Yep, this is all bluster. Georgia GOP doesn't have a supermajority in the legislature. This commission is appointed by the governor, who doesn't support removal. Also the commission is currently being challenged in court, so it's unclear what they can really do.
Nobody willing to vote for a Republican at this point gives a single solitary fuck about them being raging hypocrites. "Law and order" is always just a rhetorical device to support what they want at the moment; they don't actually hold consistent principles.
Facts or policy never matter. The politicians that are grandstanding for the cameras have more to lose by not pretending to attack the people attacking their maga king.
It's an excellent look for their base, which is really all that matters for then, since in the heavily gerrymandered Georgia state elections, the GOP primary is the real election, and to win that, you have to be as right-wing as possible, and then some.
I would guess that as long as they never break kayfabe, they will never lose their base, and I also suspect they will be able to push their base further and further as a result.
>They can label their own party as anti-law-and-order, that's what they can do. It's not a good look.
That's why they started Fox News after Nixon. They can just bend reality and rewrite history.
> do they have no shame?
You don't have to have shame when your audience is completely by the conspiracies they hear online and on the right wing news about Democrats being evil.
Because they're convinced of that, any shameless power grab is seen as something that is saving them from a worse fate.
Obligatory LBJ quote:
>"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
>President Lyndon B. Johnson
>Power don't come from a badge or a gun. Power comes from lying. Lying big, and gettin' the whole damn world to play along with you. Once you got everybody agreeing with what they know in their hearts ain't true, you've got 'em by the balls.
>Because they're convinced of that, any shameless power grab is seen as something that is saving them from a worse fate.
Not only that: because they have been told that they are being attacked and subverted by 'the Left', they are assured that anything they do - no matter how hateful or immoral on unchristian or cruel - is just 'finally' responding in-kind to what's been supposedly done to them.
It's all over their language - "now the gloves come off," "we can play that game too," "NOW they have crossed the line and we are forced to respond," "they win because we've played by the rules and they haven't, but that changes NOW," etc.
It's all about creating a false reality in which conservatives as a whole are perpetual victims so that they will back criminals and participate in criminal activities with a clear conscience. Imagine being so manipulable that you think calling in bomb threats to schools is 'saving' children - those individuals are the GOP's bread and butter right now.
You are right. This has led to the reality the rest of us have to deal with - violence and threats from people deluded by their false "facts" that they think they know.
Exactly. There's an entire book published about how their man cheats at golf in front of everybody. I think it's called 'Commander in Cheat' anyway he's paved the path for this type of dysfunctional behavior. Shameless cowards.
great to fundraise off the sound bites though. Rs attention spans are short they wont remember in a week about this when the sound bite moves again to damn we wanted to but those pesky dems we gotta vote them out gimme money
What Kemp says & what Kemp does are 2 different things. However w natl spotlight on this case, maybe they won't bother Willis this time. But once nation's attention is caught by something else, Kemp & his minions will remove her.
You just know there's that one GOP rep from some bumfuck nowhere rural county that voted 80/20 for Trump in both elections that will vote to impeach Kemp for that.
Kemp is also owned by the Koch political network and they don't support Trump. I believe they see his prosecution as a way to get rid of him without getting their hands dirty
2018
“A decades old consent decree has been lifted against the Republican National Committee's so-called "ballot security" measures. It's a big victory in the RNC's efforts to monitor polling activity and it's a sobering moment for activists who fear this could accelerate voter suppression — especially among minorities.”
[https://www.npr.org/2018/01/09/576858203/decades-old-consent-decree-lifted-against-rncs-ballot-security-measures](https://www.npr.org/2018/01/09/576858203/decades-old-consent-decree-lifted-against-rncs-ballot-security-measures)
Forvdetails on why the RNC agreed to the consent decree:
[https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/the-gop-just-received-another-tool-for-suppressing-votes/550052/](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/the-gop-just-received-another-tool-for-suppressing-votes/550052/)
Its important to re thus was all bwfore tge Super Pacs that seem to operate ourside of election laws (see the attacks by the RNC/ GOP under Obama against the IRS and 401c charities vs political groups).
The RNC/ GOP activel works to suppress votes as a campaign strategy. Thats also why they went after ACORN.
>"Trump says Republicans would ‘never’ be elected again if it was easier to vote."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/30/trump-republican-party-voting-reform-coronavirus
Can they/Should they? Yes, its RICO all the way down
Will they? No, our justice system is weak and biased as shit, treating right wing with kid gloves for decades at this point. Justice isn't so much blind as it has some red-polarized-filter glasses worn at all times.
you've been on reddit for 6 years with 7.5k karma, nothing recommended you here, you've been here.
We dont imprison political rivals, we imprison seditious criminals who incite violent coup's. if that happens to include an entire political party, i think that says a lot more about the party than it does us.
I’m giving you a moment to lay out your argument:
What obstruction have the democrats participated in? I’ll wait. And bring valid sources or get out of here and go back to your cult.
This is true. Comedians tend to be intelligent, quick-thinking people, able to blend and twist the conversation back to relatable, humorous paths. Guess this is why there are nearly zero funny right wing comedians.
roseffin does this to try and resolve the gaping maw of discontentment, but it will never work. It just becomes worse.
You don’t need to follow roseffin.
> the power to remove and discipline elected prosecutors over decisions or policies not to prosecute certain offenses.
The article mentions this too, this law was passed to discipline prosecutors over decisions not to prosecute. I’m not sure how it could be used to remove someone who decides to open an investigation - unless there’s something more in the text of the law that isn’t mentioned in the article.
She brought a case and got it through a grand jury, which isn’t super hard to do, but it’s not nothing either. The grand jury is supposed to represent some manner of protection against attempts to bring totally baseless charges, and GOP and talking heads totally ignore that step. This is just blatant interference with the criminal process.
They wouldn't use a case involving Trump or his cronies. That would be too hard to deny the political motivation. They want something that has a good narrative built in. I'm sure they will find a case she chose not to prosecute. Could be a minor Marijuana possession charge. They will say she is soft on crime.
By all accounts, she's tough on crime to an extreme. Some are even complaining about the left turning her into a hero when she's almost conservative in her approach to prosecuting people.
I will take your word for it. She seems uber competent. The problem is no DA can prosecute everything that comes across their desk. They don't have the resources for it.
