this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
510 points (97.9% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4644 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
 

The former president has always considered himself to be the ultimate disrupter. But this time, the disruption is on the other side.

Through the weekend, there were an awful lot of questions that were going back and forth from people in the president’s tightest circle, and one of the questions that kept being asked was whether Joe Biden was going to endorse Kamala Harris or not. And the question didn’t revolve around whether he wanted to or not, but whether people in her camp thought it would be better for her to fight for it, win it on her own, and not be seen as somebody who was tapped by President Biden and so, in her own way, have a fresh start going into the campaign.

So the timing seems to be about as good as it could have been to end what has just been one of the craziest two or three weeks in American politics in quite some time.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Asifall@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Feels like you could go after it from a campaign finance angle, not that those laws are particularly restrictive as it stands.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I really don't know. We'd have to pass it as a law and then see if it survives challenges. Better question is does either party have the political will to make it happen?

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Campaigning is not a right. Postal employees can't run for office, for example.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I'm really not invested enough to disagree, here. If someone can make it happen, great. I think it might not pass constitutional muster but I'm not on the Supreme Court so what I think doesn't matter.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

You could be right, who knows. But that would basically invalidate the entire Hatch Act, which would be wild. But Hatch is too restrictive in my opinion anyway.

[–] banshee@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Agreed. What about an inflation adjusted campaign budget for each elected position? I believe this system is already used in some countries.

I feel like this would promote a focus on policies/platforms and encourage good faith campaigning.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Citizens United determined that money is speech though.

[–] banshee@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think most people agree that was a harmful decision though.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

Absolutely. But you can't un-ting that bell, not without a constitutional amendment.