politics
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Checks and balances doesn’t work if one party is in charge of everything. I found the John Oliver episode about Hungary to be particularly terrifying.
Imagine if Trump rigged the election so they had a super majority in the senate and a majority in the house. They could rewrite the constitution. What then?
Nixon could not have been convicted without Republican votes. But Nixon resigned, because he knew Republicans would vote to impeach and convict him. So the system can in theory work, even if the system depends on policing its own.
It is in fact quite normal across democracies, for stuff like this to depend on the votes of the party in power.
The problem here is that Republican representatives are traitors to their oaths. And more importantly, that Republican voters are not demanding their representatives to not be traitors.
Nixon had to be charged with crimes and serve prison time for the system to have worked. As usual politicians get that magical get out of jail card when the exact opposite should be happening. They should be held to much higher standards and punishments.
Ford pardoned Nixon, and Ford lost the next election. And the pardon probably played a part in Ford losing. So the system still sorta worked then, if imperfect.
Nixon was never officially charged with any crime. The modern day pardon is an extremely corrupt practice as evidenced by the current administration. It should be removed entirely honestly.
If it is allowed it should be the responsibility of a non-partisan committee. The president could refer someone but should have zero power over it. I think it would still be abused, but at least there could be some checks and balances.
Just make it for death row inmates only. Other than that it should just be handled by the courts.
Ironically, it turns into a problem for Democrat voters.
Re-writing the constitution (e.g., amendments) also takes approval from the states themselves.
According to ... the constitution
There's some circular logic happening which Trump sees through. Much like SCOTUS, the constitution can't enforce itself. So you can just bully it.
True. I guess he can interpret it however he wants and trust that the supremely court will back him.
I saw he will be the first president sitting in on arguments to the supremely court. I wonder if this is an attempt to intimidate justices that might go against him.
I mean if that doesnt provoke a civil war nothing ever will
It won’t. I’d be more likely to leave the country than to die for it.
Link?
https://youtu.be/SkRw83GV-wA