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!
- 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
His entire personality and life constitutes a major argument against inherited wealth. He knew that he was set to inherit a ton of money and a business that would enable him to coast through his whole life and never bothered to develop maturity or intellectual curiosity.
The thing is, he could've just put that stuff in a trust fund and lived off interest/dividends/whatever. But he just had to go into business, screw people over, and then do the same in politics.
And then become a very disloyal American neofascist, who is also a megolomaniac who craves power and attention, and a convicted sex offender.
Sure. He could have even just hired competent people to run it and stayed out of their way, even entered politics earlier. I assume probably he wanted the chance to be an asshole to people in person, since he clearly has this huge angst. Also he's a poster child for Dunning-Kreuger - he has absolutely no idea how dumb he is, so he thought he would be the best and only choice to run his businesses.
It's been 9 years of these headlines. Christ. I've heard this shit so many times.
Of course Trump wanted to do one of his usual "omg witch hunt" speeches. He didn't seem to realize that the trial was already over, and in the penalty phase, or that the speech would not be on TV. The email chain between Trump's incompetent lawyer (who had previously been reported on as one of his 'good' ones) was hilarious but also just sad, I mean, the guy can't even be bothered to capitalize words starting sentences and the request to 'delay until Jan 29th because Melania's parent died' is ludicrously transparent. Anyway, his lawyer needs to be fined or formally censured some more.
I am convinced his 'incompetent" lawyers are just a means for appeal. He will say his defense was inadequate and that his lawyers did not do their due diligence to give adequate defense or some such bullshit.
I'm not sure "I'm such a fucking deadbeat that no reputable lawyer will go near me" is a winning proposition.
To me it feels like the lawyer was trying to make sure Trump wouldn't be allowed to do the speech (because allowing your client to talk is always bad), but couldn't convince him to do it himself. So he tried to get the judge to do it for him (and eventually failed anyway).
Perhaps, and also some of the emails practically read like they were dictated by Trump. I doubt if the lawyer has 100% control since surely Trump insists on things and tries to micromanage it himself.
The sentence, "Former President Donald Trump’s Thursday courtroom tirade could backfire," is so fucking funny. I'm sorry, was this a strategy?? Did a team of legal experts come up with a plan which included a senile fascist screaming at a judge for 6 minutes? Did that seem like it was going to go in his favor???
Apparently so. Rolling Stone ran an article where they claim to have been informed by sources that the rant was rehearsed.
According to two people familiar with the matter who spoke to Rolling Stone, in recent weeks Trump had told several close allies of his intention to personally deliver a closing argument, and at times previewed some of the things he wanted to say before the judge. One of the sources describes it as the ex-president informally “rehearsing” his spite-filled court monologue for his friends.
This idiot thinks he's in a courtroom drama.
Bootleg Hitler just practicing his speeches like real Hitler
deleted by creator
I saw it pointed out elsewhere that they may have been hoping the judge would lose his cool in some manner that would warrent an appeal or retrial.
I don't see that mattering since they were always going to appeal. Trump has never quietly accepted a consequence in his life, why would he start now.
On the other hand, you may be right: These are some mighty incompetent defense lawyers, and they may have thought this would help.
Basically any case right now is a SCOTUS case, and that's a stacked deck.
So that's fun.
Not this one - it’s a civil case on the state of NY.
"I'm getting paid. Let the idiot lose."
If they think they're getting paid, I would argue that they're also idiots
Show of hands, please.
How many people have gotten into trouble at work over a $30.00 error?
When I worked in fast food if we were off on our tills by more than $0.05 per $100 we were fired on the spot.
Sams club in highschool. They used janky things to count bills- by weight. The thing is, a new bill weighs substantially more than an old bill.
Enough that across 500 in 20’s because they didn’t come around early as often as they’re supposed to, it’s enough to be off by a few bills. Never mind all the ones.
They spent weeks arguing, insisting we were stealing- every single cashier was on average off by about the same margins. The same margin, incidentally, that was the margin of error on the machines…
We counted our bills by hand luckily, but there were more than a few occasions where some change ended up getting shuffled about in the tray which led to some errors
The worst was seeing someone get fired and then when the new till was being put in we figured out the $20 bill that was missing got caught in the register some time during the day
Back in the 80s my McD manager was an ex-Marine, real tough guy type. Chewed out a poor, dumb 16-yo over a $10 discrepancy, accused me of stealing it, threatened to fire me.
