this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
516 points (97.1% liked)

politics

19104 readers
3273 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
 

As the Colorado Supreme Court wrote, January 6 meets the bar for insurrection “under any viable definition” of the term. The legal scholar Mark Graber, who has closely studied the Fourteenth Amendment’s history, argues that “insurrection” should be understood broadly—an act of organized resistance to government authority motivated by a “public purpose.” That certainly describes the Capitol riot, in which a violent mob attacked law enforcement and threatened members of Congress and the vice president in order to block the rightful counting of the electoral vote and illegally secure the victory of the losing candidate. The historical record also suggests that the amendment’s requirement that a prospective officeholder must have “engaged in insurrection” should also be understood broadly—meaning that Trump’s speech on the Ellipse that morning and his encouragement of the rioters while they smashed their way through the Capitol more than fit the bill.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheJims@lemmy.world 35 points 10 months ago

Trump tried to steal the votes of over 80,000,000 Americans using any means necessary including violence and intimidation.

As one of those Americans whose vote he tried to steal I am pissed.

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (6 children)

who are they writing this for? is anyone going to change their mind on this? there’s overwhelming evidence that trump is guilty, and there are already so many other arguments have been made that support the conclusion of this article.

even if people change their mind on this, the supreme court doesn’t have to listen to public opinion, and i highly doubt they’re going to change their minds on this.

there seems to be this idea going around that we can solve fascism by simply debating it hard enough. that will not work. these people are already convinced, and a lengthy article won’t change that.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 9 points 10 months ago

None of that, however, means that we shouldn't be talking about it. The exchange of ideas, thoughts and opinions is important in and of itself.

[–] silence7 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The Atlantic caters to the wealthy and powerful, so they're likely trying to shape elite opinion with the potential to influence the Supreme Court.

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

it would be nice if it had that effect, but it’s been 3 years since jan 6 and much has been said in that time (by the atlantic and others). january 6 has been such a central point of american politics for so many years, and it’s been such a polarizing thing that i doubt there are many people left who are still on the fence about it.

i think this article is way more effective at reinforcing the idea that we can debate our way out of january 6th, than it is at actually debating our way out of january 6th.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 8 points 10 months ago

I believe you're falling into the trap of believing that the only the most vocal people on the Internet are the only opinions that exist. There are tons of people who switch who they vote for every election, or chose to vote or not, which is usually what swings elections one way or another.

You won't convince the trump cultists who have abandoned reality in favor of their cult leader, but there are people who are on the fringe or fence who can be convinced and this is for them.

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

Yes some people are going to change their mind because most Americans aren’t paying close attention. You say “these people are already convinced”. This is just black and white thinking. Some are convinced, but many don’t feel informed enough to have strong opinions.

The lesson from the Dobbs decision is that, sure SCOTUS can ignore public opinion, but it matters when they do. After that decision, voters, including many independents and even conservatives, revolted, leading to many surprising victories for Democrats.

I’m honestly puzzled by your comment. Is this a call to stop spreading anti-fascist ideas? To stop making arguments and spreading concern? Why? Your theory seems to be that talking about ideas doesn’t matter. Fascists, on the other hand, keenly understand the power of ideas!

[–] olympicyes@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

It’s to help the reader articulate why Jan 6 was an insurrection.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Everyday I'm reminded why democrats are weak. If the shoe were on the other foot they would cause so much of a stink the world would shutdown.

[–] silence7 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's almost like it's not the party of the billionaires who own much of the press

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

It's more than that. Their people in congress have no interest in governing so when something like this comes up they can devote all their time and energy to it. Democrats think they always have to play fair lest they will face the consequence. Never risking being right over all else.

load more comments
view more: next ›