1146
submitted 2 months ago by Pips@lemmy.sdf.org to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 186 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

This article is from July. Johnson has not allowed this near the floor and never will because hes a corrupt sack of fucked up rotten eggplants; even if he does, it will obviously fail on party line votes. Non story.

[-] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 108 points 2 months ago

It's a good reminder before a big election that one side is actively attempting to govern, while the other side is blocking any and all actions so as to curry more favor with their billionaire backers.

[-] distantsounds@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Please

Both ‘sides’ are blocking any and all actions so as to curry favor with their billionaire backers.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago

Johnson has not allowed this near the floor and never will because hes a corrupt sack of fucked up rotten eggplants

There's a very good chance that Democrats retake the House after November. Any idea whether Hakkem Jefferies will allow this proposal to advance?

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 15 points 2 months ago

Knowing how absolutely fucking stupid our politicians are id imagine IF we win we'll suddenly hear a whole bunch about needing to heal and show solidarity or some such bullshit that will just equate to "we aren't going to do anything about Republican corruption."

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

I see you also lived through the 2009 congressional cycle.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 8 points 2 months ago

Indeed lol we're very good about being extra nice to our would be oppressors...

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

I’m waiting to read that since they didn’t have a code of conduct, how could they have known?

How could any suspect that accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in ~~bribes~~ gifts would present a conflict of interest?

[-] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago

Jeffries would have everything to gain by forcing the issue, and i would frankly expect him to. But unless a miracle happens in the Senate post-election, an actual conviction will of course not happen as Republicans will never sign on to get the 2/3rds majority there.

[-] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

If the Democrats can keep their Senate majority then they can have an actual trial for these impeachments, something that didn't happen for the Trump impeachments (since the Republicans had Senate control then.) There probably still won't be enough votes for the removal to actually happen, but it'll let the Democrats really rub the Republicans' noses in the corruption going on in the Supreme Court and make their vote to protect Thomas and Alito more damaging in the next election.

At any rate, Thomas and Alito are currently the two oldest justices on the court, and if Harris gets two terms then there's a good chance that one or both of them will be dead by the next time there's a GOP President. That, combined with some strategic retirements on behalf of some of the older Democratic appointees has a good chance of unfucking the court for a while.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] dugmeup@lemmy.world 180 points 2 months ago

Good. It is a start..Won't get anywhere but it is a start of a conversation

[-] Subverb@lemmy.world 95 points 2 months ago

This election is so seriously fucked up that Dick Chaney and AOC are voting for the same candidate.

Weird timeline we're in.

[-] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 22 points 2 months ago

No, who are you calling a weird timeline? this timeline is extremely solid. It's a very solid timeline. When we're talking these kinds of numbers, then we tax countries when they ship stuff here, and they will not like it, but we can see how solid the timeline is...

I feel like I should have left out all punctuation in that paragraph.

[-] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago
[-] SoleInvictus 3 points 2 months ago

Whoa there, let's keep it PG for the children.

-J.D. Vance

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Weird timeline we’re in.

neoliberals and conservatives are flip sides of the same coin to be spent in the same vending machine of american hegemony; whether or not they select the same flavor makes little difference compared to the very real choices available in some other vending machines rich enough to effectively defend itself from the american machine.

[-] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

This reminds me of the current French politics. After the previous legislative elections were won by the left, neoliberal president Macron nonetheless appointed a conservative as his prime minister.

At the end of the day, it's all about the bottomline.

[-] Microw@lemm.ee 6 points 2 months ago

So, are you considering AOC to be a neoliberal or to be a conservative?

[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

how she contrasts with cheney has little impact on the genocide; future the cia induced coups; nor the continuing widening wealth gap; etc.

cheney is an accelerant and aoc is an inhibitor to the same child bombing, rich guy party we're calling a country since people like cheney hold all of he cards and the best people like aoc can hope for is play along and act surprised each time they re-discover that the game is rigged toward's cheney's side each time people like aoc fail and cling on increasingly rarer watered down victories to justify the relatively tiny distinctions between the two.

and even when they fail it's simply because you didn't vote hard enough and ABSOLUTELY NOT because your vote is diminished or suppressed because only lazy non-voting americans are simply too lazy to overcome studied, coordinated, and court-busting-proven astro-turfed national conservative movements financed by unknown multi-milion/bilion dollar interests in coordination with most states and the federal governments since 1980, all intent on keeping them from voting..

