this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
567 points (95.8% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2254 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Already looking ahead to the turmoil his re-election could cause, Donald Trump and his allies are reportedly circling an idea to invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day in office, deploying the military to act as domestic law enforcement.

According to a Washington Post report on Sunday, the drafting of such plans has largely been “unofficially outsourced” thus far to a coalition of right-wing think tanks working under the title “Project 2025.” It was identified as an immediate priority for the hypothetical resurrected Trump administration, internal communications obtained by the newspaper showed.

In response to questions from the Post, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung provided a statement: “President Trump is focused on crushing his opponents in the primary election and then going on to beat Crooked Joe Biden,” he said. “President Trump has always stood for law and order, and protecting the Constitution.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jonne@infosec.pub 49 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Unfortunately the game isn't to win the popular vote, it's to win the electoral vote. You can rack up all the votes in California and New York, it's only like 6 states that really matter to the outcome. And the Democrats aren't exactly trying their best to endear themselves to voters in a state like Michigan (not even paying lip service to doing anything to protect civilians in Gaza, not prosecuting the people responsible for the Flint Water Crisis and even accepting their endorsement, constantly claiming the economy is great while people are still struggling, ...).

Those people might not vote Trump, but they'll stay home or vote third party.

[–] III@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which in itself is a vote for Trump. I wish we were a society where voting for your personal choice for most ideal candidate was a viable option - but it is not. Protesting a vote over this fact is small-minded and destructive. I am sorry if you feel like you have to pick between two evils... might I suggest comparing how evil they are.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Don't tell me, I'm not the one voting/not voting in swing states. I'm just saying that Biden needs the Muslim vote in swing states, and they're seeing democrats sending billions to Israel to effectively conduct a genocide. I don't think they see that as a 'lesser of two evils', especially if there's some Republicans making noises about stopping aid on budgetary grounds.

[–] BillDaCatt@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

Trump lost Michigan in 2020 and then in 2022 Gretchen Whitmer (D) won a second term as Governor. Also in 2022, both the Michigan State Legislature and Michigan State Senate flipped to Democratic majorities for the first time in over a decade. I don't know how things will go in 2024, but I don't think flying the Trump banner will find any significant wins in Michigan.

I agree that more needs to be done regarding the civilians in Gaza and the West Bank, but our hands are a pretty tied because of our obligations in the US treaty with Israel. Keeping those promises makes helping the Palestinian people very difficult, but breaking that treaty would likely destabilize the balance of power there and make things worse not better for everyone in the region. US Secretary of State Blinken has already strongly urged Israel to avoid civilian casualties. If Governor Whitmer said anything on the matter it would probably be seen as speaking out of turn.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago

it's only like 6 states that really matter to the outcome.

Not technically true. There are only like 6 states that are big enough to have a large impact and not predictable enough to not already know who they'll vote for.

CA is nearly 20% of the needed electoral votes by itself, it's just that absolutely everyone knows those are going to go to the Democrats so no one really fights over them. It's a waste of resources for Dems to defend them or GOP to try to convert them because they aren't going to budge.

If CA or NY went red, or even came meaningfully close to going red, they would be the most important state in the election.