this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024

111 points (99.1% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7227 readers

155 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

pangyuehung@lemmy.ml

yogthos@lemmy.ml

111

Ron DeSantis ends presidential campaign before New Hampshire primary (abcnews.go.com)

submitted 10 months ago by Type1@midwest.social to c/usa@lemmy.ml

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 27 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Shdwdrgn@mander.xyz 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Thank god. If Trump is forced out of the race from being in jail, DeSantis was the next leader, and at this point I really don't know which one of them is worse.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Trump is worse, hands down. Trump demonstrated willingness to subvert democracy, DeSantis seems to actually care about working within the system. Maybe that means DeSantis will have more success getting policy passed, but he's less likely to become a dictator.

[–] HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I highly disagree. The dude has made life for those he dislikes miserable in Florida. It has been so bad that multiple organizations have issued state of emergencies for trans people, from local trans organizations all the way up to the Human Rights Campaign. Trump is fucking horrible, Desantis is not a sliver better.

His policies consist solely of demonizing minorities and instilling facism as much as possible, I encourage you to read more about it.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Trump attacked our electoral process in order to overturn a democratic election. He lost the electoral and popular vote, and refused to acknowledge it.

DeSantis signed some stupid bills, probably mostly to get his name out for a shot at a national election. He denounced the violence on Jan 6, but he played the political game by refusing to call it an insurrection. If Trump is convicted of insurrection/sedition, that looks bad for all Republicans, so it's the right political play. If you look at his career as governor, it's clear he's playing the political game to get his name known (going so far as to endorse Trump relatively early), but he just doesn't have that energy to show he would try anything close to what Trump tried in 2020.

So while DeSantis' policies generally suck, I don't think he's going to try to subvert democracy, he'll try to work within the system like any other politician to get the positions he wants. So no, I don't see DeSantis as a fascist, he's just a social conservative. Trump, on the other hand, has shown fascist tendencies due to his massive narcissism. It's personal for Trump, for DeSantis, it's a job.

[–] HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Desantis is a goddamn psychopath dude. Trump is obviously not someone that should have any type of power but Desantis is literally no better. His policies are fucking insane, his personal ideology is fucking insane, the voters he encourages and the culture wars he wages are fucking insane. It's not "just a job", it's the opportunity of power, something he seizes as much as possible. He is absolutely a fucking dictator if he gets the chance.

He came to my college campus a couple months ago, he kicked off his q and a with a prayer asking god to kill trans people. I'm not even saying that as a euphemism, the motherfucker literally said "and we ask you to stop the prevalence of transgenders by force if you need to" during that opening prayer.

Fucking insanity.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

prayer asking god to kill trans people

Is there any journalistic corroboration for that? This sounds like something a political opponent would jump at, yet I can't find anything similar online.

What I can point to is Trump literally trying to subvert our democratic processes by overturning the election results.

So on the one hand, I have proof of an attempt to stay in power, and on the other I have someone with gross policies that seems to play by political rules. I'm much more worried about Trump than DeSantis.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 9 points 10 months ago (5 children)

So what serious contenders are there still for the primaries?

And is Trump still considered a serious contender when there are entire states who definitely won’t have him on the final ballot?

[–] superduperenigma@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's basically Nikki Haley vs Trump at this point. New Hampshire may be Haley's best bet when it comes to beating Trump in any one state at this point. Polls had shown Trump being anywhere between 10-20 points ahead, although that was before desantis dropped out. If she can win there it'll help her in other states down the line as people will see her as a more viable primary candidate.

If Haley can't build up some momentum and win a few states, it may not matter if Trump is disqualified from being on a few state ballots. He wouldn't need them to win the primary and most of those states are almost certainly going to Biden either way, so it wouldn't have much impact on the general.

[–] survivalmachine@beehaw.org 7 points 10 months ago

Donald Trump and Nicki Haley. And Trump is not harmed in the least bit as long as he's only left off blue state ballots. That has zero effect on his ability to win electoral votes.

[–] cobra89@beehaw.org 3 points 10 months ago

Yes because Colorado was never going to go to Trump anyway. Maine splits their electoral votes but 1 or 2 electoral votes are very very unlikely to make a difference in the election. And that probably won't matter anyway because SCOTUS will almost certainly rule to keep him on the ballot.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

And is Trump still considered a serious contender when there are entire states who definitely won’t have him on the final ballot?

He's the only serious contender. sigh

[–] Dio@lemy.lol -3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Those states, and counting, are forced to keep him on the ballot by the Supreme Court.

[–] Auzy@beehaw.org 1 points 10 months ago

I thought the supreme court case hasn't been finished yet?

[–] Stillhart@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It is beyond bizarre to me that we are discussing another election with Trump in it.

[+] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Why? Is there some law that he has broken and been convicted of breaking and thus officially disqualified from holding federal office? Are the democrats some kind of Amazing Pax Americana party that consistently and measurably increases the quality of life for the vast majority of Americans while also shunning foreign adventurism?

