|
https://twitter.com/deanbphillips/status/1764331778506883560 NYT Nate must immediately retire, there's no way back from here
|
# ? Mar 3, 2024 21:57 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 08:33 |
|
B B posted:They're literally facilitating a genocide. You don't have to pretend they're kicking puppies when Biden circumvented Congress to provide Israel with ammunition they used to turn children into mist.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2024 21:58 |
|
B B posted:They're literally facilitating a genocide. You don't have to pretend they're kicking puppies when Biden circumvented Congress to provide Israel with ammunition they used to turn children into mist. Source? The vast majority of bombings and killings happened with equipment that Israel had pre-October 7. Given what happened on October 7, Israel was always going to respond in the way they did. Not sure why you don't believe him when BiBi says "No one is going to stop us. Not The Hague, not anyone." Now, why did October 7 happen? Well, if you believe Iran: quote:The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) says the October 7 attack by Hamas on Israel was a retaliatory action for the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. Trump's policies and actions directly led to the Hamas attack, which led directly to 31k dead Palestinians. You can no doubt add ripping up the Iran nuclear treaty to this list, as well as Trump recognizing and egging on the settlements. I'm not going to ask you who you voted for in 2016, but I hope that you're not suggesting that your fellow posters to give the failed Trump policies that led to 31k dead Palestinians another try.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2024 21:59 |
|
Killer robot posted:As with opposing fascists themselves, it's important to argue against other people you won't convince because the argument isn't to convince them but rather the other people they would otherwise be working to convince unopposed. I guarantee you, everyone here already has their mind made up on whether or not they're going to vote for Biden. Acebuckeye13 posted:Well it's a lot easier to shitpost at work, for one thing. Fair enough, can't argue with that.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2024 22:08 |
|
small butter posted:Source? AP posted:The Biden administration once again bypasses Congress on an emergency weapons sale to Israel Al Jazeera posted:US to send weapons to Israel amid invasion threat in Gaza’s Rafah: Report
|
# ? Mar 3, 2024 22:12 |
|
I am probably going to eat a probe for this but it feels like the people who were never going to vote for the Democrats and Joe Biden never want to acknowledge anything good a Democratic President does because that would mean having to acknowledge that progress can be made under the Democratic Party. All one has to do is look at BIF or the IRA and see that it's like 70% of the Green New Deal. Or the fact that they are doing loan forgiveness, or insulin price cost reductions, or having the government negotiate certain drug prices via Medicare and Medicaid. I am not saying that any of this means that is was enough or is a panacea but it's progress. I agree the American government should stop providing lethal aid to Israel but it also denies the agency of the Israeli government and so we have the thing happening. People who never had intentions to vote for Biden or the Democrats coming in here saying this it's the fault of the Democrats. It comes across as the people who vote Libertarian because they don't want to be seen supporting mainstream politics because they are just so much smarter than all of us. I am not saying you have to vote for the Democratic party, do what you want but it's tiring to argue with people who have no intention to see what Biden did domestically in two years go, nah that doesn't count because I don't feel it counts.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2024 22:23 |
|
small butter posted:Source? lmao (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Mar 3, 2024 22:48 |
|
I think we've had enough "who should you vote for" chat here for today.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2024 22:57 |
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:I think we've had enough "who should you vote for" chat here for today. I vote for this guy
|
# ? Mar 3, 2024 23:08 |
|
Staluigi posted:I vote for this guy I don't think Jeb Bush is running for anything this year.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2024 23:10 |
|
Shooting Blanks posted:I don't think Jeb Bush is running for anything this year. If only we'd clapped...
|
# ? Mar 3, 2024 23:16 |
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:I think we've had enough "who should you vote for" chat here for today. I vote for Cohen over here.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2024 23:16 |
|
B B posted:According to the WSJ, the US has provided roughly 21,000 precision-guided munitions to Israel since the start of the war last October. It said the remaining weapons are enough to sustain 19 weeks of bombing Gaza, but that would shrink to days if Israel also launches a full assault on Lebanon, where it has been engaged in border fighting with Hezbollah. You've made my point. The article that you posted talked about the Biden admin bypassing Congress twice to send military aid to Israel. The first package, from the beginning of December, provided tank shells to Israel. The second package from the end of December was much more robust, with the 21,000 precision-guided munitions that you highlighted. By the end of December, before a single post-October 7 precision-guided munition made its way to Israel, 22k Palestinians had already died, hence my original point: small butter posted:The vast majority of bombings and killings happened with equipment that Israel had pre-October 7. So to get back to my question to you: are you suggesting that we continue Trump's failed policies that led to all of the destruction that you're seeing now?
