this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
856 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19145 readers
3257 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Viking_Hippie 43 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I mean, of course! His own wife was one of the co-conspirators!

What about the 3 people on the court who owe their cushy lifetime gig to him, though? The ones whose legal bribes still depend on his rabid following approving of them? Does anyone really think that they don't have a conflict of interest?

Btw, that Newsweek fairness meter? By conflating left-right political views with fairness, it ironically reinforces the common misconception that a centrist perspective equals fairness, incentivising any reporter of theirs who cares about the meter to adopt a centrist point of view, thus making their reporting less fair and objective.

[–] MimicJar 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Luckily the three on the court already don't actually owe him shit. I don't have a lot of faith in them, but once on the court, they will be there forever, no matter what the orange poo ball says or does.

The orange garbage can may think they'll be loyal to him, but we all know that loyalty only works one way with him.

Again my faith in these three is lowwwwww, but it's not a given that they rule in his favor.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

Don't underestimate the power of stochastic terrorism. They may not owe him anything, but they have a pretty good idea of what he'll do if they rule against him. They're corrupt, not stupid.

Nasty nicknames and accusations of disloyalty will be followed by imprecations for someone to rid him of these turbulent justices, and the next thing they know they're facing some wacko with a baseball bat.

[–] Viking_Hippie 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

the three on the court already don't actually owe him shit. I don't have a lot of faith in them, but once on the court, they will be there forever, no matter what the orange poo ball says or does.

True, but you're forgetting the millions if not tens or even hundreds of millions worth of various bribes go away if they're no longer considered "loyal" to the Mango Mussolini.

They didn't get to or near the top of those Federalist Society lists by NOT being corrupt as fuck, after all..

[–] MimicJar 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's a good point. I expect these organizations intend to outlast the orange shit stain so it's just a matter of the winds of change blowing the other way, something which they have control over.

[–] Viking_Hippie 1 points 11 months ago

I expect these organizations intend to outlast the orange shit stain

Yeah they intend to, but they don't yet know if they can. Just look at Kevin McCarthy acting all principled on January 7th when he thought it was finally over, only to come crawling back when it turned out that even treason wasn't enough..