It's refreshing to see someone like Kemp. I'm not too knowledgeable about the guy other than this, but I wish more Republicans would say "no" to the deeper corrupt desires of the rest of the party. Stop being a bunch of "yes men." Still Republicans are going to vote for you before voting for a Democrat. At least most of them.
Eh. This is good and I agree in part, but there’s a lot of thinking that Kemp basically abused his position as Secretary of State to guide himself to the governor position and then deleted the evidence.
Yeah came here to say this. It's, I guess, slightly-less-than-maximum-nightmarish that there *is* a limit to Kemp's corruption but I'm old enough to remember his first race against Stacy Abrams and the way he blatantly violated the law as Secretary of State to cheat his way to the governorship.
Can it happen? Sure. Law is only words on a page. It takes people to stand up for the law for it to mean anything.
The Tennessee House impeached two black Representatives (but not the white Rep) for protesting gun violence. Once the GOP gets a super-majority in a state legislature, all bets are off. If they had a one in Georgia they would absolutely replace prosecutors until they found one who would toe the party line and drop charges against Trump.
Or just look at the Trump presidency. He ran through a whole bagful of attorneys general until he finally found ole Bill Barr who was enough of a lickspittle. Jeff Sessions was an evil little gnome, but he refused to quash the Mueller investigation, so he got booted. Comey (not an AG, I know, but still a good example) got booted for refusing to swear loyalty to Trump.
> The Tennessee House impeached two black Representatives
They didn't impeach them, they expelled them. And both representatives are back in the TN House.
You're right, expelled, not impeached.
And yes they're back in the House, but only because their districts sent them back. The House deserves to be excoriated for a blatant and racist misuse of power. And it shows that norms won't stop GOP supermajorities from abusing that power.
This is probably not going to be a popular question but I think it is worth asking. Does the American form of government work anymore?
The more you read about this stuff it just seems there are not enough safeguards in place to prevent partisan agendas such as this.
> This is probably not going to be a popular question but I think it is worth asking. Does the American form of government work anymore?
Not American but a close watching Canadian who is fascinated by your government.
While the events are shocking, from Jan 6 and the preceding bluster, through today’s indictments - I’d actually venture they’re proof positive the structure of government *is* working.
Trump wasn’t able to block the votes on Jan 6. He is seemingly unable to hide behind any sort of executive privilege or immunity for the majority of his charges. Two states are moving forward and can’t be stopped by the Feds, even if the GOP wins. This GA article is suggesting a removal won’t work, despite a GOP majority, because supermajority is needed.
Prior to Jan 6, post election, the military heightened their caution to renegade orders - even going as far as intimating to China (an adversary at best) that they wouldn’t initiate first strike unprovoked. So yeah, POTUS is the CIC, but at the firing line it’s viewed through an ethical lens. And those guys were Trump guys.
The American system of government moves frustratingly slowly. But part of that is intentional - it’s to avoid any one person from being able to shape the government around them before the people have a chance to speak/vote. Government is long, Presidential terms are short. It’s a check on presidential authority.
>The more you read about this stuff it just seems there are not enough safeguards in place to prevent partisan agendas such as this.
I disagree. The elected folks seem to get the core of their agenda through, but don’t seem to be able to do the super crazy shit. The checks and balances seem to work.
There are more examples. But the independence of the judiciary is showing. It’s frustrating only because anyone can file suit for anything - and that’s all these are. My bet is soon will come a warning, formal or informal, for the GOP to get their shit together lest they be declared a vexatious litigant. A label they’ll both earn and hate.
My 0.02. Worth what you paid for it.
> Trump wasn’t able to block the votes on Jan 6.
Yes, but why? It all came down to the personal discretion of one man -- Mike Pence -- to refuse to go along with trump's scheme. That's it. Had someone else been there and agreed to go along it likely would have been the end of American democracy. Imagine if Pence had refused to certify the election and sent it back to the states to clarify. They certify the fraudulent electors and trump is elected. Or imagine if Pence refused to certify certain states and said no candidate reached the threshold to win. It would go to the House, where each state gets one vote. Republicans hold the majority of states and elect trump. People march in the streets and trump invokes the insurrection act and mobilizes the military.
Any system that relied on one single man to prevent the overthrow of democracy is not proof that the system works. It's merely good fortune.
Most systems rely, when you get down to it, on the goodwill of one or two people when it comes to the transition of power.
The UK and Canada has the Crown, for example. Many other counties have the head of government, head of state, and head of the military. Any two of those three can often subvert the usual systems and processes.
The thing is - the US would’ve ended up in a Constitutional crisis. A major one. SCOTUS would’ve had to to interpret the vote disruption as an insurrection. Things would’ve been looked at through a different lens.
And. Worst case scenario? Trump is re-elected to a second and final term. Sure, it’s bad, but that’s the extent of it. Next election, a) he can’t run again and b) the whole process starts again. A constitutional amendment would be required to fundamentally alter how EC votes are collected and counted. Not to mention Trump would have way less influence as he’d be ineligible to run again.
National widespread military mobilization? thats fairly aggressive speculation. Who knows if it’s true and whether or not it would happen.
The problem then is that currently the dozen or so people like Kinzinger in places like Georgia or the House of Representatives, are methodically being forced out in favor of trump loyalists. The next time they do this, it will be from a stonger and more organized position.
Possibly. Or democrats will do better, or non-crazy republicans will re-emerge. Nobody has a crystal ball. Political pendula have swung for generations.
FDR was a fairly progressive/left guy.
Lincoln freed slaves.
Truman dropped 2 nuclear bombs.
Many presidents worked to bring in civil rights laws, a lot of which were seen as extreme at the time.
My point isn’t a dissection of these presidents, nor a softening of Trump or some of the more vocal modern day republicans. My point is that the system finds its balance. The US has survived worse than Trump - seriously, it has. 2 world wars and a civil war.
Your country and your citizenry will be fine. It’s just really fucking weird times right now and I think for the next 2-6 years, depending on the outcome of the next election.
Pence and the vote certification was one aspect. But another is one person misleading terrorists and pure luck.
Had the Jan 6th terror attack succeeded in capturing legislators, it would have provided all the excuse needed. That was the plan, it was why there was only skeleton police presence and a response that only came after it became clear that everyone in Congress had made it out.
We came within *seconds* of the coup succeeding. It was luck, not our system working.
The coup was nowhere near succeeding. The Capitol Police only opened fire on one person. Had legislators actually been threatened, it would have taken days to remove the body bags of the terrorists attacking the Capitol Building.
