Like, why even bother with the election at all? Biden can just not participate in it, and stay in power as long as he does it as an official act. The Supreme Court just ruled that he’s allowed to do that.
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
76 points (93.2% liked)
politics
18828 readers
4612 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Then tie up any opposition in the court system for as many years as you need
I hope this was a joke. If not, you grossly misunderstand the situation.
If it's an official act, he could keep power. That's the ruling by the corrupt court.
And official acts have guidelines. It is very clear that not everything a president does is an official act.
Not everything, but it's incredibly easy to fall into something being an official act, and most things of consequences would end up there, especially if you're a corrupt president planning to use this ruling. There are a few constitutionally-defined acts that are 100% absolute immunity, but the ruling also gives a presumption of immunity to other official acts that are not defined. That's why they're sending it back to the lower court - to determine which acts were official. Which will then be appealed and affirmed and then appealed back to the Supreme Court. But by the time they have to grant immunity, the election will be over. They very much did not want to make a decision about what acts were official so they wouldn't have to make explicit that Trump is immune until after the election.
Thank you for the level-headed response. This is pretty much inline with what I've been reading.
Seems to me that this was not that consequential of a case. It was mostly just a confirmation of what we've already presumed. The larger issue that's been pending since the 2020 election is if what he did was an official act.
I look forward to a decision about whether asking someone to find some extra votes is considered an official act.
This is an incredibly consequential case making entirely new law that is conveniently on a case by case basis and under the control of a corrupt court. Just read the dissents. And it overruled a unanimous ruling that Trump was not immune. Trying to downplay this is wrong.
I’m really not seeing how this changes much. If anything, it’s plausible this confirms at least one set of guidelines and, I think, makes the case against Trump easier.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts taken while he was president, as well as the government’s claim that a former president is not “above the law” and can be criminally prosecuted for all actions done while in office.
Instead, the court ruled that some of the crimes that Trump is alleged to have committed are protected by immunity, but others may not be.
the court first determined that a president is absolutely immune for actions taken that are part of his “core” executive functions. These include the powers explicitly given to him in the Constitution, such as the pardon power and the power to remove executive branch officials, which are part of his “exclusive authority” into which neither Congress nor the judicial system may intrude.
For his noncore powers, which include all those not specifically listed in the text of the Constitution, such as the formulation of domestic policy, the court took a more nuanced approach.
The court also ruled in the immunity case that the president enjoys no immunity from criminal prosecution for nonofficial, private conduct.
You sound like the coworker that told me roe v wade being overturned wouldn't change anything.
Read the dissents. No one who's deeply involved in politics or law thinks this is a nothingburger.
The baffling part is how not only are we stuck with a two party system that keeps any significant changes from getting a foot hold, but also how we have so few choices with the parties we have. In a country of millions of leaders in various forms, we have nothing to pick from outside of Biden, and he's potentially losing to someone with Trump's long track record of failure both in politics and business. Remember when Trump running for office used to be a regular late night show joke for years?
The only hope for change in politics is local races, and even lots of those are pretty sad. "Get out and vote", yeah, but years of doing that hasn't really helped much, so pardon my pessimism. I'm not George Carlin level just yet, but I always understood his point.
Start a new party that isn't absolutely insane and has realistic views that can draw enough attention to compete.
Systemically nigh impossible due to spoilering effect, wasted votes, gerrymandering and so on under FPTP. Even then all would happen is the new party replacing on of the existing ones and still stuck with two party system.
YouTube, cgpgrey, animal Kingdom votes videos.
It's too late for a third party in 2024, but it's the perfect time to get people talking about 2028.
If we don't, we're gonna be right back here in 2028 talking about how it's too late.
This is when people are paying attention and desperate for any other option.
Planning ahead is the path forward, we can't just keep reacting every four years then ignoring it again.
Didn’t the Democratic Party crush any hope of RCV even when it passes on the ballot? I mean i expect that from republicans, but it seems it is a rare bipartisan effort to prevent it from ever happening.
Why would they want RCV to happen?
In it's current state neither party has accountability from their own voters.
They can literally do anything they want, raise billions of dollars and be practically free from any accountability because the parties aren't officially government agencies.
When corruption happens at the party level, it's literally "totally legal, and totally cool".
The people who would rise to power in such a system, will never give it up it willingly. And anyone that isn't corrupt, faces near impossible odds.
Look at AIPAC just dropping 15 million on a House seat primary. How are voters supposed to compete in a primary like that, and what are they supposed to do in a general?
Not vote Dem so the Republican that also takes AIPAC money wins? They're not even the only ones doing it, they're just the ones paying the most openly.
Our system is fucked and we can't keep waiting "one more election" to openly acknowledge it.
Right, it's been demonstrated for years why it's a broken system, but ironically the only ones who can change it are those in power because of it. State and local are a different matter, and there has been progress in some states to use multiple pick systems. The gerrymandering though...I'm from NC, so I know all too well about a corrupt state congress, drawing lines to benefit one side, and lots of voter intimidation in certain areas (that would vote Democrat, of course). When I was in grade school decades ago I read about using computers to draw fair voting maps and how it could help representation. Decades ago...and fixed maps are still a thing.
Damn, the selfishness and out of touch arrogance is crazy. They really think they're entitled to power, even at the cost of our democracy.
