politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Just want to throw this out there:
Donald Trump:
Survived not one but two impeachment trials because senators feared for their safety if they voted to remove him.
Has had at least one judge say that Trump deserves special treatment, with that judge continuing to run interference on Trump's behalf to this day.
Went on CNN and publicly defamed E. Jean Carroll for a second time, less than 24 hours after a judge ordered him to pay $5 million for doing it the first time.
Was declared an insurrectionist by a Colorado judge, but allowed to stay on the ballot anyway despite being Constitutionally disqualified because the judge feared retribution if he were to remove Trump from the ballot.
Has violated multiple gag orders on multiple occasions, including violating one gag order right outside of the courtroom minutes after it was issued. He has faced fines totalling $15,000, which wouldn't even qualify as a rounding error on his taxes if he could be bothered to actually pay taxes. No judge has been willing to impose any sanctions or even warn Trump of the possibility of incarceration for fear of backlash, even though they admit any other defendant would have been jailed for the same behavior.
Has made so many credible threats against judges, prosecutors, witnesses, staff, potential jurors, and their families that any developments in any of his cases are now often preceded by lockdowns, significant boosts in security, and even personal security for those involved out of fear of retribution or violence.
The latest ruling from the Colorado judge baffles me. They wrote an extensive ruling saying that Trump engaged in an insurrection and detailed how his actions were not simply exercising free speech. Then decided that while he took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the constitution, he never took an oath to "support" the constitution. And also that while the 14th amendment forbids an insurrectionist from holding any office of the United States, the presidency isn't an office. What the actual fuck??
It was mental gymnastics by someone who knows Trump shouldn't be anywhere near the ballot, but doesn't want to be the one to actually open that Pandora's box out of fear of retaliation. If it weren't that for an excuse, it would be because the Founding Fathers accidentally misspelled the word "President" or something. The judge was simply looking for any excuse to rule the way he did, and that's just the excuse he settled on.
Pathetic people really shouldn't aim for positions of power but they make up the majority of powerful positions. This guy could've been remembered for hundreds of years for doing the right thing. Instead he'll be vaguely remembered similar to the failures in the German government pre WW2 if shit truly goes wrong.
I'm not trying to defend the judge by saying this, but I do think it needs to be said. Trump is probably the first person in US history to be:
Judges are probably used to death threats from every two-bit defendant that just got sentenced to life without parole. They're probably also used to credible threats from cartel associates who don't actually have the resources to carry them out (because their associates are in Mexico or wherever). But Trump is a unique case, as threats coming from him could easily be carried out by any local lone-wolf MAGA cultist who has decided that this is the hill they're willing to die (or kill somebody) on, making the threats not only credible, but almost impossible to defend against. This does put judges in a situation where they have to weigh whether ruling against Trump is worth putting their literal lives at risk for, and we've seen the results of that time and time again recently. And while I may not necessarily agree with them, I can understand judges being gun-shy over issuing a ruling that could be the equivalent of signing their own death warrant.
You are giving Donald too much credit. His cult is fairly inactive in commiting stochastic terrorism, moreso recently. I'd argue the judge is just gargling his limp mushroom dick over it being some difficult scary decision. Judges are normal people too and can be swayed into the maga cult.
Standing up to authoritarians when you are given the opportunity is the only way to stop them...