this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
908 points (96.7% liked)

politics

19239 readers
2764 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 183 points 9 months ago (169 children)

So, just to be certain, when USA today keeps giving Trump the benefit of the doubt and uses words in this article like, riot, and alleged role, they're carrying water for him right? The man has been found to have had a role andtaken part in an insurrection in multiple cases now. They should just say it.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 51 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

Man is guilty as sin but just to play devil's advocate for the press: they are subject to libel laws and cannot make definitive statements of guilt/non guilt or else risk being sued.

So on the one hand it's dumb that they aren't telling it like it is but on the other hand I sympathize that they don't want to put their finances on the line to pay the Donald Trump legal fund if he decides to sue.

[–] AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You would think journalism would be subject to libel laws, but after seeing Fox and company blast lies for decades, I don't have that confidence.

Yes, Fox finally got hit with one major lawsuit for one massive lie, but given all the lies they've run, it shows how far past the line you need to go.

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

And only because they lied about a massive corporation who then turned around and sued them. Not everyone they lie about has a legal team on retainer ready to defend them. In this case, Trump can’t find lawyers willing to defend him at this point, but Fox News would never paint Trump in a bad light, it would alienate their viewer base

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 40 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They don't want to be on the bad side of the possible future dictator of America.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago

You mean their Republican donors?

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 25 points 9 months ago (1 children)

alleged role,

Until he's been criminally convicted for it, it's "alleged" in order to avoid defamation and libel cases.

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 25 points 9 months ago (11 children)

He was found by a trial and state supreme Court to have engaged in an insurrection. It's not alleged.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

That's how these people are taking advantage of our open, democratic system. They're acting in bad faith, but our system has to play along and treat them "fairly" to avoid giving them any potential out or ammunition for them say they're being discriminated against or treated improperly. It's such BS though, we're having to bend over backwards to treat these people with kid gloves while they run roughshod over our democratic system and they will literally not treat others fairly when they get power. This man and all his enablers in Congress/Scotus need to be in shackles already, they're a shit stain on history and they're getting people killed in Ukraine by holding up US aid.

load more comments (165 replies)
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 67 points 9 months ago

SCotUS: States are free to regulate their elections how they see fit.

States: Republicans are actually subject to the rule of law and responsible for the crimes they commit

SCotUS: No not like that

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 60 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Here comes a ruling from Trump's illegitimate SCOTUS in 3...2...

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago (4 children)

I am less concerned with the SCOTUS ruling that a national party nominee is disqualified from a ballot in a state he'll almost certainly lose than I am with a ruling that some court in Florida or Arizona or Georgia can pull the same shit on Biden.

Very easy to see this become one more trick one-party states can pull to remove popular opponents from the ballot in close election years. And I would be very concerned if an Alito court authored an opinion in which this kind of thing was normalized.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 40 points 9 months ago (6 children)

I'm not afraid of bad faith attempts to ruin democracy as backlash from this decision because bad faith attempts to ruin democracy are coming regardless of the outcome of this particular case

[–] drmeanfeel@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Exactly. This constant handwringing is so tiresome.

They WILL try it, regardless of precedent.

[–] militaryintelligence@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Bush pulled a bullshit card in 2000 and it worked

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] june@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago (3 children)

And so we decide to let tyrants through so that their party doesn’t have made up and twisted precedent to try to disqualify qualified candidates? It’s not like the GOP need or care about precedent anyway. If they want to try and do it they’ll try and do it. Booting someone like trump who has done what trump has done is a legitimate implementation of the law and the right thing to do.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SparrowRanjitScaur@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago (3 children)

What would the argument be for eliminating Biden though? Biden hasn't committed insurrection. Trump has.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

They don't need facts. They'll say failing to secure the border is equivalent to an insurrection, or some such bullshit

[–] Tyfud@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

The point is, I think, to try and falsely equivocate the two things so they appear similar enough that people won't raise too big of a fuss if Biden is removed for illegitimate reasons, because they somehow believe the same thing happened with trump.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

1 ½... 1 ⅓... 1 ¼...

They're gonna slow walk all the appeals responses so it doesn't matter which way they rule.

[–] Simon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 55 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Err - republican primary ballot. This isn't reddit, I know that's what the site's clickbait headline says but can we not adopt their bait tactics?

[–] ThickQuiveringTip@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Damn straight. The unfortunate thing about Lemmy growing is that the click bait fuckwits are appearing every now and then. Hopefully it doesn't continue or a majority of people just downvote this shit.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 39 points 9 months ago (3 children)

This is another big win, but Illinois was always unlikely to go Trump thanks to Chicago being hella blue and 90% of the state's population. The interesting moment is going to be when a key battleground state bars him.

[–] aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 40 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Most importantly this contributes to established case law to make it easier to keep insurrectionists off the ballot

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] massacre@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If it holds up, and it's a longshot, it probably changes down-ticket races if people can't turn out for Trump.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PedroMaldonado@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Uhg. Why is this even a question? WE ALL SAW WHAT HE DID JAN 6TH

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm from IL and it's always nice to see the system work for a change. Of course he was never gonna win IL anyway so whatever.

[–] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Fuck this orange fuckwit forever and always.

load more comments
view more: next ›