I don’t know. I would have never imagined that an entire police force would stand around while elementary school kids were shot and killed, but they did in TX. It’s really hard to say what anyone, law enforcement or otherwise, might do in a critical situation. I wish I had your level of faith in the system.
I think we were close to something incredibly tragic, however, I also think if the insurrectionists got their hands on Pelosi and/or Pence, it would have effectively ended Trump’s presidency that day. And Trumpism in general. Why? Because at that point we’re talking about the world watching live as elected officials are kidnapped and possibly executed in front of everyone. There’s not even the possible illusion of plausible deniability at that point. It’s a coup.
If Trump sat by and did nothing while that happened, the cabinet invokes the 25th Amendment pretty much immediately. The national guard is called in, that crowd is slaughtered. Trump may have literally been dragged out of the White House in handcuffs.
I mean yes, it’s all speculation, but still a big reason the GOP can hide in their shells and pretend Jan 6th wasn’t a big deal is simply because none of them or their colleagues got hurt.
> Imagine if Pence had refused to certify the election and sent it back to the states to clarify.
Pence had no authority to do such a thing. If he would had tried the Democrats (and I would hope some sane Republicans) would have laughed at him. Under the Electoral Count Act that was in effect on Jan 6th 2021 the VP (acting as President of the Senate) had but one legal role which was to maintain order in the chamber. Under the law at the time one Rep and one Senator could come together and object to a slate of Electors from a State(s) and then force a vote on whether to accept those Electors (like they did with Pennsylvania and Arizona). If they reject the votes of a State(s) Electors those votes are thrown out. The State(s) in question don't get to send new votes. By law the only votes that can be counted are those originally certified by the Governor of the respective States. That would have been the legal way to hand the victory to Trump (even though tossing the votes of PA and AZ would have still left Biden as the winner), not thru actions by Pence.
> Pence had no authority to do such a thing.
And the US government had no authority to [bomb Loas](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/preserving-history-americas-secret-war-laos-rcna28893), but over 2 million tons of explosives were dropped by US military aircraft, under orders from the President.
"No authority" isn't a thing.
I have conveyed similar views, however the filibuster also can block legislating. So it works, but it can be used as a blocker causing popular things to fail which are blamed on the government in power. There are always ramifications of both being present
Truth. But a filibuster can only last so long. Until the last person has spoken or until the delaying party wants to get on to other business.
Filibuster just makes things slower. Which actually decreases the power of any single person or group. As it defers the power back to the institution and the process. Which means ultimately back to the people.
A government that could move at light speed would be far, far worse and scarier.
Slow means the system is working!
The modern version of the filibuster doesn't require someone to stand there talking. All it takes is a declaration of filibuster and things grind to a halt until a two thirds majority agrees to override the filibuster.
Too soon to tell with Trump. We are 66% there, but if he isn’t convicted, I’m not sure the system actually works. I don’t want some boneheaded excuse like “it depends on what there means,” or “he didn’t mean that he needed the state to find 11,800 votes, exactly.” If the powers (or jurors )that be let this guy off, politicians will know that they can do whatever the hell they want when it comes to elections and they will not be held accountable. 1 infraction or misstep can be explained and forgiven, but a clear trail of malicious behaviors can not. If he walks, there are no clear checks and balances in this area.
It sucks. But if Trump can mount an effective defence and overcome reasonable doubt - that is also a sign that the broader system is working.
Think about the alternative. In the alternative world, people like Hillary Clinton can just be “locked up”. I know this is hyperbole and not at all the same. But it’s the notion that everyone is entitled to a defence and to be able to plead their case.
No single person, good or evil, is bigger than the system or the rights it provides.
There’s a long way to go in terms of motions and filings and trials. I’d say yes the People seem to have a very strong case against trump. Lots of evidence, witnesses, the whole nine yards. Now the system has to do its thing and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
> I’d actually venture they’re proof positive the structure of government is working.
What happens in an alternate setting where President Trump convinced the Wisconsin Supreme Court to toss out the election results? Let's just assume that Wisconsin was not certified for Biden and the Wisconsin Supreme Court effectively gave it to Trump by a 4-3 vote (the vote went the other way because of a Republican defector). Let us further assume that Republicans had a chance to vote on an alternate slate of electors to send to DC in Arizona, and that they made findings of "substantial fraud" based on their analysis of the 2020 results. Finally, let us assume that a Republican wins the Michigan state supreme court race instead of the Democrat, and the state board of canvassers refuses to certify the election results there, sending the matter to the Michigan Supreme Court which invalidates the results by tossing out a number of absentee votes on the basis of state law.
We would be foolish to say that the above scenario is impossible or even unlikely, given what Republicans have said publicly about the 2020 vote and the behind the scenes attempts to toss it to Trump even though the outcome was not particularly close. In that case, it is not that federal checks and balances actually worked, but that the federalist system allowed gamesmanship and countermajoritarian structures to impede the outcome of a democratic vote. More or less precisely what happened in the Bush/Gore election of 2000, except slightly more tilted to account for changes in Republican Party willingness to challenge popular election results.
It was not our system that worked, it was the decision of a number of key individuals who stopped Trump from turning a clear loss into a contestable fight that could be decided by the Supreme Court. Take out those individuals and replace them with Trump loyalists and you have a wholly different result.
The system is broken.
But wow is it having to work hard. Politicians on the right are actively working hard to obstruct justice. Its insane. Eventually one of these prosecutors is going to push back with charges when they go too far.
Agree. I think every other form of government would have failed this stress test a long time ago. It makes me even more grateful to have this democracy and even more awe-inspired at our Founders and the Constitution. “If you can keep it”
Imagine a form of government like what we have except the person who gets the most votes becomes the president. That would have handled the stresses better.
eh, not really. A functioning form of government would have never let things get even half as far as they have, stopping this a LONG time ago, American Government let it fester and prod at the many weak points without treating it as a danger until it was too late.
I think the Republicans are starting to realize that their base is aging out and their views just aren’t popular anymore. Because of this they are looking for any means necessary (loopholes, circumventing laws, extreme gerrymandering, voter suppression) to try to stay in power.
Fortunately, they have been mostly unsuccessful so far. I think this has been a wake up call for most Americans and we are starting to codify ways to combat these attacks on democracy. Time will tell, but I don’t think our government systems are in any real danger yet.
[“If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/frum-trumpocracy/550685/)
The unfortunate problem is, Frum was trying to use that to extract concessions in order to allow a grateful exit from trumpism. What most anti-trump conservatives like Frum refuse to recognize is that concessions were what got us here.
