politics
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
view the rest of the comments
I will vote for any Democrat but I would prefer it not be Kamala
I preferred not to vote for Biden but he turned out to be a good president.
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.
I love how you skip the part where Congress blocked everything the SCotUS didn't. That's so efficient.
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.
Go on
Well he has absolute immunity now. Could hang them all on the Whitehouse lawn. /s
/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.
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.
That's why if Biden were to ever use this power, he'd have to go after SCOTUS first.
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.
What should he have done against fascism?
Well, not picking an AG with no interest in prosecuting perpetrators of a literal fucking coup attempt would have been a start.
Very true. I'm wondering if Garland is still holding out hope that he somehow gets on SCOTUS, as well.
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 🙄
He’ll be remembered fondly if he doesn’t fuck up this election (i.e. not stepping aside).
But what if he doesn’t step aside and wins reelection?
Yeah that’d work too. But it won’t happen.
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
This is a trap. Even with a "sane" Republican in office, the administration will still work to accomplish the policy goals of the GOP.
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.
How about implementing Ranked choice voting so there is a chance Republicans would vote for a more moderate group of people ?
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.
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.
Basically all sane republicans have been pushed off the national stage in the last 8 years.
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.
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.
Compared to today's Republicans, I'd argue Mitt Romney was relatively sane, though he's still quite problematic.
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.
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.
Which ones were sane in the Ronnie Raygun era? Most of the Bush team were retreads from those days.
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.
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.
It's funny to me that Biden is currently both the most liberal and the most conservative presidential candidate.
You would prefer a sane Republican but you praise AOC that is at the opposite end of the spectrum...
Is that before all the GoP and DNC switched sides over slavery?
I’m not that old, no
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.
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!
Instructions were unclear, Secret Service did not approve of me nibbling on Kamala Harris's elbow.
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.