this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
227 points (93.2% liked)

politics

18651 readers
3710 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Given the current state of partisan polarization, it’s unlikely Biden can get majority job approval next year even with the most fortunate set of circumstances. But the good news for him is that he probably doesn’t have to. Job-approval ratings are crucial indicators in a normal presidential reelection cycle that is basically a referendum on the incumbent’s record. Assuming Trump is the Republican nominee, 2024 will not be a normal reelection cycle for three reasons.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago (10 children)

Why does anyone presume that his opponent will be the orange guy? If he hasn't keeled over with hamberders and buckets of KFC, he still has 91 felonies hanging over his head. He likely will be imprisoned, or disqualified by then.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Why does anyone presume that his opponent will be the orange guy?

Because he's winning the primaries now by some distance, it's not illegal for him to run from prison and at least one state court has already decided that he did engage in an insurrection but that that doesn't disqualify him either.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I thought they decided that he did but that didn't disqualify him.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Here I am thinking they decided that he did but that didn't disqualify him.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What are you implying? That they decided he did but that didn't disqualify him?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Listen, I'm not sure where you get your news, but what I'm reading is that they decided he did, but that didn't disqualify him.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Found the typical Lemmy user! Always reading things and then thinking about things before commenting on things. You need to go back and re-read what you were reading when you read that, because it's clear that they decided he did, but that didn't disqualify him.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Well for starters a lot of his full trial dates are being set for after the primaries

They're basically trying to take what comy did to Clinton and dial it to 11

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Speaking of which, the Russian emails, had presumably classified information. The rules over classified documents are to never comment about them, because any information released is another clue about what is contained in actual classified documents. This left Clinton in a limbo of not being able to defend herself, while being smeared. Comey, believed the emails, until they were fully investigated and well after the election. We didn't hear about the planted parts, one way or the other, because of those same security rules. I DO remember the US security council trying to limit damage after Trump was elected.

The GOP has a choice of whom to run. I assume there will be a way that will be found, for them to switch candidates, if Trump is in prison, Even if it occurs in the window between his winning the primary, and election, they will find a way. It may even be to their advantage, as the new candidate receives Trumps blessing and gives Trump clemency.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Russian emails? Are you thinking of the Wikileaks stuff, with the hacked data from Clinton's campaign staffers? I am pretty sure those are different and separate from the emails that Comey was investigating for the FBI.

There are two "Hilary's emails" stories. It is easy to confuse the two -- Republicans worked very hard throughout 2016 to make it easy to confuse the two -- yet they are two different series of events and almost totally unrelated to one another.

The original "Buttery Males" story: Comey and the FBI investigated emails that were stored on a private server owned by the Clinton Foundation, a server that Hilary had used for official business while serving as Secretary of State. In July of 2016, Comey announced that while they did find a small number of documents marked "classified" stored on the server, this violation was obviously inadvertent and should not be prosecuted. "Sloppy but not criminal," or something like that. Then later in October (after taking a few months of heat from his fellow Republicans for not going after Clinton harder) Comey announced that there may be files on a laptop owned by Hilary's assistant, Huma Abedin, that the FBI had not yet had a chance to review. Comey announced this privately to a congressional committee and it was leaked almost instantly, about a week before election day.

The "From Russia with Love" email story: Meanwhile, Russian hackers infiltrated Hilary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and stole thousands of personal emails and other data from her staffers and people they'd communicated with. None of these emails were classified and the FBI never investigated the Clinton campaign in this case (except as the victims of a crime). Wikileaks and Julian Assange got in on the action and built up lots of hype. That's when, in the middle of a campaign speech, Trump made his famous on-stage plea: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."

Trump was clever, mendaciously associating the original "classified documents on your private server" controversy with the "Russia stole your data and is about to release it on Wikileaks" controversy, but the two stories don't really have anything to do with one another, at all, and they never really did.


It may even be to their advantage, as the new candidate receives Trumps blessing and gives Trump clemency.

I also have been wondering what the race will look like in six months, when all this speculation about Trump's trials (and potential prison time?) will be upon us for real.

Legally (so far at least) they say Trump can run from prison. If he were to win, as POTUS he'd have many options available to clear his name, dismiss his accusers, and attack his opponents.

I don't think Trump will give another candidate his endorsement, even from prison. If he does, it won't be without that other candidate publicly swearing fealty and promising to grant clemency, as you say. The way I see it, any candidate who'd be willing to do that will look weak and subservient, and probably look worse than Trump's going to look, even from prison, by the time they get to the general election.

I think the only way another candidate wins the GOP nomination is by taking it from Trump -- not by Trump lending it out to them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Good points. A sycophant will rail about how unfair the partisan attacks have been against Trump. They will right this grievous wrong, and will pardon Trump. Anything less is akin to leaving a fallen warrior behind.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

The GOP would never go against whomever wins the primary and he is facing state level charges as well as federal.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago

I wish I had your optimism.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

He shouldn't have been the nominee in 2016, either. It's not safe to assume anything at this point.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

The Russian playbook of getting dirt to smear an opponent did not work when the Biden hard drive was shown to be Russian sourced. Gulianni's provider is charged as being a foreign agent, as of a week or so ago.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Most of those won't go to trial until after the election, and the courts have shown zero desire to actually punish him in a meaningful way. I will be very surprised if he is not the candidate

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Yeah it would be surprising, it would also upend the entire democratic election strategy so not planning for that outcome is still a risk. Biden is a huge liability if anyone but trump comes out to rep the gop.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Most of those won’t go to trial until after the election

Literally every trial begins before the election.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

You really think Trump will serve any time? If it were anyone else I might agree. Can't wait to see how this plays out.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

I'm old and cynical, but my opinion is that Trump will never go to prison. That is a pipe dream.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

Why does anyone presume that his opponent will be the orange guy?

Why do you assume that he will suddenly begin seeing proportionate consequences for his actions in the next 12 months when it's never once happened in his life before this point?

I agree with your disposition toward him and admire and envy your optimism...I just don't share it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

I'm hoping for Christie