1103
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 21 Jul 2024
1103 points (97.9% liked)
News
23301 readers
1174 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
AOC is eligible. She would meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution at the time of her inauguration.
People continue to spread misinformation about her eligibility.
Thank you for confirming. That’s be one hell of a ticket. 😍
Huh, didn't know her birthday offhand. So she'll be 35 by Jan 20, 2025? And she of course is a natural born US citizen who has lived in the US for the requisite number of years.
Normally POTUS candidates pick VPs that in their minds shore up their perceived weak spots among voters to make them overall more electable. So who do you think Harris would do worst with and why would AOC draw that demographic in?
AOC is an actual progressive. I don't know very much about Harris, and I'm going to vote for her regardless, but I'm not a big fan of law enforcement in general. I'm reading through her Wikipedia page, which seems to be the only non biased source I can find that goes over her LEO career.
AOC is outspoken about issues that I care about, she seems to actually want something better for the working class. It's hard to feel that a former state prosecutor has the best interest of the working class in mind.
I could see two strategies.
Some leftist people who are hard core ACAB, for those AOC may be so appealing that they don't mind voting for a prosecutor.
However if they want to moderate concerns of sexists and racists, they would want to run some milquetoast white guy. While the full on sexist/racist is a lost cause, there are people who are more unconsciously racist/sexist they might think to get the vote of.
I'm guessing they see the latter as the biggest risk to mitigate.
A former prosecutor selecting AOC also suggests a semblance of growth on the part of the prosecutor.
Yes, she put away a lot of people on drug crimes and I’m sure other BS. The conservatives are already circulating memes with a collage of black faces she put in prison. As if they give a fuck about black people in any capacity outside of when it’s politically expedient. They’ll be in the camps with the rest of us if Trump wins.
Someone like AOC diffuses some of the Israel and ACAB criticism. Or it could be turned to say AOC is a sellout, which I think is a hard argument to make. No one saying that should really be taken seriously given her record.
In this political climate of violence, it’s basically also a giant “fuck you” to the right. You’ll get this centrist woman, or you’ll get this left leaning woman. It hints where a Kamala Harris admin is wanting to take the country in the future and could also serve to finally motivate the youth vote.
AOC seems to understand realpolitik better than the many on the left, and I think she’ll eventually save us all. I know she probably won’t be on the ticket, but manifestation is a thing right?
I will keep my overall prediction, that they don't think they are at risk of losing the further left voter base, that they are more concerned about the more "up for grabs" voters that might vote either way. I think milquetoast straight white guy is the order of the day when they have a woman person of color running as the other half of the ticket.
It's not necessarily how it should be, but the strategy they will presumably use to address the reality of the electorate.
I mean, that is essentially how Biden ended up as VP.
And aside from the racial angle how Pence ended up as VP - a milquetoast, boring standard politician type to counterbalance Trump's lunacy, someone hypothetically to be the adult in the room.
Yeah, I'm not able to recall a successful ticket where both candidates were "exceptional". I still think whatever chances McCain might have had were blown when he went with Palin as a VP to try to sate the extra crazy wing of his party. Trump's choice to do Vance seems like a strategic failure. Tim Scott must be mad that he crawled all the way up Trump's ass for nothing when everyone speculated that Trump would try to pander to the black vote with a token black VP.
Yeah but I doubt subconsciously sexist/racist people would be willing to vote for Trump... They're stuck with whomever the DNC runs
Besides the obvious magas and Republicans, who would never vote blue anyway, Kamala will be weakest with progressive young people. And I know people like to say there's no use going after those people (now half the voting population!) because they don't vote, but they actually DO vote when you give them someone worth voting for. Their numbers are also growing, while the centrist boomer population is declining.
My problem is not that it is misinformation, my problem is that Republicans could use it to gum up the elections in the courts.
The three basic requirements are clearly laid out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Neither the 14th or 22nd Amendments apply.
It's cut and dried, with precedent. There is nothing remotely questionable about her eligibility. If the concern is that the opposition party doesn't care about precedent, then the rulebook is completely tossed out anyway and we're dealing with a different conversation altogether.
