• Neato@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Fuck yeah. Probably won’t go anywhere with a traitorous house majority but it’s worth it to try and get them on the record.

      • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        The term corruption doesn’t even begin to cover it. The man is a paid actor. A rubber stamp for republican party political positions.

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          He needs to do a one-on-one interview where he explains himself. The American people are demanding it.

        • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Check out the excellent podcast “Behind the Bastards”’s episodes on Clarence if you haven’t already. They’re amazing. (And horrifying)

  • tisktisk@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Wasn’t trump impeached twice? What does this even mean concretely?
    Not knocking the sentiment, just questioning the practicality

    • Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Unfortunately it means as much as it did for the Trump impeachments. There is zero chance any, let alone enough, Republicans would vote to convict these conservative judges regardless of the evidence and validity of the charge(s).

    • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Without getting too technical, and someone please correct anything that may be represented incorrectly: It’s basically like a trial. The House is the plaintiff, prosecutor, and jury and the Senate is the judge.

      The House gathers / presents evidence and tries them then renders a verdict (Impeachment)

      The Senate is responsible for sentencing or acquitting.

      In both of Trump’s, the House found him guilty of the charges but the Republican controlled Senate acquitted him.

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Impeachment is the decision to press charges, and the Senate trial is closer to the actual trial.

        “Charged and convicted” -> “impeached and convicted”

        Otherwise a perfectly good analogy. :)

        The distinction only matters for people who bring up due process concerns. The impeachment proceedings aren’t actually a trial, but a decision to have one, as such you aren’t obligated to the same ability to speak in your own defense as you would be at a proper trial. With the Senate trial there’s more expectation of due process because it’s an actual trial.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Gives Dem voters something to rally around in the lead up to the election…

      Like. This is literally the time and place for performative actions, but I swear it’s like everyone’s forgot what the word “campaign” means.

    • finley@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Put simply, an impeachment happens in the House of Representatives and is akin to an indictment by Grand Jury. If successful, the proceeding then moves to the Senate for trial, where the party is either convicted or acquitted. A conviction would mean removal from office and the possibility of facing criminal charges.

      Trump was impeached twice, but he was not convicted either time.

      • balderdash@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Also good to note that the Constitution doesn’t mandate the Senate convict the president under any circumstance other than treason.

    • S_204@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      It means nothing. It’s political theatre to distract from the party’s current issues.

  • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I wish there was a way to get rid of corrupt judges at the highest level that wasn’t a political process. I never understood the lifetime appointments anyway. It hasn’t done anything to keep them from being partisan.

    • Delusional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yeah here we have clearly obviously openly corrupt judges deciding on the biggest decisions of the land and nothing can seemingly be done to fix it. The system is broken.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      The American founders didn’t have good understanding of civil service type stuff back then. Coming from Britain there was a bureaucracy but if I’m remembering my history right it was mostly staffed by nobles who needed jobs and the overriding concern was that money should keep coming into the government. Especially from the colonies. This was actually part of the reason we ended up in a war for our independence. It may not have gone differently with a direct line, but we had to go through the undersecretary to the undersecretary to communicate with the British government. Which effectively made sure our concerns were never heard by the King until we petitioned him directly. Then he consulted his top advisor who also had not heard any concerns previously and they concluded the petition was worthless. To which we decided property destruction was the answer and cue the escalations.

      So what our founders wanted was an independent civil service, but they had no idea how to make one. They only knew about patronage systems. And the one lethal blow to any patronage system is to say you can hold this position for as long as you want, as long as you’re not corrupt. They knew it wasn’t perfect. And they openly said we should be holding Constitutional Conventions on the regular to improve on things like this. For the record the two competing models are to lean into partisanship and hold elections, or run the judiciary as a technocracy with limited sovereignty. So the judges would actually figure out the supreme court and lower courts themselves in that system. Much like our military does now.

      Both of those systems have their pros and cons but importantly, none of them stop determined ideological assaults on the institution. By the time you are hiring people it is too late to stop that. They’ve already been indoctrinated and they aren’t going to tell the truth about it publicly. (For example all the judges that overturned Roe v Wade, said it was settled law or something similar in their confirmation hearings. Then they flipped the literal second they had the majority on an abortion case.) You have to stop indoctrination at the source, in education. Which is why there’s such a huge push by conservative Christians to destroy public schools.

