible belt for mainstreaming mormonism.

[-] lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 months ago

Oh for sure, and he was very deep into Mormonism too, but at least he's not an out-and-out Nazi and has been very vocally against Trump.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Which ones were sane in the Ronnie Raygun era? Most of the Bush team were retreads from those days.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

I would not say they were "sane" per se, it's just that they've been replaced by even more overt bare-faced extremists. The Overton window on what is extremely right wing keeps getting pushed more and more to the right. A loud mouth performative asshole they believe is beyond punishment due to his "billions" has given them a permission structure to be who they always really wanted to be. These are the people that didn't understand that Archie Bunker was supposed to be a parody, not a hero.

[-] snooggums@midwest.social 32 points 4 months ago

In fact I’d prefer a sane Republican

I can't think of a single one. Even the ones that pretended to be sane and were pushed out by the party were horrible.

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 16 points 4 months ago

I’d prefer a sane Republican

It's funny to me that Biden is currently both the most liberal and the most conservative presidential candidate.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 months ago

You would prefer a sane Republican but you praise AOC that is at the opposite end of the spectrum...

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

principled republicans of yore

Is that before all the GoP and DNC switched sides over slavery?

[-] hddsx@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago

I’m not that old, no

[-] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

In fact I’d prefer a sane Republican… but there seems to be a distinct lack of them.

The three I can remember from the Trump years (Kinzinger, Cheney, and Romney) have pretty much been run out on a rail haven't they? Republicans don't want sane Republicans, and anyone who appears to be one is going to get ostracized within the party, or turn out to be just like all the rest.

They are walking around with bandages on their ears in solidarity with a man who immediately rushed to sell shitty Chinese shoes to commemorate and make a profit off of the assassination attempt which killed one of his own supporters. There are no sane Republicans. There are crazy Republicans, cowardly Republicans, and probably a few with Stockholm Syndrome. They let the inmates take over the asylum and there is no cleaning house now.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] dhork@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Moderate Democrats like Harris are like broccoli. Nobody really wants it, it's not the highlight of the meal, but you need your veggies to get the proper nutrients to fight fascism. (Plus, if your diet has too little fiber you end up full of shit.)

Eat your broccoli!

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 months ago

Instructions were unclear, Secret Service did not approve of me nibbling on Kamala Harris's elbow.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

I never would have picked her. But the excitement and unity she's inspiring in like 2 days time is undeniable. It almost feels like a bad tv show plot twist.

load more comments (3 replies)
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
509 points (94.7% liked)

politics

19097 readers
1853 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