this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
255 points (81.0% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2351 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
 

One of Donald Trump’s lawyers appeared to accidentally admit that the former president may have engaged in insurrection.

Christina Bobb, a vocal 2020 election denier, tried to argue Tuesday night that voters should be able to elect anyone they want for president.

“The president is elected by the entire nation, and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they are guilty of insurrection or not,” Bobb said during an interview on Real America’s Voice. “It’s up to the people.”

Bobb seems to be arguing that even an insurrectionist should be allowed to run the country, which could be seen as an admission of guilt.

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 4am@lemm.ee 124 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What a dumb article, who came up with the angle on this piece of shit?

“She said it doesn’t matter if he’s an insurrectionist or not! That means she knows he’s guilty!” is some literal schoolyard logic.

What we should be more concerned with is:

  • She doesn’t seem to understand the 14th amendment
  • She doesn’t seem to mind an insurrectionist running the country
[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 6 points 10 months ago

Right. Also, what is meant by “entire nation…should be up to the people”?

If we are jumping to conclusions, this might as well mean getting rid of the electoral college and the unequal representation it enables via gerrymandering. Considering republicans haven’t won the popular vote in something like 30 years, I’m for it. Let the people decide…all of them.

[–] youngGoku@lemmy.world 93 points 10 months ago

Funny how now it's the "entire nation" that elects the president and not the electoral college.

[–] TheSlad@sh.itjust.works 44 points 10 months ago

“The president is elected by the entire nation, and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president..."

Hmm yes please, lets abolish the electoral college so that presidents are in fact decided by the entire nation collectively and equally!

Never thought i would agree with a Trump lawyer...

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 30 points 10 months ago (2 children)

“The president is elected by the entire nation, and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they are guilty of insurrection or not,” Bobb said during an interview on Real America’s Voice. “It’s up to the people.”

When was the last time a Republican won the popular vote?

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

2004, Bush's second term. Which, electorally speaking, wasn't that long ago.

Of course the 2016 and 2000 elections both saw Republican candidates win the presidency, but not the popular vote.

The 2000 election is also special since it came down to a judicial decision and was a 0.5% difference.

The 2016 election however is more clear, since it was a 2% difference.

Also keep in mind this had never happened before. So 2000 was when we should have started to take action, but since every election after (until 2016) it went back to normal, it made 2000 look like an outlier.

Which is all a long was of saying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact is probably the answer here.

[–] TurtleJoe@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] charonn0@startrek.website 9 points 10 months ago

It's telling that no member of the Supreme Court was willing to put their name on that decision.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 10 months ago
[–] macaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 10 months ago

It warms my soul to see Trump using the least qualified lawyers.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago

Again, they are no longer arguing that he didn't do it. They are arguing that he should face any ramifications for it.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 22 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Hey look, it’s narcissism:

That didn't happen.

And if it did, it wasn't that bad.

And if it was, that's not a big deal.

And if it is, that's not my fault.

And if it was, I didn't mean it.

And if I did, you deserved it.

[–] ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So... No president unless everyone agrees? That's gonna be tough with freedom of speech.

[–] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

You heard it folks NO MORE PRESIDENTS NO MORE PRESIDENTS NO MORE PRESIDENTS 🎊🎉✨️🎉🎊💜🦀

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 2 points 10 months ago

Did you just admit you're guilty of insurrection?