this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
128 points (90.0% liked)

politics

19224 readers
3052 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Riccosuave 76 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I will be fucking shocked if Trump doesn't replace JD with Kennedy out of desperation.

[–] Poayjay 53 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Could he even do that? I mean JD is the official nominee for VP. It doesn’t seem right that Trump could just change his mind. Not to mention early ballots are starting to go out in 2 weeks. If you vote for Trump/VD that wouldn’t count for Trump/Kennedy. Right?

[–] Riccosuave 45 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he can and will do whatever the fuck he wants, consequences be damned. I think he is intrinsically aware that JD is a fucking dead weight around his ankles at this point, and that RFK actually has some potential electoral upside. Whether he is willing to trade the twink (JD) for the cuck (RFK) remains to be seen, but I think it would be totally on brand.

[–] mriguy 30 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he can and will do whatever the fuck he wants, consequences be damned.

There are never any consequences. Until there are, his whole circus will continue and get worse.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

At this point he has to. He has to get elected. If he doesn't, he's very likely going to jail, facing many more charges, and will have to avoid going near windows above ground level for the rest of his life.

[–] ripcord 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I...don't believe it. Just not going to happen.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We'll revisit this when he falls out a window or ends up in jail or a free pass.

[–] ripcord 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

We can hope for 2 of those 3 but no chance they're going to happen.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, his only out at this point is to get into power again.

Failing that, I think he’s probably going to try something that forces Biden’s hand simply to cause chaos. Like, outright telling the proud boys / 3%ers / etc to execute whatever violent terroristical plans they may have come up with, so Biden is forced to choose between arresting him and his co-conspirators outright (thus activating the “political prisoner” trap card for all of the wingnuts who are still ride-or-die for him, thus causing more chaos and violence) or letting it slide (thus implicitly giving him carte blanche to do whatever the fuck he wants, regardless of legality).

And I do want to underline that the situation evolved to where it is now specifically because Biden’s AG pick was a fox in the henhouse - genuinely, I expect history books to regard Garland as perhaps the most catastrophically awful pick for AG in the context of the January 6th aftermath. This happened because nobody in charge took the threat fucking seriously, and now we’re all going to have to pay the price for that myopia.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

The threat this time will be taken very seriously though. I'm not that worried. I'm concerned, but not that worried. I don't think people want to die for him as much as they did. He's looking weak and like a clown.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't think he cares or would get any pushback

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

I think the pushback would come from the really big donors in the tech sector that are funding PACs. From the reporting I've seen, they appear to be the ones that were really pushing for Vance, since otherwise he seems like a terrible choice. (Well. He seems like a terrible choice, period. But tech bros like him.) If Trump dropped Vance and took Kennedy, he risks losing their support entirely, and that's a lot of advertisement off the table going into an absolutely critical phase of the election.

[–] Telodzrum 1 points 3 months ago

All that matters is the Elector you cast your ballot for. As for the nomination process, the RNC can just change the rules if they want.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The only thing more electable than one brain rotted old fuck is two brain rotted old fucks... I don't think it's impossible that Trump will replace his VP but Kennedy seems extremely unlikely.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Please let it be Boebert. I need some entertainment 🍿

[–] model_tar_gz 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And Trump needs a handy. Win/win?

[–] JustZ 1 points 3 months ago

I'll take one also.

[–] BananaTrifleViolin 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Isn't it too late to change VP candidate? I saw speculation on this before and the issues were around the need to reconvene delegates for the RNC to approve the change and also to be on the ballot? Early voting starts in September so October is also too late?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The deadline is when ballots are printed/state laws and what political parties do is according to custom not law. If the RNC, or even just the Trump campaign, reached out to each states' election committee it could register the new information then it just needs to be mindful of state laws.

Now, let's say Trump tries this shit in mid October- people like me (overseas mail in voters) will already have our ballots so our vote will be recorded for (assuming I voted Republican which I'm fucking not) Trump/Vance, if the majority of a state submits a ballot like that the laws around faithless delegates might not allow electors to actually cast their ballots for whatever the ticket is. This could absolutely cause a constitutional crisis.

It could also happen that Trump/Kennedy gets 43% of the votes in a state, Trump/Vance gets 10% of the votes, and Harris/Walz gets 47% of the votes... this would likely be a state constitutional crisis.

I suspect Trump isn't going to replace Vance because, for logistical reasons, he'd want to have done it as soon as fucking possible to.

[–] JustZ 2 points 3 months ago

A lot of times what state parties do according to their charters are because that's what's required by what state law says. Sometimes the things State parties did as customs were enacted into statutes. Election law is a mishmash. Just with regard to your first paragraph, I don't think you can say anything is a brightline rule without going state by state.