|
# ? Mar 3, 2024 23:29 |
|
small butter posted:You've made my point. Here's an article from December 2nd, which indicates that Israel had received much more than "tank shells" from the U.S. by the time that 15,000 Gazans were dead: Al Jazeera posted:US sends ‘bunker buster’ bombs to Israel for war on Gaza, report says Since this article was published, at least another 15,000 Palestinians have died. Split hairs all you want, but Biden has absolutely played an active role in the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza. He's provided material support, directed his administration to veto three separate ceasefire resolutions at the U.N., personally denied the number of Gazans that have died, refused to place any kind of conditions on U.S. support for Israel, and continues to allow his administration to gaslight the public about the ethnic cleansing. In short: my original point that Joe Biden is helping to facilitate a genocide is true. B B fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Mar 4, 2024 |
# ? Mar 4, 2024 00:05 |
|
B B posted:In short: my original point that Joe Biden is helping to facilitate a genocide is true. Oh absolutely, of course. It's plainly obvious; Biden is president now, when America is sending billions and giving Israeli genocide significant support. Saying "Trump's failed policies that led to all of the destruction that you're seeing now" is giving the game away and trying to pin America's current shameful conduct on the former president. The President behind the desk gets the blame and the credit under his watch, that's just how this American system works. But beyond that, Biden is taking an active role in supporting, funding, and defending genocide and it goes without saying that a significant portion of the buck stops with him.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2024 01:06 |
|
small butter posted:Now, why did October 7 happen? Well, if you believe Iran: FWIW, the President believes October 7 happened because of something he was planning to do. I suspect he doesn't believe Iran's explanation (will ask at our next 1-on-1): Remarks by President Biden at the U.S. Conference of Mayors Winter Meeting | The White House www.whitehouse.gov - Fri, 19 Jan 2024 posted:If we walk away — if we walk away and Russia is able to sustain their onslaught and bring down Ukraine, what do you think is going to happen in the Balkan countries? What do you think is going to happen from Poland to Hungary and Orbán? I mean, seriously, think about it. It changes the dynamic, magnifi- — He's expressed this more than once; this is just one of the times.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2024 01:44 |
|
There's been a lot of chatter about a full normalization of relations between Israel and the holdouts (Saudi Arabia). It's been part of many ceasefire proposals and the fear of it probably is part of why Hamas was driven to act as aggressively as they did.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2024 01:57 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:Also, judging from how Biden's presidency has gone, a measure like that would result in basically no gains in approval or popularity. Because Biden did (or at least attempted) a whole bunch of other radical stuff that pushed the limits of his presidential powers in order to help a ton of people, and barely anybody at all gives a flying gently caress about those unprecedented progressive accomplishments, no matter how many people were helped by them! For all the amazing poo poo Biden did, poo poo that I thought no Democratic president would ever dare to do, barely anyone appreciates it. At some point, we need to acknowledge that maybe leftist policy isn't the key to electoral success after all, instead of explaining away every failed progressive politician as being the progressive's fault for not being progressive enough. This, this, this all day. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Mar 4, 2024 02:40 |
|
B B posted:Here's an article from December 2nd, which indicates that Israel had received much more than "tank shells" from the U.S. by the time that 15,000 Gazans were dead: Thanks for that - the original article stated otherwise. I stand by my original point, though - Israel maintains a large stockpile of weapons, including nukes, that was enough to level Gaza without any additional aid, which is a process that started before any new shells were shipped, opened, and fired. Edit: had Israel expended its entire stockpile to level Gaza, America and even Europe would have rushed into to arm Israel if it looked like they wouldn't have enough weapons to defend themselves against a counterattack from Hamas, Hezbollah, or others. B B posted:Split hairs all you want, but Biden has absolutely played an active role in the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza. He's provided material support, directed his administration to veto three separate ceasefire resolutions at the U.N., personally denied the number of Gazans that have died, refused to place any kind of conditions on U.S. support for Israel, and continues to allow his administration to gaslight the public about the ethnic cleansing. My quibble isn't about whether or not Biden is facilitating a genocide. Israel would have always done what it did as a response to October 7, with America's help or not. But the sequence of events that led to October 7 are due to Trump's actions and policies, or at the