this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
656 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2490 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
 

The president of the right-wing group spearheading Project 2025 raised the specter of violence Tuesday against those who refuse to capitulate to what he characterized as "the second American Revolution" ushered in by presumptive GOP nominee and would-be authoritarian Donald Trump.

Kevin Roberts, head of the Heritage Foundation, said in an appearance on "Real America's Voice" that the coming "revolution" will "remain bloodless if the left allows it to be"—a thinly veiled threat against those who resist the far-right's efforts to seize power.

Trump said in April that whether there is violence surrounding the 2024 presidential election "depends" on the "fairness" of the contest and the outcome.

Watch Roberts' remarks:

https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1808507354310209711

"We are going to win. We're in the process of taking this country back," declared Roberts, who has said Project 2025 is "institutionalizing Trumpism" in preparation for a possible victory in November.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 60 points 4 months ago (2 children)

This country is so fucked. Much of the culture is checked out; a lot of the left/liberal movement seem to be up its own asshole in goofy pandering that seems designed to only churn out more donnie voters, and the cons are making plans, and basically announcing them to everyone.

Also, I'll vote Biden no matter what this fall, but the Democratic Party had better seriously consider removing him and selecting someone else. Otherwise, Biden's chief legacy that is actually remembered will be helping to enable the dismantling of this country by being so egotistical as to think he's the only one that could beat donnie in 2024.

[–] makeasnek@lemmy.ml 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

It's not Biden, it's the DNC's primary voters. They elected the guy, not once, but twice, maybe because he actually does a decent job and beat Don last time. There was a primary this year, I voted in it, there was more than one candidate (though I would have preferred even more), Biden actually lost a primary in American Samoa. I voted for him though, he was clearly the best of the options, nobody else even remotely competitive stepped up to be president.

[–] ZombieMantis@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Just once, there wasn't a real primary this year. All the alternate frontrunners (Newsone, Whitimer, Butigeg, etc.) stayed out of the race, following the lead of the Party and letting Joe run virtually unopposed.

Very few people, if anyone, took any of the other candidates as anything more than protests to pressure the Biden campaign into turning left.

[–] rsuri@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Yeah the thing I really can't understand is why did the voters pick Biden in 2016? Even on the moderate side of the party there were much better choices. The democratic voters who just seem to pick the name they're most familiar with - Clinton, Biden - those are the people who made Trump happen.

I think the majority of Democratic voters just assume the most familiar name is the most electable in the general, but as we've seen that's simply not the case. Ironically, if it feels like Democrats run the worst candidates against Trump, that's probably not an accident. Trump makes Democratic voters pick the "safest" candidate, who turns out to be the least electable.

[–] makeasnek@lemmy.ml 9 points 4 months ago

They picked Hillary in 2016, not Biden. But you're right generally.

[–] immutable@lemm.ee 3 points 4 months ago

Back in 2016 the voters actually weren’t super excited about Biden either.

Biden did pretty badly in the first 3 primaries

Feb 3rd in Iowa he came in 4th place behind Sanders, Buttigieg, and Warren.

Feb 11th in New Hampshire he came in 5th place behind Sanders, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Warren.

Feb 22nd in Nevada he came in 3rd place behind Sander and Warren.

After these pretty awful results there was a brief period when Sanders was considered the front runner and the DNC shit a brick. You might recall Chris Matthews on MSNBC speculating wildly about a Sanders presidency meaning “executions in Central Park” that was February 8th.

Biden was thrown a life line though by Jim Clyborn who strongly supported him and gave him his first victory in South Carolina on February 29th. A state that would go on to vote trump on Election Day.

This strong showing though was enough for the DNC to see a way to have a moderate candidate win the primary. If they could get the moderate candidates, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and Biden to stop splitting that voting block they could stop a more progressive candidate like Sanders or Warren from taking the nomination. Internally the DNC feared that a more progressive candidate would win the primary and lose in the general and wanted a safer option.

The day before Super Tuesday when 15 states would hold their primaries, the more moderate candidates reached an agreement. Buttigieg and Klobuchar announced they would drop out of the race and throw their support behind Biden. In the days before these announcement polling showed Sanders likely to win a plurality of the Super Tuesday delegates. After the moderate candidates lined up behind Biden he won 10 of the 15 contests, losing California, Colorado, Utah, and Vermont to Sanders and American Samoa to Bloomberg.

Buttigieg would be rewarded with his current position as Secretary of Transportation and Klobuchar would end up Chair of the Senate Rules Committee (although it’s less clear how much that was because of her dropping out).

With a victorious Super Tuesday the media rallied around Biden’s amazing reversal of fortune and the Chris Matthews of the world finally had a light at the end of the tunnel for the horrors of a Sanders presidency, line up behind Joe.

An interesting foot note is that of the states holding primaries on Super Tuesday, of the 10 that went for Biden, 6 (7 if you count Maine but I wouldn’t) would go on to vote for trump on Election Day, Alabama, Arkansas, 1 of 4 of Maine’s votes, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. All the states carried by Sanders, except Utah, reliably voted for Biden in the general.

So the DNC, worried about losing the general election, rallied their moderate candidates around Biden, who was losing fairly badly. His overperformance in states that would ultimately vote Republican ended up changing the narrative enough that he became presumptive nominee status on the eyes of the media. This status became generally accepted on April 8th when Sanders pulled out of the race, but you can find the media pushing this in March

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

That's just it, though - because he decided to run again, and is an incumbent, very few challenged him.

[–] nexusband@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

He doesn't need to beat him with the latest rulings...

[–] drbluefall@toast.ooo 31 points 4 months ago

Do you believe, in any measure, that Biden would use the power the latest rulings give him?

Even if we assume he did, what would stop the current Supreme Court from just drawing a chalk outline around the exact thing he did, calling it unofficial, and then charging him anyway?

The ruling was made to empower Trump, and those that puppeteer him. No one else.