• ceenote@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      265
      ·
      5 months ago

      I was gonna say she’s too young, but apparently she’d turn 35 about a month before the election. A president who’s barely old enough… What a nice change of pace that would be.

        • 4am@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          57
          ·
          5 months ago

          The idea is to have some experience in politics in lower positions before taking on the hot seat.

          • stoly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            5 months ago

            You were an experienced master or your craft at the age of 35 all the way 250 years ago. People made it to their 80s but your life expectancy was much lower. Basically 35 was the perfect age.

            What we need is an amendment to make this reflect modern life.

                • Asafum@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  Yeah… As it stands right now our first priority needs to be eliminating the ultra wealthys influence otherwise that amendment will be changed to “all non-wealthy debtors, convicted criminals, and the unemployed can be used as slaves.”

            • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              You were an experienced master or your craft at the age of 35

              Yep. Gotta figure someone who’s 35 has been around the block, seen some things, knows some things, the office of POTUS doesn’t seem like one you should be able to run for right out of high school. Oh, but imagine if we could. I’m sure it would be hilarious to put a high school graduate in office. Especially a Gen Z kid lmao.

          • Freefall@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            I’d support (HALF median life expectancy ±15 years determine at the start of the election year). Gives you a middleing generation so the extremes are not super underrepresented and it makes sure they have some life under their belt.

            Edit: added “HALF”

            • AngryMob@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              Yeah no. Look at what those numbers would actually be. Median is 70-80 depending on country and sex. I dont want a 95 year old president when they enter office… And 55 as a minimum is far beyond “life under their belt”

              • Freefall@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Oh I meant half the median life expectancy. My brain didn’t brain good as I typed it out. So 40ish ±15 in your example. Even ±10 would be fine.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          5 months ago

          True. There’s this fun quirk of US law, though, that makes ageism against young people completely fine and dandy!

          You can discriminate against people for being young all you want. That’s the Gerontocracy in action…

          • Furbag@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            5 months ago

            Absolutely. Housing crisis in full swing here and yet 55+ communities are somehow still legal. Infuriating that it works to the benefit of the old fucks by earmarking plenty of available units for only them, but when the young people want to get rid of it so they can have a shot at property ownership too, suddenly you’re an ageist.

          • Beaver [she/her]@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            5 months ago

            And some old people lash out at me for stating the system is unfair. They need to learn to pass the torch.

        • Cosmicomical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Ah, so that’s why as we all know everyone above 26 is perfectly adult and competent

          Edit: My point was not very evident but that study is not as clear as people thinks it is on the fact that brains are fully developed at 25. They probably keep developing for much longer. But it’s not an excuse to exclude people from politics

        • solrize@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Then the fully-developed brain is just 9 years old when the person is 35! Should the requirement be higher? Semi-kidding.

      • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        5 months ago

        WOW, that would skip an entire generation from presidential representation. I’m sick of voting for geriatrics but to jump straight to someone younger … I still would but ouch.

        The march of time is steady towards the sounds of that waterfall. We’re fucked.

          • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            5 months ago

            Yes. But generations has different views and priorities from one to the other. For example boomers see the world as they remember and hang on to what they know, but that policy isn’t working anymore.

            I, for one, am concerned retirement won’t exist by the time I get too old to work. Our current candidates don’t need to give a crap about that. They’ll die before that becomes an issue.

            Boomers had a good run, and did a lot of damage. Younger generations are doing a lot of fix-its; that’s commendable. Mine was called lazy, ignored, and I would really like for it to not be passed over. I don’t have a lot of time left to hope things start getting better from a generation that seems to do rash, illogical things to justify logical conclusions.

            I just want us to have a chance to shine in the sun.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              19
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              generations has different views and priorities from one to the other.

              Yes, but Gen X and millennials also have a shitload of views and priorities IN COMMON.

              As far as I can tell, there’s a much smaller political difference between 35 and 55 than 55 and 75.

              That might not always been the case, but since boomers and that sneaky “silent generation” (Biden, Trump, Pelosi, McConnell, Feinstein. Schumer is just barely too young to qualify) have been fucking over ALL subsequent generations for decades, we’re pretty much in the same leaky boat now.

        • ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          52
          ·
          5 months ago

          Old people just finished destroying the environment and AOC just filed articles of impeachment against sitting SCOTUS justices. She is rising to the occasion and deserves your support.

          • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            5 months ago

            She is rising to the occasion and deserves your support.

            And she does, like I already said above.

        • MsPenguinette@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          41
          ·
          5 months ago

          At this point, I think us millenials as an entire generation should agree to just hand the keys directly over to Gen Z. I think it’s probably good policy to do the exact opposite of whatever the boomers have done.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            5 months ago

            Nah, don’t punish AOC and other brilliant millennials for what the boomers did.