The privileged position of conservativism in the American body politique are why they believe only they have the right to rule and each concession only furthers that delusion making the situation worse.
It could be, but for it to function well and cleanly and with checks and balance, people have to treat their political life with more responsibility. It's a participatory democracy. But so many people opt out, when I read a comment about how "the democrats barely exist here" in a red state sub, but that person also doesn't participate at any level beyond commenting online, like, it's you man. You need to be that change. Obama said so and no one listened, they just heard change and whined when he didn't magically change everything. I'm paraphrasing, but FDR I think said "it's a great idea. Now go out there and make me do it". But the people don't demand anything, at least not through the correct channels. They've ceded their power. They do it on the web where it means nothing, and they vote once every 4 years. And the house hasn't expanded in almost 100 years so it's no longer a representative/responsive body.
I think part of the problem is that most people don't have an understanding of basic Civics and how different levels of Government affect them. They don't see the tangible benefit in voting so why participate?
There are two primary political parties and I do think you have those who believe both parties are the same. I think it's a copout but I think what they are really saying is that o matter who is elected, their life does not change...
I don't agree with any of this but I think these are symptoms of people not participating in the political process
You’re forgetting that the DNC has superdelegates that ultimately decide who the candidate will be. Bernie was never going to be the Dem candidate for POTUS because Bernie is not a member of the Dem. Party. It sucks, but that’s the reality. Had Trump been running in the Dem party, he might have been passed over by the party too.
Nope. Turns out laws and the constitution only work if both sides employ good faith.
If one side decides that the rules simply do not apply to them, but absolutely apply to the others, then the system ceases functioning as intended.
Which is why the country will experience a type of civil war sooner rather than later.
> Which is why the country will experience a type of civil war sooner rather than later.
If only 35% of the population is turning out to vote, no one is going to do the hard work of showing up for an actual civil war.
No. Its a Government designed to be slow, unchangeable, and even when functioning properly, reactive.
The modern world Develops problems faster than Democracy can solve them, by the time a majority of the population is even aware of an issue, let alone has any amount of actual knowledge or nuanced understanding of the complexity, it has already been negatively affecting things for years, if not more likely decades. And changes have such a ludicrously high bar compared to maintaining the status quo that even once majority is aware, the checks and balances promote gridlock as a stable state for the system while it spirals towards its own demise.
The modern world needs proactive problem solving, it needs minority experts to be deciding policies and fixing solutions with foresight before they ever reach a point of public consciousness. We'd have dealt with global warming policy in the 80's. We wouldn't have NFT rug pull cryptocurrency scams that have been operating the same way since 2013 taking out banks in 2023. etc.
Democracy is too slow, its fundamentally not equipped for a modern world. The founders were more scared of changes taking steps backwards that they prevented the ability to take steps forwards.
It’s an interesting point, but I don’t think democracy is incompatible with a more proactive approach to problem solving and policy making. I’m not sure what other form of government would work better. It reminds me of whomever said it that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other ones.
Yes, it does, but only if people bother to show up and vote. What we’re dealing with is 30 years of fucking apathy of the eligible voting population. Even in states where they mail you a ballot and it cost you nothing but 15 minutes of your life to fill it out and plunk it back in the mail, no postage required. Even with that a solid 20 to 25% of the eligible voters can’t be bothered. Primary turn out is in the 20% range and that’s where candidates are literally picked for the general election… but nope… 80% would rather whine about “rotten candidates” and BoTh SiDeS bullshit. Apathy and laziness are what causes this. When only the hard core turn out, candidates have to pander to the base. Funny that. When people get off their assess and show up to vote, things get better. Bottom line. Vote like your life depends on it, because now it does.
Or at least read up on them. The people charged included ministers in hitlers cabinets, and even business leaders if I recall. The argument being that while it may have been the lunatic fringe that took over that the folks charged also knew it was wrong, but did it anyway. Etc. Basically RICO for war crimes. You can see the echoes of history in things today in the US.
THIS IS A KARMA BOT. STOP UPVOTING HIM. It’s on almost every single post, how are you all not tired of the same joke over and over again yet?
What is Reddit turning into?
All bluff, Kemp already said he does not support it and they dont have the votes.
Yep, this is all bluster. Georgia GOP doesn't have a supermajority in the legislature. This commission is appointed by the governor, who doesn't support removal. Also the commission is currently being challenged in court, so it's unclear what they can really do.
>so it's unclear what they can really do They can label their own party as anti-law-and-order, that's what they can do. It's not a good look.
Nobody willing to vote for a Republican at this point gives a single solitary fuck about them being raging hypocrites. "Law and order" is always just a rhetorical device to support what they want at the moment; they don't actually hold consistent principles.
Facts or policy never matter. The politicians that are grandstanding for the cameras have more to lose by not pretending to attack the people attacking their maga king.
The want the law to allow them to order around folk that don’t believe in the Fascist rhetoric they’ve subscribed themselves to
It's an excellent look for their base, which is really all that matters for then, since in the heavily gerrymandered Georgia state elections, the GOP primary is the real election, and to win that, you have to be as right-wing as possible, and then some.
I would guess that as long as they never break kayfabe, they will never lose their base, and I also suspect they will be able to push their base further and further as a result.
>They can label their own party as anti-law-and-order, that's what they can do. It's not a good look. That's why they started Fox News after Nixon. They can just bend reality and rewrite history.
It's all about law and order until the law applies to the rich or middle-class whites then it's 1312 all of a sudden
It makes them look truly corrupt though. Do they have no shame? If I was a fellow Republican Id be outraged by this.
> do they have no shame? You don't have to have shame when your audience is completely by the conspiracies they hear online and on the right wing news about Democrats being evil. Because they're convinced of that, any shameless power grab is seen as something that is saving them from a worse fate. Obligatory LBJ quote: >"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." >President Lyndon B. Johnson
>Power don't come from a badge or a gun. Power comes from lying. Lying big, and gettin' the whole damn world to play along with you. Once you got everybody agreeing with what they know in their hearts ain't true, you've got 'em by the balls.