very least, likely played a major role in it. I responded to you after you responded to Main Paineframe who said: Main Paineframe posted:If acknowledging the actual real-life good things Democrats do conflicts with your desire to see them as puppy-kicking villains, it sounds like the problem there might be with you rather than with the Dems. You obviously don't want to acknowledge the good that Democrats have done. The corollary to this is that you're also not acknowledging that the reason why we're even having a conversation about Palestinian genocide is due to Republican policies. Of course, this gets into electoralism, and you often pop in to scream "genocide!" at people who encourage voting against the person who set all of these events into motion in the first place. FistEnergy posted:Oh absolutely, of course. It's plainly obvious; Biden is president now, when America is sending billions and giving Israeli genocide significant support. Saying "Trump's failed policies that led to all of the destruction that you're seeing now" is giving the game away and trying to pin America's current shameful conduct on the former president. The President behind the desk gets the blame and the credit under his watch, that's just how this American system works. But beyond that, Biden is taking an active role in supporting, funding, and defending genocide and it goes without saying that a significant portion of the buck stops with him. It's not pinning blame away from America, who as we know elected Trump in the first place. It's absolutely true that Republican, especially Trumpian, policies led to the attack, and it's absolutely true to say that had America even peaced the gently caress out of the conflict and abandoned Israel, you would have still seen the same immense destruction in Gaza. I think a lot of people haven't come to terms with how terrible the October 7 attack was and how Israel was guaranteed to respond in the way that it did. Sorry, but suggesting that Democrats are villains (compared to who?) is just accelerationist nonsense that got us here now. mawarannahr posted:FWIW, the President believes October 7 happened because of something he was planning to do. I suspect he doesn't believe Iran's explanation (will ask at our next 1-on-1): I believe Biden when he says that "one of the reasons Hamas did what they did" was because the US was normalizing relations with Saudi Arabia (which also probably would have happened under Trump). This probably has more to do with the timing of the attack than the actual planning of the attack, which supposedly goes back years. I also believe Iran when they say that the assassination of Soleimani was a major reason as well, which, if you remember, Trump said was a response to Iran planning attacks on American troops, which was due to Trump aggravating Iran throughout his presidency including by ripping up the nuclear deal. Let's not forget everything else that was done to aggravate the Palestinians themselves - stopping aid to Palestine in 2018, recognizing the Golan Heights, moving the embassy, encouraging more settlements, proposing a terrible peace deal, etc. None of these things would have happened under Clinton and Biden is on record criticizing Trump when he assassinated Soleimani. small butter fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Mar 4, 2024 |
# ? Mar 4, 2024 02:44 |
|
blackmet posted:Reading this entire genocide/insulin conversation reminds me why politicians really don't bother going after leftist votes. Pretty much this. The calculus to gain votes isn't there.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2024 02:52 |
|
selec posted:The FL riot in 2000 (known as the Brooks Brothers riot) was more successful than J6, and specifically due to the class composition and practical goals of the rioters. They were people with a specific plan, which they executed, with the institutional power and organization to carry out their goals. quote:They didn’t have a single military leader pledged to lead his troops on behalf of Trump. They didn’t seize communications networks, they didn’t seize any armories or police stations, they didn’t have a plan to take key stakeholders hostage much less get them out of the Capitol so their value could be extracted properly as hostages, they didn’t have any assassinations or coordinated bombings of essential institutions set up. quote:They had literally none of the planning, coordination and organization that any previously successful coup in history has had. quote:People who think j6 came close to “succeeding” need to read any amount of history of how actual coups work. They sound like children discussing their plans to become rock stars or MLB players, or maybe a rock star who plays MLB on the weekend.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2024 03:09 |
|
It's shocking that Israel has managed to kill more civilians in just the first few months than the argentine junta managed in its nearly a decade with US support in its Dirty War. I don't think that anything to do with Israel is significantly changing the political calculus of American elections anytime soon and it's hard to overstate how little of a gently caress Americans give about dead Muslims, but it should be a big political issue because a gently caress of a lot of civilians are dying every day and there is zero question whatsoever that American support (in all of its many forms) is contributing directly to that slaughter.
Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Mar 4, 2024 |
# ? Mar 4, 2024 03:14 |
|
dadrips posted:Legality is just a question of will... (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Mar 4, 2024 03:21 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:Also, judging from how Biden's presidency has gone, a measure like that would result in basically no gains in approval or popularity. Because Biden did (or at least attempted) a whole bunch of other radical stuff that pushed the limits of his presidential powers in order to help a ton of people, and barely anybody at all gives a flying gently caress about those unprecedented progressive accomplishments, no matter how many people were helped by them! In what way have Biden's policies/initiatives/expansions of presidential powers been "radical," exactly? Can you be specific? e: quote:Biden is the most progressive president in our parents' lifetimes, In terms of domestic policy, I think LBJ would fit that description far more (obviously his foreign policy was anything but progressive, sadly). Pushing things like Medicare and the Civil Rights Act through Congress while at the head of a deeply divided party strike me as radical accomplishments. I don't see how Biden's accomplishments measure up. Majorian fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Mar 4, 2024 |
# ? Mar 4, 2024 03:29 |
|
dadrips posted:I said trump is the *only* republican I can see doing this, and only because he's suggestible enough that a Bannon-type could plant the notion that doing so would make him super popular. Which it honestly might well do Trump didn't do covid relief because a Bannon type convinced him it would win, he put Mnuchin (who Trump appointed because he's rich, and may not have actually been a Republican) in charge and didn't involve himself much. I don't think a Trump who wins in 2024 is going to appoint random rich guys to his cabinet just because they're rich again. James Garfield fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Mar 4, 2024 |
# ? Mar 4, 2024 04:12 |
|
It was also an extraordinary circumstance that hadn't been seen for roughly 100 years and required a drastic response, and Republicans still fought to make the government response shittier. That all that happened was in spite of Trump being in office, not because of it. A hypothetical response under President Clinton would probably have been just as helpful, if not more so.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2024 04:18 |
|
Majorian posted:In what way have Biden's policies/initiatives/expansions of presidential powers been "radical," exactly? Can you be specific? I know this forum is all olds now, but its entirely possible for someone parents to have been born past LBJ
|
# ? Mar 4, 2024 04:30 |
|
Professor Beetus posted:It was also an extraordinary circumstance that hadn't been seen for roughly 100 years and required a drastic response, and Republicans still fought to make the government response shittier. That all that happened was in spite of Trump being in office, not because of it. A hypothetical response under President Clinton would probably have been just as helpful, if not more so. Hypothetical President Clinton wouldn't have (or most likely wouldn't have) dismantled/fired the entire pandemic response team whose job it was to research and be ready for the next big pandemic. Something that Donald Trump did and is why, among other reasons, he bears some of the responsibility of COVID-19 becoming the pandemic it became. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Mar 4, 2024 |
# ? Mar 4, 2024 04:32 |
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:I know this forum is all olds now, but its entirely possible for someone parents to have been born past LBJ Of course it is, but MPF said "Biden is the most progressive president in our parents' lifetimes," and I'm pretty sure MPF is around my age. I'm also pretty sure most (not all) of us have parents who were born before 1969.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2024 04:37 |
|
Professor Beetus posted:It was also an extraordinary circumstance that hadn't been seen for roughly 100 years and required a drastic response, and Republicans still fought to make the government response shittier. That all that happened was in spite of Trump being in office, not because of it. A hypothetical response under President Clinton would probably have been just as helpful, if not more so. It also keeps getting buried how much the CARES act was a business handout with individual benefits added on for some populist cred (spearheaded by pushes from Congressional Democrats,) while ARPA actually focused on individual benefits and shoring up state and local governments.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2024 04:43 |
|
