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 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I totally agree that people of conscience resigning from DoJ and other positions of power is a good thing. I'm well aware of what you said, despite your condescending suggestion. I just don't see how that is relevent to the firing of Bondi.
What gives you the impression that Bondi is fractionally competent, and what gives you confidence that her replacement will be less competent?
She actually has experience, if not discernible skill, at heading a government legal agency: she was Florida AG 2011 - 2019. Before that she was a prosecutor with actual litigation experience who appears to have come up the ranks. She was also able to use her position to enrich herself and protect Trump, which may seem easy on the face of it, in Florida especially, but there are still various obstacles like competent judges, opposing attorneys, and state laws to navigate, which she did. She also argued against the appointments of both Habba and Halligan, which suggests she understood what a train wreck that was going to be, but was overruled by Trump.
That is a LOW fucking bar, lol. It's like asking if a cockroach can excel at limbo. So regardless of who is ultimately chosen, "Yes."
Are you suggesting otherwise? I don't share your faith that Bondi was too incompetent to be easily bested in incompetence by any replacement chosen. As I said above,
I said that because almost all of Trump's legal picks share a specific characteristic, and it's not smarts. And there's another thing to consider: this appointment may be different because he picks men when he "wants something done" and women when he wants a meat shield, but specifically when it comes to picking disposable attorneys, Trump evaluates legal talent with his eyes.