2mo ago

Senate confirms Pam Bondi as US attorney general, putting Trump ally at Justice Department’s helm

Summary

The Senate confirmed Pam Bondi as U.S. attorney general in a 54-46 vote, solidifying a key Trump ally at the Justice Department.

Bondi, a former Florida attorney general, is expected to reshape the DOJ, which has faced mass firings of officials linked to Trump-related investigations.

She has echoed Trump’s claims of a “weaponized” justice system and refused to rule out prosecuting his adversaries.

politics @lemmy.world

inclementimmigrant @lemmy.world

2mo ago

Senate confirms Pam Bondi as US attorney general, putting Trump ally at Justice Department’s helm

apnews.com /article/pam-bondi-justice-department-trump-confirmation-7a37ef0b42964f9476776559379f48bd

You're viewing a single thread.

17 comments

Not that it would have changed anything, but Fetterman voted to confirm.
- Well, sure. We needed a new DINO now that Manchin and Sinema are gone.
- Another progressive turns out to be republican. While leftists online get more vocal about removing closed primaries so there is no vetting process to prevent this.
  
  Closed primaries don't lead to more progressive candidates. For example, Senator John Fetterman, who you are currently complaining about, was the product of Pennsylvania's closed primary system.
  
  And how will removing the vetting process impact the amount of candidates we get like Fetterman? It will increase them.
  
  LOL, whaf the fuck are you talking about? "We got Fetterman through the closed primary process. The only way we can prevent candidates like this is with more closed primaries."
  Also, closed primaries don't add any more vetting. They just mean that the only people who get to vote in the primaries are party members. They arguable lead to less vetting, since less people get to vote in closed primaries, which means those candidates are being vetted by less people.
  
  LOL, how do you think letting anyone run as a candidate without vetting them will turn out?
  Absolutely any bad actor will be able to run without intervention. The floodgates would be open. Which is probably what the bad actors calling for open primaries want.
  Also, closed primaries don't add any more vetting. They just mean that the only people who get to vote in the primaries are party members.
  This is the definition of vetting. lol
  
  LOL, how do you think letting anyone run as a candidate without vetting them will turn out?
  Literally anyone can run in a closed primary. A closed primary means that only registered members of the party can vote in the primary, but anyone can try to get on the ballot. It doesn't limit the candidate pool, it limits the voter pool.
  Absolutely any bad actor will be able to run without intervention. The floodgates would be open. Which is probably what the bad actors calling for open primaries want.
  What the fuck are you talking about? The vast majority of states currently have open primaries. There are only 15 states that hold closed primaries. I live in a state with open primaries, and I'm repped by Ed Markey, Elizabeth Warren, and Ayanna Pressley. Not exactly a bunch of secret conservatives, is it?
  This is the definition of vetting. lol
  It isn't. Sit down, you don't know what you're talking about.
  
  Literally anyone can run in a closed primary. A closed primary means that only registered members of the party can vote in the primary.
  Winning the primary decides whether or not someone can run as a candidate in the general election. Either you need that explained because you don’t know anything about primaries or you are pretending to not understand what you’re reading.
  There are only 15 states that hold closed primaries. I live in a state with open primaries, and I'm repped by Ed Markey, Elizabeth Warren, and Ayanna Pressley. Not exactly a bunch of secret conservatives, is it?
  Your reading comprehension is failing you again. Having no vetting process doesn’t guarentee the candidate is a “secret conservative” it just increases the chances of it happening. I’m surprised I need to explain that again.
  It isn't. Sit down, you don't know what you're talking about.
  vetting noun [ U ] US /ˈvet.ɪŋ/ UK /ˈvet.ɪŋ/ the action of examining someone or something carefully to make certain that they are or it is acceptable or suitable for something
  It’s literally the definition of what they are doing with closed primaries. Why does that need to be explained to you?
  
  OMFG dude, I'm going to explain to you how closed primaries work, step by step, and how they differ from open primaries, because you clearly have no idea what the fuck they are or how they're different. Let's do PA vs MA since we were already talking about them.
  To be a primary candidate in PA, you need a certain number of signatures, to fill out a candidate affidavit, and pay a filing fee. That's it. In MA, it's virtually the same, except you have to prove you've been a party member for at least 90 days. Do you see how it's just as easy (technically slightly easier) to become a party candidate in a closed primary as an open? Do you see how there's no additional vetting that goes into it?
  The difference comes in the voting. In closed primaries, only registered members of the party get to vote, while in open primaries, anyone can request a ballot for any party. However, they can only choose one, so they have to decide which party’s primary they want to vote in. Some people get scared that this will cause, "bad actors," to screw up a party's primary, but there aren't any examples of that successfully happening. Most people just want to participate in the primary for the party that most closely reflects their views.
  However, closed primaries are in danger of producing worse candidates. Since people who choose not to affiliate with either party (which has become growing plurality over the last few decades) can't participate, the party primaries are being determined by a smaller, more partisan portion of the population. You could even say they're being vetted by fewer people. They can produce candidates that are more extreme or less representative of the general electorate.
  So, no, dude, closed primaries don't keep faux progressives like Fetterman off the ballot. They don't add another layer of vetting to the process. They're not some vanguard against bad actors who want to mess with a party's nominating system. They just ensure that fewer people can take part in the Democratic process. That's why 70% of states favor open primaries over closed. Now please, sit down.
  
  Liberal and conservative politicians are closer to one another than to us. "Told you so" isn't helping the bitterness go down, I would have preferred leftists being wrong. Socialism or bust.
  
  Leftists can’t win elections because they refuse to work with other ideologies and they are too small of a voting group to get anything done alone.
  
  Leftists don't usually have candidates.... When has a democrat plugged their nose and voted more progressive than they'd like? Leftists do that every single time...
  
  When has a democrat plugged their nose and voted more progressive than they'd like? Leftists do that every single time...
  Never. Because democrats are willing to work with other ideologies so they have a bigger group of voters.
  Leftists are not willing to work with other ideologies so they don’t get enough votes to win elections or get any legislation passed.
  If leftists ever want to get their candidates elected or legislation passed they need to work with other ideologies and reach across the aisle. Because they don’t have enough voters to do anything alone as a result of their own inability to compromise.
  
  amazing take thanks for sharing lol
  Democrats sure seem to want to work with Republicans, which leftist policies have they adopted?
  they didn't even budge on genocide.
  keep your "cooperation" if it means fascism and fascism-lite.
  Sorry we're not so complacent?
  
  Democrats sure seem to want to work with Republicans, which leftist policies have they adopted?
  Single payer healthcare, student loan debt relief, capital gains tax, increasing corporate tax rate, legal marijuana, all the UBI experiments have been done in democratic locations and that’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure there’s more.
  The only thing stopping democrats from getting legislation passed is seats in Congress.
  Leftist haven’t been able to get elected for barely any congressional seats so our leftist legislation is only as successful as leftist are at getting elected.
  But leftist look for any reason to not vote (genocide or whatever the hot topic is that election cycle) and refuse to work with other ideologies. So they never get enough votes to actually get anything passed. The sad thing is they end up blaming democrats for their inability to get anything done so they never learn from their mistakes.
  
  I'll give you debt relief, with the caveat that it was more motivated by economics than political theory.
  Listing off a bunch of campaign promises, or even weaker examples, things said only to try to win over actual progressives, which Democrats "simply didn't have enough seats" to pull off even while holding a majority, and then brushing off a "hot topic" issue of actually funding a Holocaust in our times.
  That attitude is why we're here

17 comments