Anyone pushing the narrative that she does not meet the basic requirements is either engaging in pointless hand wringing, expressing ignorance about the requirements, or actively spreading a falsehood.
Until this year, there was nothing remotely questionable about whether or not it was legal for a president to commit crimes. And people like you told me similar things about how the court would rule there too.
I addressed what you're alluding to. Second paragraph, third sentence. If we reach a point where precedent doesn't matter regarding eligibility, all bets are off anyway.
I said nothing at all about how the courts would rule, only that we have prior examples of how eligibility has been determined.
If we want to talk about a sane world where rules matter, the question is settled. If you instead prefer to lament the possibility that those rules will be ignored, twisted, or rewritten, then it logically follows that any candidate will be subject to bad faith jurisprudence. At that point, all bets are off anyway, and the "question" of AOC's eligibility as a candidate has no bearing.
Fret and panic if you feel that it's your best course of action, but poisoning the discourse with that sort of nonsense is counterproductive.
What world is this? Because it's not Earth in the year 2024.
Or is this one of those situations where you think the world runs on "should" and not "is?"
Then it's option two for you, is it? The one where we allow bad actors to dictate because we believe they won't play fair?
If that's the case, you don't have anything to worry about because all is already lost. "Despair is a narcotic. It lulls the mind into indifference."
Or is this one of those situations where you've already seen that you're wrong, but you're too stubborn to admit it and compulsively need to have the last word?
Bad actors already dictate and already don't play fair. That's why SCOTUS said that presidents can commit crimes if they are official acts. That is insane.
The U.S. is the only developed country without universal healthcare and neither Republicans nor Democrats are interested in it. That is insane.
There's a law in Louisiana that says a specific Protestant version of the Ten Commandments has to be displayed in all classrooms in the state from kindergarten to college. That is insane.
The Florida educational system mandates teaching kids that slavery taught black people useful skills. That is insane.
The U.S. has the largest prison population in the world, because slavery is legal in the U.S. when you're a criminal and it's possible to make a profit running a prison, so putting people in prison is encouraged. That is insane.
There is another article in this community right now that says that Maryland has a 50-year backlog of rape kits and that they just caught a serial rapists who started in the 1970s because before now, they didn't hire a cold case detective. That is insane.
We know the Earth is heating up due to fossil fuel use, yet the U.S. government, no matter which party is in charge, promotes drilling for more oil. That is insane.
Shall I go on?
Why do you think we live in a sane world?
Also, why are you insulting me when I've never insulted you?
I responded to you in kind. If you consider that insulting, then examine your own contribution.
You've graciously answered my question by way of your response. Thank you for that. I wish you the best in your march into defeatism, and sincerely hope you'll refrain from dragging others along for the ride.
This is your so-called "in kind" response:
How is that in any way "in kind?" I never suggested you were some sort of arrogant person who can't admit they're wrong. I never even implied such a thing, nor would I.
Was this "not an insult" also in kind?
Because if I saw this level of incivility in the communities I moderated, your posts would be deleted.
I'll indulge you one more time in this comment chain.
If I were as inclined to feign offense, I'd cite this as an implication that I'm someone who cannot differentiate reality from fantasy. Some might even call such an implication a thinly veiled insult, but only if they didn't intend to throw rocks before hiding their hands.
Instead of interpreting it in such a way and clutching my pearls about it, I chose to meet you with the same energy.
Your point regarding the communities you moderate is 1) irrelevant and 2) not a road worth going down, regardless. It's at best an attempt at a flex, and does not belong in this conversation.
Back to the actual matter, every statement you've made in these comments, barring your most recent response, absolutely exhibits a dictionary definition defeatist viewpoint. Why take umbrage to having it pointed out as such?
This marks the end of my engagement with you in this chain of comments. Any further responses you make are for your own gratification.
Wow, you really don't know how to respond to someone without being needlessly aggressive and uncivil, do you?
This is hilarious coming from you Squid.
I'm sorry you do not consider me to be civil. I would point out, however, that you will not see my posts in this community removed for incivility: https://lemmy.world/modlog/1347