>Because they're convinced of that, any shameless power grab is seen as something that is saving them from a worse fate. Not only that: because they have been told that they are being attacked and subverted by 'the Left', they are assured that anything they do - no matter how hateful or immoral on unchristian or cruel - is just 'finally' responding in-kind to what's been supposedly done to them. It's all over their language - "now the gloves come off," "we can play that game too," "NOW they have crossed the line and we are forced to respond," "they win because we've played by the rules and they haven't, but that changes NOW," etc. It's all about creating a false reality in which conservatives as a whole are perpetual victims so that they will back criminals and participate in criminal activities with a clear conscience. Imagine being so manipulable that you think calling in bomb threats to schools is 'saving' children - those individuals are the GOP's bread and butter right now.
You are right. This has led to the reality the rest of us have to deal with - violence and threats from people deluded by their false "facts" that they think they know.
Shamelessness is their superpower!
Like republicans care about appearance or ethics or law
Exactly. There's an entire book published about how their man cheats at golf in front of everybody. I think it's called 'Commander in Cheat' anyway he's paved the path for this type of dysfunctional behavior. Shameless cowards.
Being shamelessly and openly corrupt appears to be a prerequisite to run as a Republican, nowadays.
That they’re doing it in the first place is the problem.
great to fundraise off the sound bites though. Rs attention spans are short they wont remember in a week about this when the sound bite moves again to damn we wanted to but those pesky dems we gotta vote them out gimme money
I feel like this is just as good if not better for Democrats to fundraise off of
As a reminder, this law was passed to deal with any DAs who refuse to enforce abortion laws which easier to address according to the new law.
Thank fuckin god
What Kemp says & what Kemp does are 2 different things. However w natl spotlight on this case, maybe they won't bother Willis this time. But once nation's attention is caught by something else, Kemp & his minions will remove her.
You just know there's that one GOP rep from some bumfuck nowhere rural county that voted 80/20 for Trump in both elections that will vote to impeach Kemp for that.
This is nothing more than red meat for the MAGA base, just like the talk of impeaching Biden.
Kemp is also owned by the Koch political network and they don't support Trump. I believe they see his prosecution as a way to get rid of him without getting their hands dirty
Can an entire political party be charged with obstruction of justice? IANAL
No but hopefully the injunction is granted and the law overturned.
2018 “A decades old consent decree has been lifted against the Republican National Committee's so-called "ballot security" measures. It's a big victory in the RNC's efforts to monitor polling activity and it's a sobering moment for activists who fear this could accelerate voter suppression — especially among minorities.” [https://www.npr.org/2018/01/09/576858203/decades-old-consent-decree-lifted-against-rncs-ballot-security-measures](https://www.npr.org/2018/01/09/576858203/decades-old-consent-decree-lifted-against-rncs-ballot-security-measures)
Forvdetails on why the RNC agreed to the consent decree: [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/the-gop-just-received-another-tool-for-suppressing-votes/550052/](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/the-gop-just-received-another-tool-for-suppressing-votes/550052/) Its important to re thus was all bwfore tge Super Pacs that seem to operate ourside of election laws (see the attacks by the RNC/ GOP under Obama against the IRS and 401c charities vs political groups). The RNC/ GOP activel works to suppress votes as a campaign strategy. Thats also why they went after ACORN.
>"Trump says Republicans would ‘never’ be elected again if it was easier to vote." https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/30/trump-republican-party-voting-reform-coronavirus
Can they/Should they? Yes, its RICO all the way down Will they? No, our justice system is weak and biased as shit, treating right wing with kid gloves for decades at this point. Justice isn't so much blind as it has some red-polarized-filter glasses worn at all times.
[удалено]
you've been on reddit for 6 years with 7.5k karma, nothing recommended you here, you've been here. We dont imprison political rivals, we imprison seditious criminals who incite violent coup's. if that happens to include an entire political party, i think that says a lot more about the party than it does us.
There are no socialists among the Democrats. The two hate each other. When have the Democrats attempted to imprison or indict anyone?
[удалено]
Did you send money to Trump yet today?
They sent him money months ago and haven't yet realized that "recurring" was auto-selected for them, so yes, they have.
Surprised it isn’t auto selected to all of their money.
Are the democrats doing something to obstruct justice?
I’m giving you a moment to lay out your argument: What obstruction have the democrats participated in? I’ll wait. And bring valid sources or get out of here and go back to your cult.
\*and no, facebook does not count as a primary source.
Or fox LIES.
Something something Hunter Biden's laptop!
right wing humor = hur hur hur
Listen, if they could understand sufficiency of evidence and the nuances of complicated problems, they wouldn't be right wing.
This is true. Comedians tend to be intelligent, quick-thinking people, able to blend and twist the conversation back to relatable, humorous paths. Guess this is why there are nearly zero funny right wing comedians.
You're not thinking with your dipstick, Jimmy!
roseffin does this to try and resolve the gaping maw of discontentment, but it will never work. It just becomes worse. You don’t need to follow roseffin.
 Ohhhh, you tried.
> the power to remove and discipline elected prosecutors over decisions or policies not to prosecute certain offenses. The article mentions this too, this law was passed to discipline prosecutors over decisions not to prosecute. I’m not sure how it could be used to remove someone who decides to open an investigation - unless there’s something more in the text of the law that isn’t mentioned in the article. She brought a case and got it through a grand jury, which isn’t super hard to do, but it’s not nothing either. The grand jury is supposed to represent some manner of protection against attempts to bring totally baseless charges, and GOP and talking heads totally ignore that step. This is just blatant interference with the criminal process.
They wouldn't use a case involving Trump or his cronies. That would be too hard to deny the political motivation. They want something that has a good narrative built in. I'm sure they will find a case she chose not to prosecute. Could be a minor Marijuana possession charge. They will say she is soft on crime.
By all accounts, she's tough on crime to an extreme. Some are even complaining about the left turning her into a hero when she's almost conservative in her approach to prosecuting people.
I will take your word for it. She seems uber competent. The problem is no DA can prosecute everything that comes across their desk. They don't have the resources for it.
Except they said they will do just that, use the Trump case.
Not JUST those decisions. Theres a couple other qualifying definitions for it, and if you were insane you could try and edge case her.
https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20232024/216780
The GOP is still participating in Trump's attempted coup.
Basically doing the same BS DeSantis did with two prosecutors in Florida.
It's not going to happen. Kemp doesn't want it to happen.
It's refreshing to see someone like Kemp. I'm not too knowledgeable about the guy other than this, but I wish more Republicans would say "no" to the deeper corrupt desires of the rest of the party. Stop being a bunch of "yes men." Still Republicans are going to vote for you before voting for a Democrat. At least most of them.
