Why so quick? I thought they would give him a few more terms before stepping in and trying literally anything...
this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
786 points (99.2% liked)
politics
21225 readers
4147 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They were going to send a strongly worded letter.
At least they're trying something finally. Better than sitting on their hands and complaining in private talks about now progressives want our representatives to do something .
Agreed. I was wondering when we were going to see some action.
A law suit! Excellent. Finally we will have this over with post haste.
Reminder to all that despite its name the FEC does not control elections. Elections are controlled by the states.
The FEC enforces campaign spending laws, but as we've all seen even lawbreakers can be elected president.
How long is it going to take Bernie, AOC et all to walk out of the Democratic Party and start their own?
That's the only solution. Hopefully some moderate Republicans do the same (create their own party), and finally America will have a democracy...
IMHO we won't have one until we adopt a European style election where we have more than 2 viable parties and the electoral college is abolished.
Yeah, even Trump took over a party and molded it to him rather than created a new one. It's not possible in a FPTP system to have more than two viable parties.
Look at Canada, that's the only reason Conservatives have had any control or power. We have one right wing party(Conservatives), and 3 on the left(liberals, new democrats and green party).
It's usually pretty close to a 35/65 split between right and left, but right wins half the time because of how fractured the left is... (currently there is a right fascist surge in Canada , just like the rest of the world, with Elons funding and Russia's electronic warfare )
It's a garbage system the last government promised to reform and didn't, which hurts them long term.
*We also have a wild card party(BQ) that just represents one province Quebecs interest's , which should be banned from federal politics, they will swap sides just to get the best deal for those specifically in their province and that goes against the spirit of the federal politics for a United nation *
I think economic reforms have to be also given the Constitution treatment. A lot of this bullshit came about because wealthy people couldn't help but engage in Gluttony, regardless of the true cost and consequences. Elon simply wasn't satisfied with his 'meagre' level of wealth, and is arranging to murder the poor for the sake of running up a high score.
We need the wealthy, as we know them, to simply cease to exist, while giving UBI to everyone so that even the poorest can skip work to engage in politics. Too much or too little money is dangerous, because it rigs society to favor the very few.
Without economic changes, this crap will simply happen again.
You had me until you said "moderate republicans".
That's just a standard Democrat like Pelosi.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Bernie has never been a Democrat, except when he ran for president.
How long is it going to take Bernie, AOC et all to walk out of the Democratic Party and start their own?
Hopefully less than 2 years.
That's not going to work.
What he's REALLY BEEN doing is changing the power balance, which used to be Legislative, Executive, and Judicial with Judicial having final say in most things by ruling on their constitutionality, and elevating the Executive branch. He will ignore judicial rulings as they "don't apply" to his office.
That's not going to work either. It's a bad idea to openly defy judges, because they can easily drain your bank account.
You'll note that even now, Trump lawyers claim they are doing their best to comply with court orders.
Assuming the rule of law is respected
Judges can drain bank accounts of those who don't respect rule of law. That's kind of the point of draining their bank account.
Does the judge have a computer with a button on it that says drain? What's the process, and can that process be disrupted?
I'm being quite serious.
I answered this elsewhere, but the upshot is that banks treat court orders like checks drawn from your account. Once they are signed, there isn't any good way to stop the funds from being withdrawn.
I keep hearing arguments like this, and I'd love to be reassured by them, but they come after watching Trump receive 34 felony convictions with no actual punishment for those convictions, after which he was elected President of the United States of America. It also comes after watching a 4 year long failure to attach (or even try to attach) any consequences to him for Jan 06.
So, you'll forgive me if I'll wait until I hear about bank accounts being drained and that it has any measurable impact on the rate of progress at https://www.project2025.observer/ before I lull myself back into to believing Trump is in any way not untouchable.
There are a lot of things the system can do to stop something like this. So far it's not doing very many of them.
but they come after watching Trump receive 34 felony convictions with no actual punishment for those convictions
Yeah, well, blame the courts for sentencing him to "Never mind, we cool bro."
any consequences to him for Jan 06.
That gets tricky. The core argument would be that Trump's speech before the attack is firmly within his 1A rights (and it almost certainly is, 1A speech rights are extremely broad and anything short of a direct call to immediate lawless action is usually protected) and that his not doing anything to stop it once it started is him doing a shit job, but not technically illegal (but hypothetically impeachable, if both houses would agree to it which was never going to happen).
You'd have to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he planned for J6 to happen the way it did in a fashion that is definitely not attached to his duties as president in any even vaguely reasonable way to have anything to hang on him at all without an impeachment. Something like hard evidence of him coordinating specifically the attack on the capitol (as opposed to the rally or march to the capitol steps) with the people entering the capitol or their leadership and not merely an otherwise legal protest/rally. Which is a high bar to reach.
I don't mean this to sound argumentative, but every time I make a statement like you replied to I feel like no one gets what I'm saying.
I understand there are reasons things take awhile. I understand our justice system is supposed to be set up that the state needs to make a solid case.
I also understand that Trump has managed to fall through every loophole in every layer of our justice system so far, and avoided any consequences that would cause him actual financial hardship, any sort of punishment whatsoever for his 34 felonies, and any kind of consequences for Jan 06.
So, NOW, when he's at the height of his power, I take no comfort from how our justice system can or should or might work. I will take comfort when I see it actually doing something to meaningfully impede Donald Trump and Elon Musk, which so far I have not seen.
load more comments
(9 replies)
load more comments
(18 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Trump’s order feels like Watergate déjà vu—election rules must remain bipartisan and independent. Minus one for focusing solely on one perspective.
😾😾😾😾
I didn't even hear of this executive order. That just lays it out clearly all the steps he's taking to seize power in the US undemocratically.
So they win, and give Krasnov a stern warning. Then what? Another lawsuit?
If they win, the FEC won't take directions from Trump.
This does not exclude the chance that Trump will provoke a more pointed confrontation. Or that Trump won't eventually have to be removed by force. It's just a basic thing to do - a road of 1000 steps starts with step 1.
view more: next ›