            Also, let Gen Z live a little before you give them a gilded cage in Washington.

            They’re already kicking more ass protesting and otherwise organizing for justice to bypass Washington better than most of us ever did.

          • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Yeah I get it. And it may go that way.

            I just don’t want to get sick, lose my retirement savings to medical debt, have social security run out, and wind up homeless like things seem to be headed.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              5 months ago

              All of those things are things millennials worry about too. Except most of us don’t have any savings to lose even though a lot of us are in our 40s now.

          • stoly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            I’m 48 but mentor university students by the dozen. Even Millennials are dinosaurs compared to Gen Z. Everyone older needs to STFU and GTFO.

          • Soup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            5 months ago

            Well they did kinda just allow all the boomer shit to keep going. They allowed themselves to be forgotten by sucking up to the generation before.

            My dad’s like that, if we’re acting like single family members are important. He still falls for the same old bullshit and despite being a software engineer he has that same old pre-internet attitude. He had enough success in his life that he could insulate himself from having to acknowledge just how bad things are today.

            Gen X obviously had some good in there just like the boomers did but they just haven’t proven themselves to be up with the times enough to be effective in the modern world that came basically out of nowhere, faster than the change in generations could follow. As a generation they just don’t have the skills or experience to act like they’re owed a turn. Anyone who thinks they’re entitled to run a fucking country just because it’s their “turn” doesn’t deserve to be anywhere near that kind of power.

            • ronalicious@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              5 months ago

              there was never enough of genX to get anything done, and there likely won’t be. boomers are still holding on to positions of power (eg Biden), and the millennial gen is bigger than genX as well.

            • Stovetop@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              5 months ago

              I feel like this describes the “upper 50%” of any generation, though.

              I’m a millennial, and myself and plenty other millennials I know are still riding the struggle bus. But it’s easy to pop on social media and see people you went to school with in photos with their happy families and big houses and nice cars that they earned from their successful corporate jobs, because those jobs still exist for anyone who has connections.

              And it is millennials by-and-large who are responsible for the neocon movement that helped put Trump in power, fashy groups like the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers or whatever other flavor of the month domestic terrorism group, all of the “free speech absolutists” you see on Twitter and Reddit, and Silicon Valley techbros who pretend to be progressive in service to the almighty dollar.

              No generation is free from bad eggs, because eventually enough people kowtow to the ideological apparati of the ruling class and perpetuate the endless cycle of “haves” vs “have nots”.

            • stoly@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              5 months ago

              Allow? Did you notice that most boomers still haven’t retired? Gen X and Millennials were never allowed space to exist, it’s been nonstop boomers since the late 1940s.

          • makyo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            5 months ago

            Hey you can’t stay the least worst generation if everyone is thinking about you all the time

        • FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          The generation in between is the one that keeps electing geriatrics. They either didn’t want the job or they weren’t bold enough to kick their parents into the passenger seat. I say we skip them.

        • takeda@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Obama a bit disrupted the process of getting young blood in DNC, while trump did the same thing in GOP.

    • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      5 months ago

      My worry about AOC as candidate is that she’s relatively alone in her political space, and is far from having Bernie’s weight as of today. She’s in the Democratic party, sure, but she’s in a very small faction inside of it, which may lead to a Corbyn situation: she takes the helm of the party, but centrist figures begin attacking her from her own ranks with the support of the media until she’s forced to concede to a moderate.

      On the other hand, if you manage to get 100, 200 elected representatives in the Democratic party who are clearly ideologically aligned with AOC, making her the nominee is no longer a battle, but rather, it becomes the natural consequence of the balance of power within the party.

    • qooqie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      5 months ago

      Only issue is she’s a divisive figure so center shitters might be driven to vote for trump. I think she’s awesome and would love if she was the first woman pres

      • Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        63
        ·
        5 months ago

        A huge part of the poor youth vote attendance is due to them not feeling represented by geriatric nominees. If she were to run she would get very strong youth and minority support in addition to all the left voters.

        TBH it would be a dream come true for her to run and win this year and I’m not even American.

        • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          5 months ago

          I’m Canadian and agree with you.

          Just imagine a ticket with AOC and Bernie Sanders! Now that would so something to see!

          • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            5 months ago

            Bernie winning Dem primaries was the last time we saw the DNC put its heels in the sand. I don’t think anyone should be surprised that a huge portion of the Dem voter base now feels consistently disenfranchised, especially the younger side. And the current issue with Biden doesn’t improve it.

        • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          A huge part of the poor youth vote attendance is due to them not feeling represented by geriatric nominees.

          I’d say a larger reason is that they’re simply not interested in the politics at that age.

          I know I didn’t care at all who was in government when I was at that age. The fact that they were a couple generations older than me wasn’t a part of my thought process.

          I simply couldn’t be bothered to even think about politics or governments.

