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.
- 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.
- 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
Trump basically wants this judge to snap and or get really harsh with him. Even though the judge would 100% be in the right, Trump will use the harsh penalties as miscarriage of justice ammo in an appeals case.
IMHO, this guy needs to continue doing what he has mostly already done. Don’t take the bait.
Edit: typos
I think that's what Louis C.K. said before he'd do what he did.
No appellate court would side with Trump. It's for his base.
No sane court would. But the last president appointed some real kooks to a lot of courts.
I could see Trump trying to get an injunction against the ruling pending appeal. Even a sane court would need to allow time for discovery, arguments, etc. Any material (in the way of snark or comments from the judge could mean added delays. Trump would definitely slow walk the appeal as much as possible on the hope that he’ll get reelected and pull some nonsense to wriggle out of consequences.
The appellate courts are already shooting him down.
the 'bate?
the hash bate