Majorian posted:In what way have Biden's policies/initiatives/expansions of presidential powers been "radical," exactly? Can you be specific? Attempting to extend the eviction moratorium indefinitely and attempting to eliminate student loans with the stroke of a pen both seem pretty radical even by 1960s standards. Free COVID vaccines and tests were quite something. The child tax credit expansion was a massive blow against child poverty. Unprecedented investments in environmental policy. Actions to protect gay rights and abortion. And while it's not an exercise of presidential power per se, joining a union picket line is certainly pretty radical for a president! Trying to focus the conversation specifically on what the president managed to push through Congress doesn't really make sense. It's an apples-and-watermelons comparison. While LBJ's Dems were certainly more divided than the current Dems, LBJ could afford to tolerate quite a bit of division, because Democrats had outright supermajorities in both the House and the Senate during LBJ's presidency! And not the half-assed milquetoast 60-seat "supermajorities" we talk about these days - LBJ started off the 89th Congress with Dems holding 68 Senate seats and 67% of House seats. Expecting someone with a 50/50 Senate to measure up to that is downright ridiculous.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2024 06:53 |
|
Given the thread's trajectory in the last 24 hours, I should remind everyone that D&D's purpose is interesting debate and discussion. We're meant to be a cut above the average internet comment section in terms of how likely we are to learn something. This isn't a place where an algorithm shows you what most annoys or outrages you again and again for maximum engagement. So I would ask, once again, that everyone refrain from rehashing arguments that most people reading this are sophisticated enough to be sick of, unless you have something truly novel or falsifiable to say. Knowing what would qualify as a tiresome argument can be accomplished by lurking, or as a rule of thumb, avoiding repeating talking points you heard from a pundit or social media. Related, I do intend to create an election 2024 thread where in-depth discussion of President Biden and former President Trump can occur for those who are interested, as well as discussion about campaigning, the likely outcomes of the races, etc. I'm going to have a feedback thread next weekend, so if you have any input on how the Election 2024 thread ought to be, or this thread, please wait until then or PM me.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2024 07:11 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:And it's not about what I find distasteful, it's about what the American people as a whole find distasteful. If affordable insulin was overwhelmingly popular and if the American populace placed a high political importance on it, then Biden would be more likely to be able to enforce something like that despite lacking the constitutional authority...but he wouldn't need to ignore the Constitution to do so, because such a powerful political movement would certainly affect Congress as well, voting out members who oppose affordable insulin while voting in members who support affordable insulin. Unfortunately, we have some evidence that affordable insulin doesn't have that kind of public support, because the Republicans took the House in 2022 despite voting against affordable insulin for everyone a few months before. Clearly affordable insulin isn't that much of a vote-getter after all! While the Pickthall rendition of Surah Ar-Rad is more poetic: Quran 13:10-11 posted:It is the same [to Him] concerning you whether one conceals [his] speech or one publicizes it and whether one is hidden by night or conspicuous [among others] by day. For him are angels ranged before him and behind him, who guard him by Allah's command. Lo! Allah changeth not the condition of a folk until they (first) change that which is in their hearts; and if Allah willeth misfortune for a folk there is none that can repel it, nor have they a defender beside Him. I think the Muhammad Asad (née Leopold Weiss, Jewish revert and first citizen of Pakistan) translation offers a more widespread call to action: The Message of the Quran, 13:10-11 posted:It is all alike [to Him] whether any of you conceals his thought or brings it into the open, and whether he seeks to hide [his evil deeds] under the cover of night or walks [boldly] in the light of day, [thinking that] he has hosts of helpers - both such as can be perceived by him and such as are hidden from him - that could preserve him from whatever God may have willed. His footnote, explaining why he takes a more materialist take - note that in his translation of the ayah, he doesn't assume that "things perceived and hidden" should automatically mean something supernatural: quote:Lit., "from between his hands and from behind him". As in 2:255, the expression "between his hands" denotes "something that is perceivable by him" or "evident to him", while that which is "behind him" is a metonym for something "beyond his ken" or "hidden from him". See also next note. quote:However, this interpretation has by no means the support of all the commentators. Some of the earliest ones assume that the term mu'aqqibat refers to all manner of worldly forces or concepts on which man so often relies in the mistaken belief that they might help him to achieve his aims independently of God's will: and this is the meaning given to this elliptic passage by the famous commentator Abu Muslim al-Isfahani, as quoted by Razi. Explaining