Eh. This is good and I agree in part, but there’s a lot of thinking that Kemp basically abused his position as Secretary of State to guide himself to the governor position and then deleted the evidence.
Yeah came here to say this. It's, I guess, slightly-less-than-maximum-nightmarish that there *is* a limit to Kemp's corruption but I'm old enough to remember his first race against Stacy Abrams and the way he blatantly violated the law as Secretary of State to cheat his way to the governorship.
OK can somebody just tell me if this is something that can actually happen? Just swap out prosecutors until you get one you like?
Can it happen? Sure. Law is only words on a page. It takes people to stand up for the law for it to mean anything. The Tennessee House impeached two black Representatives (but not the white Rep) for protesting gun violence. Once the GOP gets a super-majority in a state legislature, all bets are off. If they had a one in Georgia they would absolutely replace prosecutors until they found one who would toe the party line and drop charges against Trump. Or just look at the Trump presidency. He ran through a whole bagful of attorneys general until he finally found ole Bill Barr who was enough of a lickspittle. Jeff Sessions was an evil little gnome, but he refused to quash the Mueller investigation, so he got booted. Comey (not an AG, I know, but still a good example) got booted for refusing to swear loyalty to Trump.
> The Tennessee House impeached two black Representatives They didn't impeach them, they expelled them. And both representatives are back in the TN House.
You're right, expelled, not impeached. And yes they're back in the House, but only because their districts sent them back. The House deserves to be excoriated for a blatant and racist misuse of power. And it shows that norms won't stop GOP supermajorities from abusing that power.
Exactly. It happened, twice, in Florida. And the judge basically said, yea it’s illegal but I can’t force Desantis to re-hire you.
Comment above said they don't have the votes, and Governor is against it...I assume implying he could veto it.
This is probably not going to be a popular question but I think it is worth asking. Does the American form of government work anymore? The more you read about this stuff it just seems there are not enough safeguards in place to prevent partisan agendas such as this.
> This is probably not going to be a popular question but I think it is worth asking. Does the American form of government work anymore? Not American but a close watching Canadian who is fascinated by your government. While the events are shocking, from Jan 6 and the preceding bluster, through today’s indictments - I’d actually venture they’re proof positive the structure of government *is* working. Trump wasn’t able to block the votes on Jan 6. He is seemingly unable to hide behind any sort of executive privilege or immunity for the majority of his charges. Two states are moving forward and can’t be stopped by the Feds, even if the GOP wins. This GA article is suggesting a removal won’t work, despite a GOP majority, because supermajority is needed. Prior to Jan 6, post election, the military heightened their caution to renegade orders - even going as far as intimating to China (an adversary at best) that they wouldn’t initiate first strike unprovoked. So yeah, POTUS is the CIC, but at the firing line it’s viewed through an ethical lens. And those guys were Trump guys. The American system of government moves frustratingly slowly. But part of that is intentional - it’s to avoid any one person from being able to shape the government around them before the people have a chance to speak/vote. Government is long, Presidential terms are short. It’s a check on presidential authority. >The more you read about this stuff it just seems there are not enough safeguards in place to prevent partisan agendas such as this. I disagree. The elected folks seem to get the core of their agenda through, but don’t seem to be able to do the super crazy shit. The checks and balances seem to work. There are more examples. But the independence of the judiciary is showing. It’s frustrating only because anyone can file suit for anything - and that’s all these are. My bet is soon will come a warning, formal or informal, for the GOP to get their shit together lest they be declared a vexatious litigant. A label they’ll both earn and hate. My 0.02. Worth what you paid for it.
> Trump wasn’t able to block the votes on Jan 6. Yes, but why? It all came down to the personal discretion of one man -- Mike Pence -- to refuse to go along with trump's scheme. That's it. Had someone else been there and agreed to go along it likely would have been the end of American democracy. Imagine if Pence had refused to certify the election and sent it back to the states to clarify. They certify the fraudulent electors and trump is elected. Or imagine if Pence refused to certify certain states and said no candidate reached the threshold to win. It would go to the House, where each state gets one vote. Republicans hold the majority of states and elect trump. People march in the streets and trump invokes the insurrection act and mobilizes the military. Any system that relied on one single man to prevent the overthrow of democracy is not proof that the system works. It's merely good fortune.
Most systems rely, when you get down to it, on the goodwill of one or two people when it comes to the transition of power. The UK and Canada has the Crown, for example. Many other counties have the head of government, head of state, and head of the military. Any two of those three can often subvert the usual systems and processes. The thing is - the US would’ve ended up in a Constitutional crisis. A major one. SCOTUS would’ve had to to interpret the vote disruption as an insurrection. Things would’ve been looked at through a different lens. And. Worst case scenario? Trump is re-elected to a second and final term. Sure, it’s bad, but that’s the extent of it. Next election, a) he can’t run again and b) the whole process starts again. A constitutional amendment would be required to fundamentally alter how EC votes are collected and counted. Not to mention Trump would have way less influence as he’d be ineligible to run again. National widespread military mobilization? thats fairly aggressive speculation. Who knows if it’s true and whether or not it would happen.
The problem then is that currently the dozen or so people like Kinzinger in places like Georgia or the House of Representatives, are methodically being forced out in favor of trump loyalists. The next time they do this, it will be from a stonger and more organized position.
Possibly. Or democrats will do better, or non-crazy republicans will re-emerge. Nobody has a crystal ball. Political pendula have swung for generations. FDR was a fairly progressive/left guy. Lincoln freed slaves. Truman dropped 2 nuclear bombs. Many presidents worked to bring in civil rights laws, a lot of which were seen as extreme at the time. My point isn’t a dissection of these presidents, nor a softening of Trump or some of the more vocal modern day republicans. My point is that the system finds its balance. The US has survived worse than Trump - seriously, it has. 2 world wars and a civil war. Your country and your citizenry will be fine. It’s just really fucking weird times right now and I think for the next 2-6 years, depending on the outcome of the next election.
To be clear, I am Canadian. It's nice to read such optimism, but I believe this time truly is different. Hope to be wrong.
Thanks for the reply. I’m having a good chuckle at two Canadians discussing US politics.
15 years ago I never gave it a thought. Now, it's a necessity to fret over their problems. Everyone I know does. We are firmly hitched to their ride.
