President Biden on Friday delivered a ferocious condemnation of Donald J. Trump, his likely 2024 opponent, warning in searing language that the former president had directed an insurrection and would aim to undo the nation’s bedrock democracy if he returned to power.

On the eve of the third anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by Mr. Trump’s supporters, Mr. Biden framed the coming election as a choice between a candidate devoted to upholding America’s centuries-old ideals and a chaos agent willing to discard them for his personal benefit.

“There’s no confusion about who Trump is or what he intends to do,” Mr. Biden warned in a speech at a community college not far from Valley Forge in Pennsylvania, where George Washington commanded troops during the Revolutionary War. Exhorting supporters to prepare to vote this fall, he said: “We all know who Donald Trump is. The question is: Who are we?”

In an intensely personal address that at one point nearly led Mr. Biden to curse Mr. Trump by name, the president compared his rival to foreign autocrats who rule by fiat and lies. He said Mr. Trump had failed the basic test of American leaders, to trust the people to choose their elected officials and abide by their decisions.

“We must be clear,” Mr. Biden said. “Democracy is on the ballot. Your freedom is on the ballot.”

Archive

  • avater@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    as a german I’m not that up to date but is it still possible that this orange, wig wearing cunt can run for presidency?

    • ramenshaman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      We’re working on that. So far 2 states (Colorado and Maine, which have 10 and 4 electoral college votes respectively out of a total of 538) have taken Trump off their election ballots, but this will likely go to the supreme court, of which 3 out of 9 judges were appointed by Trump.

      Despite 3 of the judges being appointed by Trump, they have made it clear that they won’t do his bidding, so far, so there is hope that he won’t be eligible.

      I’m disappointed he’s not already in prison.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        Despite 3 of the judges being appointed by Trump, they have made it clear that they won’t do his bidding,

        They have said that, but have they convincingly demonstrated it?

    • 31337@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      He will likely be allowed to run because so much of the country supports him, there is some legal gray area (he has not been convicted), and the courts are “conservative.” I personally think he will win because Biden is getting even worse at speeches, much of the population doesn’t think their personal lives improved under Biden, and a lot of people are upset for how Biden has/is handling the Israel war.

      A lot of things could happen before the election that would hurt Biden as well. A recession, expansion of Israel war, and losses in Ukraine are possibilities that could hurt Biden. I don’t think anything could hurt Trump. I think he could win the election from prison. Trump voters will eagerly buy any conspiracy theory to keep supporting Trump, and they don’t care about democracy or human rights. Democrat and Biden voters are much more critical and fickle.

      • zik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        “He hasn’t been convicted of insurrection” isn’t a legal gray area, that’s just misdirection by his supporters. Just like most other legal proceedings this one isn’t dependent on the result of other legal proceedings. The supreme court will decide for themselves whether he was “involved in insurrection” - the law here doesn’t depend on him being previously convicted of “insurrection”, a different charge which has a much higher legal bar.

        There’s overwhelming evidence that he was “involved” in this insurrection so he’ll almost certainly be held accountable. But whether the supreme court decides to disqualify him depends mostly on their interpretation of the clause naming the offices which he can be banned from. Given that the supreme court are republicans will they rule that “public office” does or doesn’t include the presidency since it isn’t named explicitly in the clause?

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          The supreme court will decide for themselves whether he was “involved in insurrection”

          No they won’t. That has already been found to be fact in the Colorado Supreme Court. They have to decide on it despite that finding. They have to find a way to support their boy despite having to admit he engaged in insurrection.

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          According to another random lemmy user, the clause actually did originally include the president explicitly, but it was then removed saying the language already covered it so it wasn’t needed.

          Not sure if that’s true at all, but apparently it’s recorded history, so if it’s true it’s hard to refute it and say they didn’t mean it?

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

            But maybe they removed it because they saw it as unnecessary? It’d be restating the obvious since it already says insurrectionists can’t be officials, then goes on to list a few examples which were pertinent when the law was created in response to the aftermath of the civil war. In the end it depends whether they decide to interpret part of the clause literally and as more important than the intent of the clause, which seems pretty clear. How they interpret it seems to be a bit up in the air given their party affiliations.

            Legal Eagle does a really good run down of the legal aspects here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krVNdQOWYk4

    • doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      That will likely come down to a decision by our supreme Court, who haven’t been known for making very reasonable (or ethical, or logically consistent) decisions as of late.

      My personal hunch is he’ll be allowed to run. Happy to be surprised, though.

      • GladiusB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        He will still lose when he is allowed to run. Because if he is allowed to run EVERYONE will show up to vote him out. Because he’s got way more people that hate him than love him. He lost by a lot last time. And it’s even worse now that we have had to hear about him non stop since he has been in the spotlight.

    • Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      everything here has devolved into a state by state issue with state trumping federal laws

      it depends on who each individual state decides to put on the ballot to allow the people to vote for

    • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Yes, and he’s just as popular with his voters as he was in 2020, if not more, because they’re sympathetic to his claims that all the charges against him were politically motivated.
      The 14th amendment hasn’t been tested to anywhere near this extent ever, so the Supreme Court is likely to rule in his favor because there haven’t been any convictions yet and we have literally nothing to use as precident (and because he personally appointed 1/3 of the justices)