verse 10 and the first part of verse 11, he says: Of course, the implication of this regarding Insulin is obvious: If we disregard this because it doesn't get votes (we don't change the conditions of people's hearts), then we will not get it. If we want change for our people, we need to change their hearts to support it. "Will this get votes?" is immaterial, because the right thing will never "get votes" until people support it. "Will being for insulin / student loans / against genocide get me votes? If not, I should put them aside." is thinking that will ensure those things never get the votes in the first place. And regardless, the people that oppose these things out of greed will have their punishment from God, and their wealth will not protect them on the day of judgment. Mormon Star Wars fucked around with this message at 07:46 on Mar 4, 2024 |
# ? Mar 4, 2024 07:43 |
|
Koos Group posted:Given the thread's trajectory in the last 24 hours, I should remind everyone that D&D's purpose is interesting debate and discussion. We're meant to be a cut above the average internet comment section in terms of how likely we are to learn something. This isn't a place where an algorithm shows you what most annoys or outrages you again and again for maximum engagement. So I would ask, once again, that everyone refrain from rehashing arguments that most people reading this are sophisticated enough to be sick of, unless you have something truly novel or falsifiable to say. Knowing what would qualify as a tiresome argument can be accomplished by lurking, or as a rule of thumb, avoiding repeating talking points you heard from a pundit or social media. I'll risk a probe by saying you alright, dog. Effort needs to be matched based on whether the poster is immersed in Gibbis, this thread, or CSPAM
|
# ? Mar 4, 2024 08:02 |
|
Scags McDouglas posted:I'll risk a probe by saying you alright, dog. Effort needs to be matched based on whether the poster is immersed in Gibbis, this thread, or CSPAM I mean ultimately the problem there is that you would need to have someone monitoring the thread constantly and consistently to actually measure said effort and enforce that rule, which to date has driven nearly all those who have tried into incurable madness.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2024 08:35 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:Attempting to extend the eviction moratorium indefinitely and attempting to eliminate student loans with the stroke of a pen both seem pretty radical even by 1960s standards. Free COVID vaccines and tests were quite something. The child tax credit expansion was a massive blow against child poverty. Unprecedented investments in environmental policy. Actions to protect gay rights and abortion. And while it's not an exercise of presidential power per se, joining a union picket line is certainly pretty radical for a president! Even Carter had 2/3 of the House and 61 Senate seats when he took office, and he was pretty poor at steering them. In part because even a decade into the party realignment there were plenty of outright conservative Dems, and it continued for years after. It was a faction Clinton had to appease in the 1990s and who fought a lot of his priorities. Even into Obama Blue Dogs were an important faction. Every "How can the Democrats be a real party if they allow someone like Manchin to join their caucus" rant is based either in total ignorance of history or a knowing lie because either party being as ideologically lined up as they are today is pretty near unprecedented. Which cuts both ways since while you need a smaller majority to get things done without crossover votes, crossover votes on anything controversial are a real hard get and a House/Senate split makes things even harder. Apples to watermelons is right: lots of things have changed in the last 50+ years, and someone pushing a bill through Congress can't follow a 1960s playbook any more than you can get a good job today by typing up your resume and burning some shoe leather downtown.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2024 09:43 |
|
"STATE'S RIGHTS! ...unless it interferes with Republicans" https://x.com/AP/status/1764668424045621500?s=20
|
# ? Mar 4, 2024 16:07 |
|
Honestly, individual states deciding who can and cannot be on the ballot seems like a nightmare.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2024 16:15 |
|
zoux posted:Honestly, individual states deciding who can and cannot be on the ballot seems like a nightmare. True but enforcement being performed after an election seems even worse. It’ll be interesting to see how exactly they explain it should work in the decision.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 08:33 |
|
zoux posted:Honestly, individual states deciding who can and cannot be on the ballot seems like a nightmare. It's a no-win situation. Democrats would have been kicked off of the ballot of every state with a GOP-controlled supreme court and legislature, probably based on some BS border control argument. It really is going to be left up to the voting public to decide whether to accept or reject Trump, sadly.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2024 16:21 |