this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
847 points (99.1% liked)

politics

19244 readers
2490 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Following Donald Trump’s election victory, Republicans are now openly embracing Project 2025, a policy agenda from The Heritage Foundation that outlines sweeping conservative reforms.

Despite Trump’s attempts to distance himself from the project during his campaign due to its extreme proposals—including expanded executive powers, a national abortion ban, stricter contraception limits, harsh immigration policies, and the elimination of agencies like the Department of Education—his allies quickly began celebrating its implementation.

Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon and commentator Matt Walsh publicly affirmed the agenda, signaling the GOP's commitment to enacting these controversial policies in Trump’s second term.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wildcardology@lemmy.world 61 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I wish Biden has the balls to label them as traitors and use his SC approved powers to jail them for treason.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago (3 children)

They'd be right back out on Jan. 20th. Have to do something more permanent.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Trump's lawyers argued successfully in front of SCOTUS that a president could assassinate their political opponent.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

...As long as the courts decide it's an "official act," ending with the SCOTUS itself. Nothing Biden did would ever be deemed an official act by them.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

What would he have to lose at this point?

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I agree! But he'd never do it even if he knew for a fact there would be no consequences for him from it.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I sure won't be holding my breath expecting him to, especially not after the speech he just gave.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

I just looked up the gist of it. My reaction:

[–] squid_slime@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)
[–] squid_slime@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

cheers comrade

[–] Anti_Iridium@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

He isn't even candidate Biden, in this case, so it's an official act. The law is so fucking bad.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Have to do something more permanent.

[–] wildcardology@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] dellish@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is probably more valid than some think. Trump and his cronies are a clear threat to the country and must be eliminated before the damage is done.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The problem being that the majority of voters want fascism. Defeating it requires more than just removing the leaders because more will just take their place.

[–] Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I'm not so sure. I think these people genuinely do want to wriggle out of any sense of societal responsibility and want to ensure that there is an underclass ripe for extortion.

But I don't think many of them would catch a bullet for those ideas.

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 1 points 1 month ago

Yea, secret voting can be a way to launder your responsibility, by contributing to make someone else responsible for what you want to do.