129 points

Or…

The president can just order the DOJ to imprison him for actions against the US government and outright treason.

And it would be totally legal

But he won’t, because he doesn’t take the threat of fascism serious.

permalink
report
reply
40 points
*

Joe Biden is acting like a complete pussy following milquetoast Merrick’s lead

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

“Nothing will fundamentally change.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Toss him in jail for one day and you’d see all this shit stop.

Add the owner of fox in the same cell. You’d be amazed how quickly things would clean themselves up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
45 points
*

Took one bullet to stop 1/6.

Fascists are usually cowards, but they’ll always keep pushing till there’s consequences.

Biden will not fucking give them consequences. They gave him the power to, and dude immediately announced publicly that he’d never do it.

Like, that alone should be disqualifying.

Biden treats this personal, it’s him vs trump. But this is so much bigger and so much more important than either of those old rich men.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Yup. I keep drifting back to RGB and how much she screwed us. (obv it’s Republicans fault in the end, but she could have played that a bit different)

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Bullies on a bigger scale

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

You’ll have to extract Rupert Murdoch from Australia.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I’m pretty sure we could find some Australians willing to hand him over

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Tbh I expect they’d thank us if we set ST6 on him like bin Laden. Genuinely, Murdoch has had just as profound and negative of an effect on society, but also enriched himself enormously in the process. Dude is one evil motherfucker.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I don’t believe the recent court ruling would actually allow that because suspending court justices isn’t a regular part of the president’s duty.

The best king example I’ve seen is that the president would be within the law if they shot the director of homeland security - the president is allowed to control who is in that position, they can remove them at will - the SC ruling means that the method they chose to remove that person is now unimpeachable… if they chose to suspend them by freeing them of their mortal coil they’re “acting within official duties”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

I don’t believe the recent court ruling would actually allow that because suspending court justices isn’t a regular part of the president’s duty.

Directing the DOJ is

So Biden can direct them to arrest someone, and throw them in gitmo.

His motivations can’t be investigated. And directing the DOJ is within a presidents power

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

It might be illegal for the DOJ personnel to follow that order, but he can just tell them he’ll pardon them for any crimes they’re charged with for following his order and that he’ll murder them if they don’t follow his order, and all of that is totally legal

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

If he cared about protecting the country from fascism, he wouldn’t be running.

permalink
report
parent
reply
81 points

Impeach Clarence thomas

permalink
report
reply
44 points

Fucking shoot Clarence Thomas into the sun.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Shooting him into the sun would be a waste of delta-v. Shoot him out of the solar system.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

It might take more delta v but it would be worth it

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

The regular kind will suffice.

permalink
report
parent
reply
52 points

We knew he was a garbage human being during the Anita Hill hearings.

That he’s still a garbage human being now that he had even more power shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone with any understanding of how people work.

permalink
report
reply
16 points
*

We knew he was a garbage human being during the Anita Hill hearings

Man, if only the head of that committee was a real leader. One willing to stand up for what is right, defend the victim, keep decorum, and allow the multiple other woman with similar complaints to testify…

Imagine if Clarance could have been kept off the court

I guess it would be pointless to look up who that was, it was 30 years ago and the Senator would have already been pretty senior to head that committee…

I’m sure he’s far a way from modern politics by now, hell, he’d have to be like 81 years old now!

No reason to disturb his likely retirement enjoying his time with his family.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

Thank god we learned from that and haven’t confirmed any other justices with credible allegations of sexual assault against them. Imagine where we’d be if we confirmed that clown who regularly boofed beer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Yeah, not like he’s POTUS or anything…

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Four hours without someone feeling the need to explain the joke…

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I vividly remember a newspaper clipping about the Anita Hill hearings being displayed at my school in 10th grade. If only I knew that POS would not only still be there 33 years later, but would be actively trying to destroy democracy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

This dude needs to have been kicked out decades ago

permalink
report
reply
38 points

He shouldn’t have made it to the bench with the nomination hearings exposing his sexual harassement. Same with Kavanaugh.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Turns out, he was ahead of his time.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Predictor, or precedent?

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Get that professional sugarbaby off the court.

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

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 187K

    Comments