      Anyways that’s probably more than you wanted. TL;DR is it was the best system they had at the time, and they could not have foreseen fuckery like capping congress which obliterated the idea of actually representing the local views in a national body.

    • deltapi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      There is. It’s illegal and it’s illegal to advocate for it, and it’s illegal to encourage someone else to do it. So I don’t wouldn’t do it, I don’t talk about it except in vague terms, and I don’t think you should do it either.

      • sparkle@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        Cymraeg
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        but… the declaration of independence says we have a duty to do it! Surely the founding fathers would approve…

  • megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I doubt this will go very far with the red controlled house. But I’m happy to have something new to occupy the news cycle other than bucking about switching candidates.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    If you’re going to do the thing with replacing Biden as the candidate, you couldn’t get better than AOC, who will be 35 before November.

    I personally think replacing Biden this late is a bad move even though I already think Biden sucks. But I grit my teeth and voted for the fucker just like I did with Clinton, because the alternative is literally insanity and fascism. I just don’t realsitically seeing the party coalesce around anyone new at the last minute. Organizing Democrats is like herding cats, being a big tent party sucks noodles.

    • Ghostface@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Just keep repeating, Biden may not be the best, but his administration has been fantastic!

      In comparison to the other party… Not just Biden you are voting for the administration. Supreme court justices Which affect everyday life!

      • balderdash@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Good domestic policy. Bad foreign policy. Or have we all collectively forgot about the wars?

        • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          have we all collectively forgot about the wars?

          The wars that he didn’t start? The wars that the aggressors are ignoring what Biden demands?

          The ones where Trump is buddy-buddy with those ordering war crimes?

          Those wars?

          • balderdash@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Israel in particular, yes. Before the debate everyone was criticizing Biden for continuing to financially support a genocide.

            But I guess nobody cares about Palestine now.

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Exactly this. So the party doesn’t do what I would personally prefer. I still prefer whatever the fuck they’re doing over outright fascism.

      • Bluetreefrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        He knows how to delegate to people who are smarter than him. He also knows the importance of ‘tone at the top’ in getting the best out of his team. This is what makes him the better candidate.

    • balderdash@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Guess we’ll have to wait and see. If Biden stays in and young people don’t show up to vote, everyone will blame voters and not the DNC; even though the entire argument for Biden is his supposed electability.

      We’re in such dangerous waters right now that we might as well throw caution to the wind and try to get a woman elected POTUS. At least that would energize the base.

      • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Wow, that is exactly the opposite expectation and take from me. If young people don’t show up to vote, I expect they’ll blame the DNC instead of themselves, even though the purpose of voting is getting the best outcome for your future and not about liking people or being sold on a brand.

      • MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        She’s more ready than Trump is who was already “president.”

        That said, I would rather her be in Congress longer because she can be a voice longer. After 8 years of being president if elected, she wouldn’t then want to become a senator or whatever. That would pretty much be it for her in politics outside of ex-president things… and she’d only be 43.

        I’m also sure Kamala would be pissed if AOC were to get the nom instead of her. Not that that matters.

      • balderdash@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Shhh, don’t mention other countries. Nothing to see here, just keep listening to the establishment democrats telling us anything other than Biden is impossible. And then four years from now the fight for democracy will continue.

    • Count042@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’ve seen this criticism of replacing Biden often recently “it’s too late! We won’t have time!”

      Putting aside for the moment that it isn’t late at all and complaints that it is feel like talking points, Biden IS old. The stats on someone his age dying that year are extremely high. There is a good chance he dies before the election.

      If there isn’t a plan to deal with that fairly likely possibility, then there isn’t a plan to win.

      Anyone in a position of power in the DNC making this claim is them confessing their own incompetence.

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Hey man I’ve been dealing with the shitty outcomes of the politicians who lead this party being unwilling to listen to the public until well after the public has been proven right for my entire adult life.