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 82 points 2 months ago

“Justice Thomas and Alito’s repeated failure over decades to disclose that they received millions of dollars in gifts from individuals with business before the court is explicitly against the law. And their refusal to recuse from the specific matters and cases before the court in which their benefactors and spouses are implicated represents nothing less than a constitutional crisis,” Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York, said in a statement.

Moderate Dems don't want to actually fix the SC.

They love complaining about it. And saying that's why they can't fix anything.

But they refuse to even bring up that we can fix it by impeaching the problematic ones or just expanding the court.

People say "if we do it, trump will do it" which is just insane to me because why the fuck would any republican not do something unless a Dem does it first?

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 20 points 2 months ago

So annoying that Democrats propose something, the Republican majority opposes and entirely quashes it, and the "take" is that we should blame Democrats for not getting it done.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

See also, filibuster and gerrymandering.

[-] makyo@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Republicans absolutely will do something if it benefits them. We can safely assume current filibuster rules benefit them otherwise they would have removed them themselves already. Dems do actually stand on tradition (which is why they haven't eliminated the filibuster even though it would greatly benefit them), often to their own detriment and I would say it's far more likely that they are actully concerned about norms (I would say overly so) when they're hesitant to do something like impeach justices.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Dems do actually stand on tradition (which is why they haven’t eliminated the filibuster even though it would greatly benefit them)

Really?

Everyone else always say it's just Manchin and maybe Sinema that won't, and that Biden and the rest want to...

To be honest I think you're right and there's a hell of a lot more moderates that would refuse even if we had 60 D senators, and Schumer refusing to hold a vote is to block for them so people don't replace them in their next primary.

That's pretty much the whole point of my original comment...

[-] makyo@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

It's true that Manchin and Sinema are a pain and kill a lot of things that otherwise would get through majority votes. I mean I'm no expert or anything but I sure don't get the sense that ending the filibuster would be something that would get the necessary unanimous support from the rest of the sitting Dems. It just seems like a lot of them believe it's there for a good reason.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

They love complaining about it. And saying that’s why they can’t fix anything.

Should be noted how many conservative Democrats are genuinely happy to have a SCOTUS do the dirty work of deregulation, dismantling of the administrative state, and legalization of bribery at all levels of government.

People say “if we do it, trump will do it” which is just insane to me because why the fuck would any republican not do something unless a Dem does it first?

The Republican strategy, to date, has been to rely on liberal apathy and "norms" that favor their reactionary policies in order to ratchet their way into a judicial permanent majority. But for policies that this ratchet effect won't work fast enough - funding of Trump's Wall, illegal surveillance under Bush, police harassment of minority groups in Texas and Florida, police harassment of women's health clinics, police harassment of GOTV efforts by liberals - the Republicans simply do as thou wilt and leave it to the Democrats to pound sand in response.

To the idea of court packing, I do have to ask... why are we afraid of more SCOTUS judges? What happens if the court swelled from nine to nineteen over the course of a couple of D/R/D/R administrations? Is that actually a problem? Will court rules be meaningfully worse as a result. I've yet to hear how a larger court with a more diffuse power base would be bad for the American public.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 76 points 2 months ago
[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 74 points 2 months ago

At least there's something. Agreed with sibling comment that nothing will come of it. But at least something is happening. The corruption is astronomical and a thumb in all of our eyes.

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 32 points 2 months ago

Literally 0% chance to change for good if all that happens is bearing witness to corruption and wrongdoing.

This is doing something. It’s hitting on the root of so many problems which have arisen in the US since the corporate takeover of government began in 1978 in partnership with the Supreme Court. I applaud AOC for this!

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Guardian:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/10/aoc-articles-of-impeachment
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
1146 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3457 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