Cause unless those things are true, then it seems quite expected that Trump would run again and have a similar amount of support as he did in 2020.

[–] HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The 14th amendment doesn't require someone to be convicted

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -5 points 10 months ago

Oh, well then I guess I can just declare someone invalid to run for office under the 14th amendment and now it's true?

[–] Auzy@beehaw.org 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Oh God. I thought I recognized your username. You were the guy defending Nazis here in Australia I responded to on another thread.

Even sitting here in Australia it was obvious he was planning to overthrow the election months before it happened (I worked that out within 5 mins of seeing sky news at a customers house).

The guy has broken many laws (he's a rapist, tax cheat, etc).

The fact he has any support and has managed to create a cult should be a reason why nobody supports him

But sure, let's hope he has similar support to 2020 because if he can't get elected in the upcoming election, he's going straight to jail. And when he gets prosecuted for being a traitor and breaching confidential information, hopefully he gets life imprisonment and isn't eligible to run (he already shouldn't be technically)

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yea I wasn't defending nazis, but glad to see you are using the intent of that law correctly. That is to classify any criticism of the government as "defending nazis."
If Trump has "similar support" as in 2020 it's going to be a landslide victory for him.

[–] Auzy@beehaw.org 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

There are laws which technically make him ineligible to run: https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-79373b5043976588b599fc00ede049e8

And, based on everything I've seen, the arguments are basically just Trump claiming he's immune whilst president. So yeah.. There was a law he broke, and he already got disqualified by 2 states. Don't be surprised if he's disqualified nationally.

And yeah, you WERE defending nazi's. You basically say I, as an aussie don't "understand" the purpose of the legislation. Well, I understood it. There were literal Neo-Nazi's congregating at rally's. You're literally the only one on the planet other than the neo nazi's who interpreted it as anything other than stopping nazi rally's. Shutting down Nazi salutes only silences nazi's, unless you think there's a valid usecase for a bunch of people doing nazi salutes? Fuck them, silence them I'd say. It was actually everyone else demanding they get banned honestly.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You conveniently overlooked the part of legislation where they banned "terrorists groups" and group them in with Nazis. Where Terrorists groups are free to be designated at will. So now in Australia, if you say "Palestine will be free from the river to the sea.", or if you call for the boycot of a genocidal country, the government gets to silence you as if you are a Nazi.

[–] Auzy@beehaw.org 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You mean banning these guys: https://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/what-australia-is-doing/terrorist-organisations/listed-terrorist-organisations . Oh No. They are such friendly supportive groups. Also, you can't just pick them randomly, they need to follow a legal process. I mean sure, it's critical for free speech to have gangs brainwash others and teach them how to make bombs to injure other people. All

Tomorrow, you'll be arguing criminal gangs should be let out of prison.

And no.. None of that nonsense will happen. You've clearly never been here. Sounds like you're prioritising extremist groups instead of the victims of them.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

https://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/what-australia-is-doing/terrorist-organisations/listed-terrorist-organisations/kurdistan-workers-party-pkk Man sure glad the Marxist Leninist Party that is defending the themselves from genocide on that list.

[–] Auzy@beehaw.org 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah.. And I'm sure you know so much about them.. They're branded as a terrorist organisation in a lot of countries. https://www.dni.gov/nctc/ftos/pkk_fto.html Yeah, those notable attacks make them sound like the people we want here in Australia. I can see how a soccer stadium would be considered a strong military target.

If you're not defending terrorists and Nazi's, what exactly are you doing? How should we deal with Nazi's and Terrorist organisations? Just let people involved in guerrila warfare and Terrorist parties internationally walk into our country and monitor them?

If you're not Australian, you have no right to speak on behalf of us. Because if you did, you'd know this Nazi bill was in response to everyone complaining the government wasn't doing enough. But thanks for speaking on behalf of us and Turkish Citizens too. I'm sure our Turkish citizens absolutely cherish the thought of getting attacked during any turkish festivals

I'm not going to respond anymore, because it seems you haven't offered any other alternatives, than to simply allow Nazi and Terrorist Organisations to embed themselves further in the country. Also, you're acting like they can simply just ban groups (but they need to be justified, and publicised). They can't just target random people for no reason or justification. AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE SUPPORT BANNING NAZI'S AND TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS. OR ANY ORGANISATION THAT ENGAGES IN CRIMES AGAINST AUSSIE CITIZENS !!!!!!. And yes, we aren't too pleased with some of our military either

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

And yet the IDF isn't on the list of terrorist organizations, so apparently there is some problematic subjectivity with the law as written today, which was exactly my point to begin with. I'd also suggest you ask Turkish Kurds what they think about the Turkish Government.

[–] SomeGuyNamedPaul@beehaw.org 3 points 10 months ago

Definitely Back Down