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.
- 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 feel like we are living in a simulation. We have to be bcz nobody is this insane to think that Trump didn't break the law, and clearly based on the constitution is ineligible to be president again.. the republican party has gone bat shit crazy in the last 10 years, and it's bonkers that they have any support at all, and somehow 30-35% of the country supports this bullshit??
Republicans are insane right now. They're going full fascist. I don't know what else you call it when they so blatantly ignore the rule of law to disrupt the peaceful transition of power to stay in power.
The attempted coup was standard run-of-the-mill authoritarianism. There are dozens of other examples for why they are irrefutably fascist.
Yeah, but the reaction to being called fascist is that conservatives on lemmy, reddit, etc will always claim their accuser has no idea what fascism is... So ridiculous
Lol true, I should've said authoritarian or tyrannical.
Yeah, the last time this scenario played out, people put up with a lot of bullshit and terror before people got organized to try to stop it ...... that led to a world war where millions died.
The best time to stop this madness is now because if you don't, it takes far more force and even violence as time moves on.
I'm not exaggerating ... I'm being serious because I don't want to live in a timeline that our ancestors fought and died to avoid.
The left has a serious problem with direct action.
Meanwhile the core tenet of fascism is "By any means necessary"
The absolute stupid part of all this is .... this is happening while we are destroying our environment which will lead to our demise or eventual destruction.
The train we're on is on fire and on its way to the end the track that's going to fly us off a cliff .... and we're arguing about who's going to drive the train and where we're going to sit.
Direct action required dehumanizing your opponent, which is largely something those on the left are against but those on the right do constantly. It's at best a small surprise that there isn't more stochastic violence from the left.
Their literal response to one of the most serious crimes in existence was "no you" and there is a realistic chance they could be the next most powerful government in the world.
They know he broke the law- they just don't think he should be held accountable for it.
"I would pardon Trump if he is found guilty (...) What’s in the best interest of the country is not to have an 80-year-old man sitting in jail that continues to divide our country." -Nikki "why wouldn't the party of racist sexist bigots elect a nonwhite woman for President?" Haley.
Insane? There are law professors writing editorials in the New York Times about how, in their expert opinion, Trump actually is eligible. You might think they're wrong (clearly the Maine secretary of state does) but this is a genuinely ambiguous and unsettled matter of law; there's no "insane" side.
It's not a hard concept that when someone attempts coup, they should not be allowed back in power. Many many countries have put leaders in prison for less. Law has to mean something, or your country and institutions will not last. He has broken so many laws while in office it's not even funny, and we've mostly turned a blind eye to it until very very recently.
What they claim is to disagree whether it constituted a coup attempt. Some say “it was unsuccessful” which is of course rather a dimwitted claim. Some still insist it was merely a protest and not a coup attempt. Nobody seems to dispute that Trump was involved and encouraged it. Anyhow, like most things republicans argue, they have a preconceived result and make up nonsense to support it, and it’s very biased - imagine if it had been democrats and Obama involved in something like that? They’d still be completely losing their shit about it and they couldn’t find enough harsh things to say about the participants.
The law isn't about should in that sense of the word. If Satan, the Devil, was running for President, whether or not he was legally eligible to do so would be an entirely separate question from whether or not people should vote for him. The article I linked to argues that
That might plausibly be true no matter how bad Trump is.
This is a spurious as Trump's lawyers claiming he didn't swear to support the Constitution, only protect it, which is why he can violate it and still run again.
Playing devil's advocate doesn't actually mean you need to defend both the literal devil that exists and also the mythological one. It's an expression. No need to take it so literally.
That has to be top 5 of the dumbest arguments I have heard.
That's interesting because the Times also just put out an article referencing Federalist professors who determined he should be disqualified. Looks like they're playing both sides, lol.
Not surprising. They are still in the horse race mode.
Kind of surreal to see someone arguing that an insurrection isn't a disqualifying action for a presidential candidate and that it's clearly just a matter of opinion with a legit argument