this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023
226 points (93.1% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3813 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 150 points 10 months ago

Ok, go to court and do it, or shut the fuck up.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 147 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

That, by itself, should be cause to remove the Texas Lt. Gov from office. He's literally committing sedition and violating his oath of office.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 60 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I’m sure Texas will get right on that, just as soon as they’ve removed accused felon Ken Paxton from office.

[–] Rhinopotamus@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I recognize this is not the point of the post, but an accused felon doesn’t really make sense, since a felon is someone who is formally tried and convicted of a felonious crime.

[–] MisterFeeny@kbin.social 22 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not sure if you're just arguing semantics here, but just for clarification in case you, or anyone else, is unsure why the other person might have said "accused felon", it is because Paxton was indicted for felony securities fraud back in 2015. He has used his political office to delay the trial since then, and has yet to be tried. 8 years and counting since the indictment without a trial. Hence, "accused felon".

[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Probably worth noting: His wife is a lawmaker, and he was impeached. But impeachment is only the first step in removing someone from office, just like indictment is the first step in a criminal trial. He was impeached by the House of Representatives, but it failed to pass in the senate because they voted along party lines. His wife refused to recuse herself from the vote.

[–] trackcharlie@lemmynsfw.com 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If violating the oath of office was a real way to have people fired, the vast majority of politicians and judges would be in prison right now.

[–] zipzoopaboop@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 10 months ago

Don't tempt me with a good time

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 107 points 10 months ago (2 children)

They're like five year olds...

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 44 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Most five year olds are far better behaved.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 15 points 10 months ago (9 children)
[–] kylie_kraft@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

I see what you did there

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 78 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If he had any real reason to do so, it would be fine. Their problem is that "retalitation" is not a valid reason according to A14.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 32 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Radio hosts are saying failure to secure our border is an insurrection. I wish I was making it up.

[–] Zess@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago

That's just because they don't understand words with more than three syllables.

[–] squiblet@kbin.social 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The more extreme republicans in Congress have been trying to mangle the definition to fit any politics or laws they don’t agree with. Their thinking is something like “this action will hurt the country, therefore people who support it are committing treason!” Of course one problem is they can’t tell the difference between facts and their beliefs/predictions. The other is of course that’s not the definition of treason, which specifically means a betrayal by colluding with an outside party, or an insurrection (you know, like their leader tried). And to normal people it’s obviously so dangerous to start claiming that politics and policies you don’t agree with are “treason”.

[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

They don’t actually believe it’s treason; They’re trying to water down the word, so when Trump gets charged they can go “but look at all the “treason” the Dems have committed! The Dems haven’t been punished for it, so why should Trump?”

It’s a pretty common conservative tactic. Any time a prominent party member is going to be charged with something or have some big scandal break, they start rabble rousing and accusing liberals of whatever that particular key word or phrase is. All to dilute the actual meaning, and be able to go “it really isn’t that bad because the Dems do it all the time.” It doesn’t matter whether or not the democrats actually did any of it; All that matters is that republicans say they did, and conservative voters don’t fact-check them.

[–] squiblet@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago

Right, that's true. One, they do things tit-for-tat because they're childish. I was actually just commenting somewhere else about the behavior/tactic you describe. I think it's also supposed to make their target audience think "well you're just accusing us of that because we accused you of it" or "that's projection", because these people do think like that and act like it in their own lives.

It also makes no moral sense because if say, my neighbor robbed a store, would that make it okay for me to rob a store? Of course not.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] neidu2@feddit.nl 51 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Can a governor do that, though? From my limited knowledge of US political structure, a governor is part of the executive branch, and overruling electoral process can only be done my the judicial branch.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 57 points 10 months ago (1 children)

NAL, but almost certainly not. Governors don't get to decide who gets to appear on a ballot. Trump got removed, because he was found to have participated in an insurrection, a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

If they want to remove Biden, they'll have to prove he did something disqualifying.

[–] squiblet@kbin.social 24 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It's Texas. If they want to do it they'll just make up some shit.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But they have to prove it in court, and failing to do that might set some ugly precedents they will come to regret

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But they would “prove” it in court. You don’t think the Supreme Court in Texas is stacked with conservatives who would rubber stamp “Biden is an insurrectionist”?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Drusas@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago

Or do like Florida did and literally change the law so that it better suits their political machinations.

[–] Kid_Thunder@kbin.social 19 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Sure. States have authority over their own ballot process. Would it be a civil lawsuit violating a person's Constitutional rights that are Constitutionally valid candidates? Could be.

But Dan Patrick is also "joking" for clout, otherwise, he'd just be disrespecting the US Constitution due to political agenda interference. Then again, the GOP is known to act as mere children in their politics and their followers are known to eat that shit right up to 'own the libs'.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

I doubt he was joking.

[–] Drusas@kbin.social 7 points 10 months ago

Yeah, we all know he wasn't joking. He probably said it before somebody pointed out that it's against his state constitution to do so. And even if he already knew it was against the constitution, he could have said it just to garner support from his deplorables.

[–] Jimbabwe@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago

Lieutenant Governor. But .. still no.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 34 points 10 months ago

The Republican party is a criminal conspiracy.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Based on what? Donnie stoked an insurrection and plotted a coup. He's a criminal.

What did Biden do?

[–] CalicoJack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They're trying to water down the word "insurrection" as hard as they can so they can invoke the 14th. They haven't really thought it through much more than that, much like the current impeachment discussions.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Loves his son, flaws and all

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Furbag@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 20 points 10 months ago (4 children)

He can’t. Like all conservatives in politics- he knows nothing about the laws he swore to uphold.

[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 4 points 10 months ago (5 children)

There's a large swath of dumbassery in the current congress, especially the house and especially since maga, but don't make the mistake of thinking that all cons are dumb. Tons of the senators are lawyers. They aren't ignorant of the law, they're evil people using the law to line their pockets and make the world a worse place. Turtle McConnell couldn't have been grifting in politics for 137 years if he was stupid.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ChemicalPilgrim@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

This is going to lead to a civil war. The Republicans simply cannot accept any consequences for their actions, or any failure of their insane message to win a majority vote, so they resort to insurrection.

load more comments
view more: next ›