251
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2024
251 points (96.3% liked)
politics
18956 readers
5054 users here now
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.
- 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.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I understand where he's coming from but this sounds like actively planning to fail to meet their obligation to brief the presidential nominee. That's not a great precedent to set, the tables could be turned in the future.
The "normal" government machine is broken. Attempting to rely on long established norms as guardrails is not something that will turn out well. "The tables could be turned" is not an argument that applies to the current state of US politics.
The Republican party literally told the Obama white house that they wouldn't even hold a hearing for his supreme Court nominee (Garland March of 2016) "because the American people needed to weigh in since it was an election year." Which many people properly identified as complete and utter bullshit.
Then Republicans went from a nomination on September 29th, 2020, to a confirmation on October 26th, 2020, of Amy Coney Barret, who I'm sure is eminently qualified for the position.
Less than a month.
The Supreme Court is effectively meaningless as an institution attempting to maintain a facade of impartiality.
The "system" as it once existed is gone now. Republicans have been waging a war on public institutions for decades and they've won. It's over.
Attempting to continue to play by the old rules doesn't do anything but multiply the effectiveness of the grift.
That's not an obligation, it's a tradition, and someone with his history and debts would never be given classified information. If he wins it's inescapable, but you don't need to just blindly follow tradition when the dangers are obvious.