So…. Let’s get this straight:
He’s being selfish for trying to stop a tyrant from turning America into a dictatorship run by a rapist/convicted felon…
But people who are not voting, are…. Hero patriots protecting democracy? Do I have that right?
He's being selfish for trying to stop a tyrant from turning America into a dictatorship run by a rapist/convicted felon…
He's being selfish because he's giving that fascist rapist the best chance he's got at winning the white house, all because his ego won't allow him to admit he's failed and people don't want him in the whitehouse.
He was elected because he let the implication that he'd be a one-term care taker president. He knew from the beginning that he didn't have what it would take to carry a second election, but he's just too addicted to trying to salvage his legacy.
What he'll be remebered for funding a genocide, clinging arrigantly to power and handing our democracy over to the far right.
he's giving that fascist rapist the best chance he's got at winning the white house
Naaah… people like you are doing that.
NYT is reporting on a hastily arranged call of the DNC finance committee today with some big donors. I don't see a non-paywalled source about it, but I assume it is happening.
That is a hugely important meeting because if Biden's donors say they will not support the campaign financially anymore, that will be one of the dominoes that would need to fall to get Biden to back out. Campaigns are expensive, and Trump's fundraising is focused on his campaign as third priority, after paying his legal bills and Trump himself.
I'm not really sure whether Biden can pull this off or not, but his chances are zero if his big donors stop giving.
Campaigns are expensive,
Moderate Dem campaigns are expensive in that they need big money donors to convince voters to hold their noses.
Progressive Dem campaigns are essentially free because the voters themselves are donating the bulk of the money.
The same efforts spent to get voters, naturally gets donors.
I don't think people realize how much time and effort Biden and the DNC put into getting these big fundraisers with George Clooney when it's a completely unnecessary step.
It shouldn't take 2 billion dollars to get more votes than trump, but that's what its been projected to cost to get Biden back in the White House. And that was before America saw him at the debate...
If the DNC is doing things behind the scenes, it's probably to re-route the big incoming dark money push to make sure it'll still land on a party favorite.
Last election it was 64 million in a single donation that no one knows where it came from...
Yet in the summer of 2020, when a blandly named entity called the Impetus Fund received a $64 million donation from a single anonymous source, it touched off a guessing game with broad political implications.
That single anonymous donation, routed through a series of accounts, eventually would be used to help Joe Biden defeat Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Critics say it has come to illustrate an increasingly opaque system of funding elections that in 2024 could reach a scale that dwarfs all previous election cycles.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-64-million-mystery-anonymous-donations-2024-presidential-campaign/
We can't just blindly keep supporting anyone that's not a Republican. We've been doing it for a long time and it's not fucking working.
That's is NOT the year to fuck around. If Trump wins, the chance that he will declare himself president for life is WAY too high and apparently perfectly legal now.
Progressive Dem campaigns are essentially free because the voters themselves are donating the bulk of the money.
Ya, people forget that Bernie was always the top money raiser during the primary and Warren was usually #2, both on small donations. And that was during the primary when individual donations from Democrats were spread across many options.
In February 2020, Bernie + Warren raised $67M in individual donations. The entire rest of the crowd totaled $56M. Democrat individual donations can put out $123M in single month. For a primary, in a single month.
When it was Biden alone going into the 2020 general, he was pulling in $160M in small donations. That's more than Trump raised during most of his 2016 campaign. We don't need to be beholden to these large donors.
You can do it Joe!
Biden's campaign and his family are the only ones defending him, and now his family is turning on the campaign...
Among the most vocal: Jill Biden and son Hunter, whom the president has long gone to for counsel and advice. Both believe the president shouldn’t bow out when he’s down, and believe that he can come back from what they see as one subpar performance. The family questioned how he was prepared for the debate by staff and wondered if they could have done something better, the people said.
Like, why the fuck is Hunter Biden involved in these decisions?
This is the one time voters actually want the party to put their fingers on the scales, and they just fucking won't.
They'd rather risk trump then turn on Biden, because he appointed the current DNC leadership.
And if a Dem doesn't win the general, they get to vote to maintain the current leadership.
Who are obviously incredibly incompetent. If Biden wins, he's keeping them all for their loyalty.
The party top concern isn't stopping trump, it's maintaining their personal power over one of the only two political parties in America, that's supposed to raise 2 billion just for Biden's campaign this cycle.
They're in it for the money, not to save America.
We can't keep putting our future in their hands.
No, there's a lot of us that don't want to surrender the incumbent advantage for the very common backlash-against-the-last-party phenomenon we've seen many times in the past decades.
We're just not as loud as everyone else, and our position makes terrible clickbait.
I don’t know, did you see the same debate i saw? But it’s ok, it will be fine. Kamala Harris will just take over when the time comes.
I did. I saw a tired old man and a used car salesman. More importantly though, is I don't think almost everyone gives two shits about debates or polls. They know these two guys, know them well. What they offer is clear.
Additionally, I don't think a President has to be spry. They just need to be good at delegation, that is by far the most important skill. If you think about monarchy, the king did not need to run everything. Simply assign the tasks to people who did know all the details. Generals run the army. Finance ministers run economy. Diplomats run diplomacy. Etc.