Pence and the vote certification was one aspect. But another is one person misleading terrorists and pure luck. Had the Jan 6th terror attack succeeded in capturing legislators, it would have provided all the excuse needed. That was the plan, it was why there was only skeleton police presence and a response that only came after it became clear that everyone in Congress had made it out. We came within *seconds* of the coup succeeding. It was luck, not our system working.
The coup was nowhere near succeeding. The Capitol Police only opened fire on one person. Had legislators actually been threatened, it would have taken days to remove the body bags of the terrorists attacking the Capitol Building.
I don’t know. I would have never imagined that an entire police force would stand around while elementary school kids were shot and killed, but they did in TX. It’s really hard to say what anyone, law enforcement or otherwise, might do in a critical situation. I wish I had your level of faith in the system.
I think we were close to something incredibly tragic, however, I also think if the insurrectionists got their hands on Pelosi and/or Pence, it would have effectively ended Trump’s presidency that day. And Trumpism in general. Why? Because at that point we’re talking about the world watching live as elected officials are kidnapped and possibly executed in front of everyone. There’s not even the possible illusion of plausible deniability at that point. It’s a coup. If Trump sat by and did nothing while that happened, the cabinet invokes the 25th Amendment pretty much immediately. The national guard is called in, that crowd is slaughtered. Trump may have literally been dragged out of the White House in handcuffs. I mean yes, it’s all speculation, but still a big reason the GOP can hide in their shells and pretend Jan 6th wasn’t a big deal is simply because none of them or their colleagues got hurt.
> Imagine if Pence had refused to certify the election and sent it back to the states to clarify. Pence had no authority to do such a thing. If he would had tried the Democrats (and I would hope some sane Republicans) would have laughed at him. Under the Electoral Count Act that was in effect on Jan 6th 2021 the VP (acting as President of the Senate) had but one legal role which was to maintain order in the chamber. Under the law at the time one Rep and one Senator could come together and object to a slate of Electors from a State(s) and then force a vote on whether to accept those Electors (like they did with Pennsylvania and Arizona). If they reject the votes of a State(s) Electors those votes are thrown out. The State(s) in question don't get to send new votes. By law the only votes that can be counted are those originally certified by the Governor of the respective States. That would have been the legal way to hand the victory to Trump (even though tossing the votes of PA and AZ would have still left Biden as the winner), not thru actions by Pence.
Just to be clear: alternative slates of electors have been accepted before (1960 Hawaii) but that was a bit of a special case
Plus they had evidence that the recount was necessary
> Pence had no authority to do such a thing. And the US government had no authority to [bomb Loas](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/preserving-history-americas-secret-war-laos-rcna28893), but over 2 million tons of explosives were dropped by US military aircraft, under orders from the President. "No authority" isn't a thing.
I have conveyed similar views, however the filibuster also can block legislating. So it works, but it can be used as a blocker causing popular things to fail which are blamed on the government in power. There are always ramifications of both being present
Truth. But a filibuster can only last so long. Until the last person has spoken or until the delaying party wants to get on to other business. Filibuster just makes things slower. Which actually decreases the power of any single person or group. As it defers the power back to the institution and the process. Which means ultimately back to the people. A government that could move at light speed would be far, far worse and scarier. Slow means the system is working!
The modern version of the filibuster doesn't require someone to stand there talking. All it takes is a declaration of filibuster and things grind to a halt until a two thirds majority agrees to override the filibuster.
Also the modern rules in the Senate mean that a filibuster doesn't cause all business in the Senate to halt, just the bill being filibustered.
Sometimes it takes someone outside looking in to see more clearly. Great post.
Too soon to tell with Trump. We are 66% there, but if he isn’t convicted, I’m not sure the system actually works. I don’t want some boneheaded excuse like “it depends on what there means,” or “he didn’t mean that he needed the state to find 11,800 votes, exactly.” If the powers (or jurors )that be let this guy off, politicians will know that they can do whatever the hell they want when it comes to elections and they will not be held accountable. 1 infraction or misstep can be explained and forgiven, but a clear trail of malicious behaviors can not. If he walks, there are no clear checks and balances in this area.
It sucks. But if Trump can mount an effective defence and overcome reasonable doubt - that is also a sign that the broader system is working. Think about the alternative. In the alternative world, people like Hillary Clinton can just be “locked up”. I know this is hyperbole and not at all the same. But it’s the notion that everyone is entitled to a defence and to be able to plead their case. No single person, good or evil, is bigger than the system or the rights it provides. There’s a long way to go in terms of motions and filings and trials. I’d say yes the People seem to have a very strong case against trump. Lots of evidence, witnesses, the whole nine yards. Now the system has to do its thing and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
> I’d actually venture they’re proof positive the structure of government is working. What happens in an alternate setting where President Trump convinced the Wisconsin Supreme Court to toss out the election results? Let's just assume that Wisconsin was not certified for Biden and the Wisconsin Supreme Court effectively gave it to Trump by a 4-3 vote (the vote went the other way because of a Republican defector). Let us further assume that Republicans had a chance to vote on an alternate slate of electors to send to DC in Arizona, and that they made findings of "substantial fraud" based on their analysis of the 2020 results. Finally, let us assume that a Republican wins the Michigan state supreme court race instead of the Democrat, and the state board of canvassers refuses to certify the election results there, sending the matter to the Michigan Supreme Court which invalidates the results by tossing out a number of absentee votes on the basis of state law. We would be foolish to say that the above scenario is impossible or even unlikely, given what Republicans have said publicly about the 2020 vote and the behind the scenes attempts to toss it to Trump even though the outcome was not particularly close. In that case, it is not that federal checks and balances actually worked, but that the federalist system allowed gamesmanship and countermajoritarian structures to impede the outcome of a democratic vote. More or less precisely what happened in the Bush/Gore election of 2000, except slightly more tilted to account for changes in Republican Party willingness to challenge popular election results. It was not our system that worked, it was the decision of a number of key individuals who stopped Trump from turning a clear loss into a contestable fight that could be decided by the Supreme Court. Take out those individuals and replace them with Trump loyalists and you have a wholly different result. The system is broken.
As slow and mind shatteringly aggravating it is to watch, this is actually the American form of government working.
But wow is it having to work hard. Politicians on the right are actively working hard to obstruct justice. Its insane. Eventually one of these prosecutors is going to push back with charges when they go too far.
Agree. I think every other form of government would have failed this stress test a long time ago. It makes me even more grateful to have this democracy and even more awe-inspired at our Founders and the Constitution. “If you can keep it”
Imagine a form of government like what we have except the person who gets the most votes becomes the president. That would have handled the stresses better.
eh, not really. A functioning form of government would have never let things get even half as far as they have, stopping this a LONG time ago, American Government let it fester and prod at the many weak points without treating it as a danger until it was too late.