LOL, I was scared to death but I managed to stutter something like, "$10 is less than 3-hours pay. Why would I risk my job over what I make in half a shift?"
The amount of power tripping assholes in the fast food industry is astounding
I saw my fair share of them in the almost 3 years I worked at Burger King
$30 error gets you in trouble.
$650,000 error, you phone up the vendor and laugh about it.
I was fired from a job over an error of about that much. After working there for 5 years.
Then they fought me on unemployment. The judge was not amused with them
That poor stenographer having to dictate all that bullshit
I'd sue for damages if I were them.
Maybe we can all do a damages class action suit for... like all of 2016 through 2020
One would think that with all the litigation this man has been involved in throughout his life, he'd have sense enough to STFU. Especially in a trial where he's already been found liable and is in the penalty phase.
More evidence that some form of dementia has set in, and is getting worse. Irrational anger is part of the deal.
People bag on me for saying this, but look at Trump interviews from the 80s and 90s, even the 00s. He may have been full of shit, but he could string a sentence together. You could parse meaning from his speech. Though this outburst seemed pretty straightforward, his speech over the last 2-3 years has been teetering on the edge of full-blown dementia.
I give him 2-years until he's screaming that Nazi squirrels are stealing his acorns.
He's never really had a good track record in cases that actually went to court. You can bully vendors, mistresses and customers with endless court cases, but the government has unlimited lawyers to throw at you, so that strategy doesn't work any more.
He’s incapable of just shutting the fuck up. His personality disorders won’t allow it.
This doesn't matter. Even the justice system keeps moving the goal posts for this guy.
They can't even hold him in contempt or institute an effective gag order.
Brilliant play, Justice Engoron.
"Former federal prosecutor Kristy Greenberg, who was in the courtroom, told CNN she was stunned to “see somebody have so much disrespect” for the judge and the court.
"The attacks on — the personal attacks on the judge — this is a judge who had a bomb threat this morning. That's why the amount of security that was in the courthouse was unlike anything I have seen. and I have been other days when various Trump family members have testified, and this was heightened. They were very concerned about threats,” she said.
"I'm waiting for the judge to tell him 'You're done and if you continue you'll be held in contempt!'” she added. "That's what happened to me and any other lawyers happening in courts and it was not done."
Engoron is expected to issue a ruling by Jan. 31."
I think it was doubly-brilliant by Engoron because now Orange Hitler can't say he didn't get a chance to speak.
“There may be a reason that James' staff didn't interrupt,” wrote NBC News legal analyst Lisa Rubin.
No, really? You think maybe they were giving him rope to hang himself? /s
This expert analysis brought to you by the best legal analysts at NBC. FFS, of course that's what they were doing, you ignoramus. The judge is interested in maintaining an orderly courtroom, but unhinged rants are gold mines for prosecutors.
The articles in news are often written for a wide range of readers. Not all of whom understand it like you. Certainly I imagine many republicans probably have trouble even reading 🫢
I was discussing GOP obstructionism with a MAGoo last night. He brought up a 1980 Government shutdown caused by the evil Dems. A quick search showed that it was caused by an arcane law, and exactly one agency was affected.
So, the guy knew all about this tiny hiccup from five decades ago, but couldn't see things that happened in the last few months.
They can read, but with selective blindness.
No, that chud didn't even read that. Bet you dollars to donuts his propaganda outlet of choice told him that it's not bad for Republicans to shut down the government because a Democratic Congress did it before. Of course, they'll leave out all context and nuance so they can scream BSABSVR.
They didn't even give him rope! The man got his own damn rope manufactured in China, planted a seed, watered it for 20 years, and then hung himself!
Bet on your opponent's arrogance like in this scene from :
A Few Good Men, Starring : Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, Demi Moore, ...
... Finally, he bellows with contempt that he ordered the "code red". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Few_Good_Men
Fucking AND?! 🤬🖕🏽
GTFO with this limp handjob journalism. LMK when he's either dead or imprisoned.