        I said Biden was too old in 2020. He’s even too older now. The party didn’t give a fuck and has spent their time hiding it and fucking us out of having primaries.

        Who do you think will choose the new candidate? The same super delegates who gave us Hillary Clinton? It won’t be a people’s vote at the convention, it will be delegates, many of which are party apparatchiks.

        Do you think the people who hid Biden’s issues this late in the game will suddenly make a good choice? I don’t. The party fucked into this position and I do not think they are capable of unfucking us, sorry. Biden is who we have, alive or dead.

          • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Hey I’m not the one pretending that the same people who fucked this up can save us. That’s you. I’m just accepting where we’re at.

            You gotta be naive if you think the party is going to hand the reigns to the people now after *checks notes… about thirty years of this shit.

            But sure, have the party replace Biden with another fucking loser just like him, we’ll see how that goes.

  • SquishyPandaDev@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’m sure the Democrats will put a stop to this. Since Supreme Leader Biden has no issues with the way the Supreme Court is acting

    • Crikeste@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Would you like the capitalist who used to say the n word or the capitalist who used to say the n word? Please participate in democracy 🥺🥺🥺🥺 lmao

    • derpgon@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Oh it is a democracy, but not “direct democracy”. We don’t choose what happens, we just choose who decides what happens.

      Those in power bribe, threaten, and lie, and we can’t do shit about it because the actual hood guys end due to harassment or threats and can’t deal with it psychologically.

      • finestnothing@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Oh it is a democracy, but not “direct democracy”. We don’t choose what happens, we just choose who decides what happens.

        Still not a democracy, you just described a Republic, which is what we’ve always officially been even if die hard patriots prefer to say democracy

        Those in power bribe, threaten, and lie, and we can’t do shit about it because the actual hood guys end due to harassment or threats and can’t deal with it psychologically.

        Plutocracy in action

        • sparkle@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          Cymraeg
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          It’s a Republican Democracy… a Democratic Federal Republic… whatever you want to call it, point is it’s both a Republic and a Democracy. They’re not mutually exclusive categories. In fact, most categories you can use to describe the structure/type of a government aren’t very exclusive categories. Governments are very complex and can be a lot of different things, so we have a lot of different terms (and different usages of those terms) to narrow a description down.

        • TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Oh it is a democracy, but not “direct democracy”. We don’t choose what happens, we just choose who decides what happens.

          Still not a democracy, you just described a Republic, which is what we’ve always officially been even if die hard patriots prefer to say democracy

          What are you talking about? The people electing representatives that makes the final decisions is called “representative democracy”. A republic is a form of representative democracy. A constitutional monarchy, like you find a lot of in Europe, is another form of representative democracy that fit the original description, without being republics.

        • derpgon@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Either way, society is fucked until we got nothing left but to revolt - but that will never happen, as the carrot is being dangled all the time.

        • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          I think more than a few “patriots” feel the need to point out that we’re a republic, not a democracy.

          “Democracy isn’t the objective; liberty, peace, and prosperity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that.”

          Because the idea that people should get a say is ridiculous.

          It’s figuring out how to maintain dominance with a minority of support. And so, in that sense, I think the rhetoric is really telling. It’s a way of rationalizing the further entrenchment of minority rule.

          “Too much democracy” interferes with their plans.

        • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          A democracy where people vote directly on each issue isn’t practical and would likely backfire. You want to vote for people to temporarily represent you.

          Having said that, the way the US does democracy and has been doing it for, say, the last century, is beyond my comprehension and just plain retarded. Especially since Reagan already, the elections are more about show than content, and all presidents since Reagan (that devil included) have been … Well, just dumb showmen, Obama excluded, perhaps.

          • TheLowestStone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            You’re funny. There’s nothing even remotely pro-Russia in my post history nor have I made any effort to convince anyone not to vote.

            I just think our country is fucked because of… well, pretty much everything that’s happened over the course of my life.

      • SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Ah but then you’re admitting that impeachment has shown itself to be of little effect for a (current) moment. It’s still incumbent on us as a society to hold those responsible for this accountable. And worse, it looks like somehow the impeached person is a likely prospect to become president again.