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.
- 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 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.
Pack it up bois, newnewaccount called it. We are done here.
Instead of pissing about how it won't happen go do something else why don't you? Your usefulness here - Now - has run its course.
For the millionth time: every time they've done it before, they lost in a landslide. NOT stepping aside is the marginally better play.
And as a voter more on the DNC side of the floor, after the news today I weep for the next 40 years in America.
All 2 times this happened before? If that’s the best argument you have for running a candidate that is clearly too old both for campaigning and for the presidency, I think I would take my chances for a third try.
The best play is to roll the die on a real progressive but there's no data to back it up because there is no time to test it.
If you don't mind Genocide, i guess