this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
185 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19098 readers
4001 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
 

"But there was only one question on which the vice presidency—the job for which these two men are competing—really matters. That question was whether they would certify the results of the next presidential election. And on that subject, Vance gave a non-answer that instantly disqualifies him: He refused to acknowledge that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election.”

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io 69 points 1 month ago (1 children)

TL/DR from the article: "In short, Vance made it clear that he believed 1) Congress could second-guess and override election results submitted by states; 2) politicians, not judges, should decide these matters; and 3) any scheme could be rendered presumptively constitutional by inventing a new interpretation of the Constitution. As a Yale Law grad, he surely knows better."

No question in my mind. Trump / Vance are still trying to overthrow the US government. Most of the GOP supports their efforts. January 6th was just the beginning.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 month ago

It's not a democracy if the results of elections are decided by the party in government. That's how sham elections work in dictatorships.

[–] negativenull@lemmy.world 63 points 1 month ago (2 children)

"That's a damning non-answer" -Walz

[–] CheeryLBottom@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Did Walz say that? If so, I'm sorry I missed it!

I had to switch to something else in order to not get stressed out.

[–] NoNotLikeThat@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago

Vance continues to shit his pants

[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Vance dismissed the argument that courts had already rejected Trump’s allegations of election fraud. “You can’t litigate these things judicially; you have to litigate them politically,” Vance told Douthat. “And we never had a real political debate about the 2020 election.”

It feels we have done both of these things every single day since that damn election....

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's crazy to argue that the result of a dispute about objective numbers between two biased parties should be decided not by a third party, the courts, but by the politicians from those two parties.

[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

It is entertaining to see that even with all Mitch McConnell's stolen court picks, they still can't even win any cases pertaining to the election.

I'm not secure in thinking it will pass another go around though. I hope this election is pretty decisive.

[–] shplane@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

The party of law and order says we can’t let the courts decide these things. Color me shocked.

[–] mipadaitu@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

Q: Would you have certified the election results had you been vice president?
Vance: If I had been vice president, I would have told the states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia, and so many others, that we needed to have multiple slates of electors. And I think the U.S. Congress should have fought over it from there.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago

The Bulwark - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Bulwark:

MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-one-question-that-mattered-in-the-vp-debate-vance-walz
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support