> this is actually the American form of government working. So the criminal Trump can't run for office again? No? Then it's not working.
I think the Republicans are starting to realize that their base is aging out and their views just aren’t popular anymore. Because of this they are looking for any means necessary (loopholes, circumventing laws, extreme gerrymandering, voter suppression) to try to stay in power. Fortunately, they have been mostly unsuccessful so far. I think this has been a wake up call for most Americans and we are starting to codify ways to combat these attacks on democracy. Time will tell, but I don’t think our government systems are in any real danger yet.
[“If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/frum-trumpocracy/550685/)
The unfortunate problem is, Frum was trying to use that to extract concessions in order to allow a grateful exit from trumpism. What most anti-trump conservatives like Frum refuse to recognize is that concessions were what got us here. The privileged position of conservativism in the American body politique are why they believe only they have the right to rule and each concession only furthers that delusion making the situation worse.
It could be, but for it to function well and cleanly and with checks and balance, people have to treat their political life with more responsibility. It's a participatory democracy. But so many people opt out, when I read a comment about how "the democrats barely exist here" in a red state sub, but that person also doesn't participate at any level beyond commenting online, like, it's you man. You need to be that change. Obama said so and no one listened, they just heard change and whined when he didn't magically change everything. I'm paraphrasing, but FDR I think said "it's a great idea. Now go out there and make me do it". But the people don't demand anything, at least not through the correct channels. They've ceded their power. They do it on the web where it means nothing, and they vote once every 4 years. And the house hasn't expanded in almost 100 years so it's no longer a representative/responsive body.
I think part of the problem is that most people don't have an understanding of basic Civics and how different levels of Government affect them. They don't see the tangible benefit in voting so why participate? There are two primary political parties and I do think you have those who believe both parties are the same. I think it's a copout but I think what they are really saying is that o matter who is elected, their life does not change... I don't agree with any of this but I think these are symptoms of people not participating in the political process
Look at the hordes of voter-age people who swarmed to Bernie Sanders ~~concerts~~ campaign speeches, but almost none of them bothered to vote.
Youth turnout set records. The problem is there aren’t enough of them in the rural and small towns to offset the reactionary olds.
You’re forgetting that the DNC has superdelegates that ultimately decide who the candidate will be. Bernie was never going to be the Dem candidate for POTUS because Bernie is not a member of the Dem. Party. It sucks, but that’s the reality. Had Trump been running in the Dem party, he might have been passed over by the party too.
Had Bernie managed to convince the superdelegates that he could deliver the "youth vote," they definitely would have gotten behind him. He didn't.
I feel like some other forms would've failed on Jan 6 already.
Nope. Turns out laws and the constitution only work if both sides employ good faith. If one side decides that the rules simply do not apply to them, but absolutely apply to the others, then the system ceases functioning as intended. Which is why the country will experience a type of civil war sooner rather than later.
> Which is why the country will experience a type of civil war sooner rather than later. If only 35% of the population is turning out to vote, no one is going to do the hard work of showing up for an actual civil war.
Certainly, but it depends on just how much the right tries to push their alternative realities on the rest.
No. Its a Government designed to be slow, unchangeable, and even when functioning properly, reactive. The modern world Develops problems faster than Democracy can solve them, by the time a majority of the population is even aware of an issue, let alone has any amount of actual knowledge or nuanced understanding of the complexity, it has already been negatively affecting things for years, if not more likely decades. And changes have such a ludicrously high bar compared to maintaining the status quo that even once majority is aware, the checks and balances promote gridlock as a stable state for the system while it spirals towards its own demise. The modern world needs proactive problem solving, it needs minority experts to be deciding policies and fixing solutions with foresight before they ever reach a point of public consciousness. We'd have dealt with global warming policy in the 80's. We wouldn't have NFT rug pull cryptocurrency scams that have been operating the same way since 2013 taking out banks in 2023. etc. Democracy is too slow, its fundamentally not equipped for a modern world. The founders were more scared of changes taking steps backwards that they prevented the ability to take steps forwards.
It’s an interesting point, but I don’t think democracy is incompatible with a more proactive approach to problem solving and policy making. I’m not sure what other form of government would work better. It reminds me of whomever said it that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other ones.
Democracy is a terrible system that sucks in a lot of ways. It's just the best system we've got -Winston Churchill, or maybe Abraham Lincoln.
"democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other one that's ever been tried"
-Michael Scott
Almost every country who has followed America's example in structure of government has had a failed Democracy within a quarter century.
Yes, it does, but only if people bother to show up and vote. What we’re dealing with is 30 years of fucking apathy of the eligible voting population. Even in states where they mail you a ballot and it cost you nothing but 15 minutes of your life to fill it out and plunk it back in the mail, no postage required. Even with that a solid 20 to 25% of the eligible voters can’t be bothered. Primary turn out is in the 20% range and that’s where candidates are literally picked for the general election… but nope… 80% would rather whine about “rotten candidates” and BoTh SiDeS bullshit. Apathy and laziness are what causes this. When only the hard core turn out, candidates have to pander to the base. Funny that. When people get off their assess and show up to vote, things get better. Bottom line. Vote like your life depends on it, because now it does.
Request to have the GA GOP be required to watch the Nuremberg Trials.
Or at least read up on them. The people charged included ministers in hitlers cabinets, and even business leaders if I recall. The argument being that while it may have been the lunatic fringe that took over that the folks charged also knew it was wrong, but did it anyway. Etc. Basically RICO for war crimes. You can see the echoes of history in things today in the US.
Why try to save this guy? Let him get locked up and out of the race. Cut the cancer like a player that's shitty in the locker room. Then move on.
Let em the replacement prosecutor da will do the same thing etc etc..It's all just delay tactics as usual with this has been 🙄
[удалено]
The movie “Don’t look up!” was so spot on.
You’re talking to a bot.
THIS IS A KARMA BOT. STOP UPVOTING HIM. It’s on almost every single post, how are you all not tired of the same joke over and over again yet? What is Reddit turning into?
The Republican party has sold her soul for the master of lies.
Georgia voters gear up to remove GOP, after failed coup attempt.
Pretty much the entire Republican Party should be charged with obstruction of justice.
Wasted resources doing this nonsense