this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
161 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19144 readers
3571 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
outrageousmatter
aidan
jordanlund
HLMenckenFan
little_cow
161
Supreme Court makes it harder to charge Capitol riot defendants with obstruction, charge Trump faces (apnews.com)
submitted 5 months ago by vegeta to c/politics
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kescusay 53 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Pay attention, people. This is part of a Friday bad decision SCOTUS dump. Watch what they do, and remember that if you don't vote for Biden, you can expect more of it.

FOR FORTY YEARS.

If Trump wins, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are likely to retire, comfortable in the knowledge that Trump will appoint very young, very inexperienced, and very fascistic replacements. People who will erode the rule of law as much as they possibly can, destabilizing the country in the name of "small government."

  • Expect rulings that will destroy environmental protections.
  • Expect rulings that will destroy unions.
  • Expect rulings that will eliminate health and safety regulations.
  • Expect rulings that will fatten fat cats and hurt everyone else.

Abortion? Outlawed. Contraception? On the chopping block too. LGBTQ+ rights? Gone. They will do everything they can to turn the clock back as far as possible.

And with young, stupid, easily manipulable conservatives on SCOTUS, you can rest assured that the damage will outlive you.

If you don't vote for Biden, get used to rulings like these and many, many more for the rest of your life.

[–] lennybird 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Biden sucked last night and I have serious concerns about his physical and cognitive faculties to run the country.

But I'm still voting for him for reasons you mentioned.

That won't stop me from advocating for him to step down and put someone else up for the election, but if it comes down to it, I will still vote for Biden.

[–] kescusay 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I'm less concerned about his cognitive faculties, though I definitely understand your concerns. Apparently, he was suffering from a gnarly cold last night, and he looked both tired and unwell (though he did better as the evening progressed).

Apparently he's feeling much better today, because he just finished up a rally and looked like his usual self again. Honestly, kind of fired up, in fact.

I think going forward with the debate was a mistake. He should have just rescheduled, and admitted he'd caught a cold. Yes, the right-wing would turn that into "he's on death's door," but that would have petered out, while the soundbites from this debate will have legs for a while.

[–] Xanis 5 points 5 months ago

The best case is the dems pushing him aside and going to fucking town with another candidate.

The second best, and possibly sleeper choice, is Biden taking this atrocious debate performance and going apeshit to fix it, by forcing the dems to follow his lead. Assuming he was feeling under the weather enough to cause that display. This could be turned around with enough pissed off energy behind it because that's what the Dems need to do: Step up, fire back, and actually fight fire with fire for once. No more of the upturned nose. They would gain supporters this way and if done correctly Biden would set himself up in a better position than prior to the debate.

You can guess, though, which one is a more dangerous decision.

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

With all due respect I appreciate the attempt at spin-doctoring what happened and giving an outlet for Biden, but I cannot conceive of how a cold warrants that performance for anyone who suffered through watching that. Even Trump did better while actively having COVID on stage back in the 2020 debates.

Many of us have been sounding the alarm of events like this that were matter-of-factly non-existent during, say, then-VP Biden's debates with the likes of Paul Ryan. I get why there's incumbent inertia behind Biden, but now is very little data that portends a good end to this election for Biden, relative to his standings in 2020.

In order to viably attain the "undecided" swing-voters, we need to meet them half-way and give them an outlet that doesn't place them into a dichotomous situation of voting for two people they clearly do not like.

[–] kescusay 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Not really trying to "spin-doctor," because your concerns are legit. It's not just that he had a cold, after all. He may exercise regularly and be in good shape for an octogenarian, but he's still an octogenarian. Being sick likely means head and chest congestion, exhaustion, and a temperature - and those combined with the kind of speech impediment that gets worse when its sufferer is under stress... Well, it's not a good thing. It results in performances like last night. As he ages, perfect storms of bad luck like that will occur more often, and eventually his age will fully catch up to him.

We need to acknowledge things like that.

At the same time, we need to acknowledge that all in all, he's been a remarkably good president under extremely trying circumstances, and his predecessor - hopefully not his successor - is a felon and a con artist who will open the door for a fascist takeover of this country.

One is too old. The other is a nightmare and the death of this country.

[–] lennybird 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

These are all fair points and points I'm sure to raise in the months ahead should Biden remain the nominee, but the way I see it is that polls haven't budged; aggregate approval rating for Biden continues to decline. We can argue how much this debate hurt Biden, but we can all agree it certainly did not help. And if it didn't help, what else can be done and said that hasn't already been done and said over the past years? Polling isn't just hard to budge positively, but it's actively trending opposite to what we need, relative to Biden's position in 2020. If the case of saying, "look it's between the old guy, and the fascist twice-impeached convicted felon with 3 more trials to go and who tried to overturn a free and fair election" hasn't worked yet, what makes anyone think it's going to work in the coming months? Hel this desperation is what led the Biden campaign to accept this debate in the first place -- a risk gambit that simply did not pay off. A tough sell.

So what do we do?

Well, in my view Democrats restore some trust by Biden publicly and voluntarily acknowledging the situation head-on, stepping down, and opening up the convention. Democrats nominate someone half-ways young and charismatic -- Whitmer, Booker, Newsom, Buttigieg -- I don't particularly care -- and I think the freshness of a face and the addressing of youth will be enough to sway swing voters.

[–] kescusay 2 points 5 months ago

I do hope that happens. A graceful exit for Biden and a fresh-faced nominee could very well be the thing we need.

[–] Rapidcreek 27 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

And there it is. Why on earth would the highest court in the land want to preserve the rule of law?!

Storming the Capitol and forcing Congress to go into hiding in the middle of session is no longer considered obstructing an official proceeding. Even when that proceeding is required by the freaking constitution. FFS

[–] Fades 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

They will give him full immunity, there is no doubt in my mind. They will also word it in such a way that it gives trump the break he needs without granting SHIT to biden

If trump takes the pres again, it's all over. Seriously. He's already packed the court to be a viciously biased conservative one that follows the whims of the federalist society, and you know what will happen next? He'll pack in EVEN MORE CONSERVATIVE CHRISTO-FACISTS. That is something a new pres can't fix, as we've already seen.

We are fighting for the life of this nation and its democracy. God fucking damnit, we're fucked.

[–] DocMcStuffin 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm surprised Barrett was 1 of the 3 in the dissent.

[–] kescusay 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm also surprised Brown Jackson didn't dissent.

[–] Fades 1 points 5 months ago

yo what the FUCK