Summary

US Senator Chris Van Hollen defended the Constitution and fired back at California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said that the wrongful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia was “the distraction of the day.”

“Anyone who is not prepared to stand up and fight for the Constitution doesn’t deserve to lead,” Van Hollen said.

He visited El Salvador to meet with Abrego Garcia, whose deportation the Trump administration called an “administrative error.”

“Right now, we have a lawless president… who is ignoring the order of the Supreme Court of the United States to facilitate [Abrego Garcia’s] return.”

118 points

It’s literally in every oath of office as the central tenet. I swore to uphold the constitution way back as a 17 year old soldier. It is my fundamental expectation of every single person working for the government.

This shouldn’t need to be said!

permalink
report
reply
62 points

Sure, that’s why the next bit mentions domestic enemies.

that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

permalink
report
parent
reply
49 points

I wish Newsom would fucking die already. He’s so tiresome.

permalink
report
reply
21 points

Not only tiresome, which he really is, but he’s also just a stereotypical politician who talks in speeches and doublespeak, even in intimate settings, so you never actually know what he believes. Listen to him give an interview to a friendly reporter from a liberal outlet. He can barely answer the simplest questions without sounding like the most cookie-cutter mainstream Democrat. That’s not what people want anymore.

We need a down to earth candidate like AOC who communicates like a human being. Not a greasy rich white guy who talks like the most generic politician with no genuine values.

But I don’t want him to die, I just want him to go away and stop pushing himself on us.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

He’s the Next One Up for the Democrats, though. Plus, he has one thing that the last two losing Democrats didn’t have: a penis. Please don’t discount how much of an advantage penis-havers get with our shitty electorate.

I’m afraid that the nomination is his to lose. (He might lose it, though, if there is meaningful reform at the DNC and a better candidate comes along. It will still be one with a penis, though.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

They have to have a penis, and identify as male.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Would two dicks guarantee a win though? Or the second penis is a disadvantage?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Ru Paul would make an awesome President

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

He’s already the nominee. They just haven’t gone through the kabuki theater democrats call primaries yet.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

if there is meaningful reform at the DNC

You realize you are talking about meaningful reform in the DNC in preparation for the 2032 elections, right? I wonder if there will even be a DNC by then.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

No. This is all about the 2028 elections, which the non-fascists desperately need to win. But the DNC has been using the same “next one up” philosophy that gave us John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. (The one exception was in 2008, when Barack Obama stole Hillary’s crown out from under her).

If things at the DNC go the way they have been going, Newsom has the nomination already, and the primary will just be a formality just like all the other ones (except for 2008) have been .

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I wish he would use the word “secede” more.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points
*

I don’t think Gavin Newsom is capable of feeling shame. Talk about a guy with zero principles other than “I want to make rich people richer.”

permalink
report
reply
11 points

Good point from Von here.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

Maybe Van Hollen is running for president.

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 17K

    Posts

  • 317K

    Comments