this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
334 points (93.9% liked)

politics

19159 readers
4616 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
 

I know we're living in the crapsack timeline, but I didn't realize it was a crapsack made of little shit people that the Republicans sculpted like they were Play-Doh and then threw them in the sack and made screaming noises, pretending the little shit people were screaming, before declaring that sack to be their new second-in-command after Trump.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 142 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

They put a far right super majority in the supreme court, are trying to put their candidate in Congress as speaker and then re-elect him to the executive branch.

We all know they're fucking Nazis, but, just saying, this sure seems like some 1930's Germany shit, right now. Like it's obvious and all, but still needs to be said out loud.

Would be a lot cooler if we were not trying to replicate that shit.

[–] [email protected] 95 points 1 year ago (4 children)

If elected speaker, he would be third in line to the presidency. They were already ready to kill Trump's own VP on his behalf.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

On the bright side, he can't claim executive immunity or pardon himself if he was selected to be Speaker, since the legislative branch does not confer the same level of such protections, and he wouldn't be able to campaign as much, since he would have to do actual work.

On top of that, he would have a much smaller megaphone, much less power, and he would be a live-in distraction for the true believers in Congress.

Basically, he'd have to successfully assassinate two members of the executive branch who are around and guarded by numerous people at all times.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bold of you to assume he wouldn't just golf all the time anyway. Being president obviously posed little hindrance.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (6 children)

He won't become speaker he got to many legal problems and it takes away from him campaigning so we safe for now.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 85 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If there is something dumb to be done it's guaranteed the MAGA Trumpers are gonna do it.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 year ago (6 children)

"Let's make President Drink-Bleach our speaker!"

What could possibly go wrong?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

President Drink-Bleach

That would have saved us all so much trouble.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sadly our timeline doesn't get democracy on easymode, we get to deal with the problem the hard way.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 57 points 1 year ago (4 children)

He is disqualified due to the 14th amendment.

[–] [email protected] 61 points 1 year ago

They don't care.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also, specific to the role of Speaker, he’s disqualified due to having been indicted of felonies with a term of more than two years.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

Technically that's just a GOP rule... and we know what their reaction is to things like that...

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He shoild be, but so far the courts so far have disagreed, and the SCOTUS declined to hear the case until more lower courts have ruled. Until he's convicted, it's unlikely that he will be pre-emptively disqualified from holding office.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The Constitution does not state the individual has to be convicted. They only had to aid in any way, shape, or form an insurrection, which he did.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I agree with you, but so far the courts have not. Remember that the courts consist of judges who may or may not have allegiances or prejudices that influence their reading of the constitution. So while we can agree we both think Trump should be disqualified by the letter of the law, we cannot know for sure that he will be disqualified. If he is convicted of seditious conspiracy, then the pathway becomes much clearer.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

A conviction would generally be seen as what establishes the fact that the person has done that act.

Which is probably for the best. I'd remind you that plenty of Americans right now would say that Biden has committed treason of some kind, so it's probably a good thing that there's a formal legal process for this.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s not clear just yet that the law applies to him, in general.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My State of Colorado doesn't care about the court, we are going to ban him from the ballot.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well yeah, he wants to be second in line for the presidency so that his degenerate followers can perform some strategic assassinations and put him in the presidency.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

You can't deny it's a distinct possibility.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A speaker needs to be able to speak coherent sentences…

There is nobody better than Trump at willing his own reality into existence. He teases some absurd idea then lets the subconscious of his MAGA fanbase bring it to life. I’m torn between disbelief and “of course they’re legitimately thinking about this.”

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

A speaker needs to be able to speak coherent sentences…

Lol where have you been? Competence are no longer requirements for office

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Lmao. I can see it already. He thinks he can be speaker and President.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Then he just needs to appoint himself as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and become the President of the Senate to fulfill his dream of running the entire government.

(Not doing any work, mind you. Just holding all the positions of power at once.)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then he just needs to appoint himself as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and become the President of the Senate to fulfill his dream of running the entire government.

Our former prime minister actually did something like this. He secretly appointed himself as health minister, finance minister, industry minister, home affairs minister and treasurer. It was quite a big scandal that only came out after the election that kicked out his government and threw a lot of ministerial decisions made during that time into legal doubt, though nothing ended up coming from it.

Morrison was a lazy shit and only used his secret ministerial powers a few times, he just wanted to have the power for himself. His stated reason was "in case the existing ministers became incapacitated by COVID", but we already have assistant ministers that could fill in if that happened.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Not yet

Ignites lightsaber

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Oh they definitely are all giant sentient bags of shit for sure.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think ‘sentient’ is WAAAAAAYYY too generous.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Bags of shit are useful.

They aren't.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

LOL, donnie calling anyone else a traitor.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The speaker of the house isn't just the guy who talks a lot, Donnie.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

That’s rich (unlike Trump) calling someone else a traitor.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Can the House have a Speaker who isn’t an elected official? Has that ever happened before where the Speaker of the House wasn’t a Representative?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

Afaik it's not explicitly ruled out by the Constitution, though it's never been done. It would be very unorthodox, especially if the speaker were in prison.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It can happen. However, it is generally not done because the House wants to be in charge of itself.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This was the first article I was able to find, as the question has apparently come up as recently as after John Boehner vacated the position: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/can-outsider-be-speaker-house-n441926

" The Constitution is silent on that question, saying simply, "The House of Representatives shall chuse (sic) their Speaker and other Officers."

The Clerk of the House agrees with the office of the House Historian, which says the speaker "has always been (but is not required to be) a House Member."

Most historians and legal experts who've looked at this issue conclude the founders simply assumed the speaker would be drawn from among elected members.

"It would have been unthinkable for the most populous house not to have its leader be part of the representatives who were elected by the people," says David Forte, a constitutional scholar at Cleveland State University.

"Nothing fits that would make the speaker anything other than a member of the house," except for the Constitution's silence on the issue, Forte says, noting that the Articles of Confederation said members of Congress shall have authority "to appoint one of their members to preside." "

Gotta love how the vagueness of the Founding Fathers is cause for serious debate after they just assumed something was obvious.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Welcome to why we have a mass shooting everyday. A comma and poof, no more well regulated required.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Uh didn’t he explicitly say that he wasn’t interested in the speakership like a day or two ago? That was a quick about-face.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Excellent. Goodbye functioning government and goodbye swing district GOP congressmen/women.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Can you even imagine the Democrats worshipping a candidate who was found liable for rape, liable for fraud, and who was out on bail for several incredibly serious crimes, for which there is overwhelming evidence of his guilt on the public record?

Republicans are disgusting. They are a cancer. The whole party is full of the most anti-American, anti-basic-decency traitors the world has ever seen.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

He sure loves playing pretend.

load more comments
view more: next ›