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        5 months ago

        Trump and Biden are also divisive figures which is why this is even a discussion to begin with. We need to end the status quo immediately.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      5 months ago

      Biden should pick her up as a running mate. So she’ll just automatically be president if Biden dies. You’ll see conservatives doing their level best to ensure Biden is in the best of health.

  • Asherah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    218
    ·
    5 months ago

    I’m voting for Biden. Not happily, not even simply neutral on the matter. I hate that I have to vote for Biden.

    If AOC ran, I would not be even a little reluctant to vote for her. She reminds me of Bernie.

    • Zerlyna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      141
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’m voting for the Biden administration. It’s more than just him. We need them all.

      • cmbabul@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m voting the same way but more because we need to not have the other administration, we need much more that the current admin but we also do not have the luxury of being picky

      • noevidenz@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        57
        ·
        5 months ago

        AOC is currently 34 and her birthday is in October, so she will actually be old enough to be president by the time of the election.

        • finestnothing@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yeah, but you know people will throw out misinformation saying she can’t actually become president because she’s 34 and some people will believe them and stick with Biden or someone else who we know for damn sure is over 35 and it’ll just split the vote unless Biden (and any other big names on the left) drop out

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 months ago

      Biden is close to senile, and I’m assuming he’ll pass away within the next 4 years. Honestly, I hope he’ll win the elections and then peacefully passes away. Nothing against him personally, he seems like a nice guy but what the US (and by extension, the world, thanks for that) needs is not a narcissistic psychopath, and also not a senile grandfather for president.

    • lengau@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      This is her first election where she’s eligible to run for president. I wouldn’t be surprised to see her run in 2028

  • Neato@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    131
    ·
    5 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.

        • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

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

      • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        5 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
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

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

    • Justagamer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      5 months ago

      I am still hoping for the day to see someone of the same party convict a politician.

      If anyone has any cases I’d love a link!

      • solrize@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        5 months ago

        Nixon resigned a day(?) after the impeachment articles were filed, because House Republicans told him that he didn’t have enough support in the party to not get convicted.

        • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          If a judge is a politician

          The fact that is a thought that is reasonable to be expressed is part of the problem. Judges (and the justice system in general) should not be political in the slightest.

          • Justagamer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            It’s a shame too as I believe the original intention for judges to have a lifetime position was so they no longer had to be concerned with allegiance in an election.

            But I assume those lawmakers didn’t know how fanatical or greedy judges could be lol

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    5 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
      51
      ·
      5 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!

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        5 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
        9
        ·
        5 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
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

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

        Edit: You all were very loudly criticizing Biden on Israel a few weeks ago, but fine, I guess Lemmy has moved on.

        • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 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
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 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.

      • balderdash@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 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.

      • MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        5 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
      4
      ·
      5 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
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        5 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.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      67
      ·
      5 months ago

      It’s a public repudiation in a way that is extraordinarily rare and highly symbolic. Nothing may change but shots have been fired across bows.

        • Asafum@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          Fucking seriously…

          “We’re” stuck in the same stupid fucking mindset the founding morons were where they relied on shame and integrity when designing our government…

          We’re dealing with a party that only believes “might makes right” and we’re wagging our fingers at them as if they give a shit at all…

          • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            How they haven’t learned this lesson after 10 years of “OMG can you believe Trump did XXXXXX!” posts every single day I will never understand.

      • Verito@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        5 months ago

        We’re well past it meaning anything. These rebukes, reprimands, and censures are political theater. Fascists laugh when you use the rigged system against them.

          • TheLowestStone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 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
        10
        ·
        5 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.

    • derpgon@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 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
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        5 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

        • TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          5 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.

        • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          5 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.

        • derpgon@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 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.

        • sparkle@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          Cymraeg
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          5 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.

    • Crikeste@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 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

  • tisktisk@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    5 months ago

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

    • finley@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      ·
      edit-2
      5 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
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

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

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      5 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.

    • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      5 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 prosecutor, and jury and the Senate is the judge. The plaintiff is the United States itself, and the defendant is the political figure (president, SC justice, etc)

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

      The Senate is responsible for sentencing or acquitting. Without a 2/3 majority voting to remove them from office, the impeached is acquitted.

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

      Hard to edit it in on mobile, but see @ricecake@sh.itjust.works 's clarifications below to my analogy.

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 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.

    • Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 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).

    • S_204@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

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

  • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    5 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.

    • deltapi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 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
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

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

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 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.

    • Delusional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 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.

  • barkingspiders@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    5 months ago

    Fantastic, I know this probably won’t go anywhere but this is the right thing to do regardless. SCOTUS needs to be held accountable to the American people for their actions. We grant them extraordinary power and that must come with extraordinary accountability. Holding them to a lower standard than any judge in a lesser court is ridiculous. The higher the court, the higher the standards should be.