this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
273 points (81.7% liked)

politics

19145 readers
2666 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

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