this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
252 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19246 readers
3406 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] negativenull 184 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The slow walk towards injustice, and the complete failure of the judiciary, continues.

[–] [email protected] 79 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

The system is written and set up by guys like him.

It doesn't change itself. Voting won't make it change itself either.

We're either going to have to grind everything to halt or grind everything to dust. Those are the only two options left to us.

It was over 8 years ago that begged a foreign power for espionage help while running for pres. On live TV. He should have been locked up then.

[–] themeatbridge 49 points 10 months ago (1 children)

When peaceful revolution is impossible, violent revolution is inevitable.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Yes. The above quote is a JFK quote.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The system is written and set up by guys like him.

I know what you mean, but it was definitely not written by people like him. They didn't have sharpies back then.

[–] Bdtrngl 8 points 10 months ago

You mean crayons?

[–] _bug0ut 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Can you imagine Trump trying to even navigate stuffy legal language? Nevermind writing some.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

To his supporters, legal gibberish and Trump gibberish sound identical.

[–] [email protected] 101 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Jesus, how many years have the courts had to ponder if he is immune. At least 7? And you still don't have a fucking answer and we still going to let him hold this shit up with the same old bullshit.

Why doesn't it go the other way. Sorry dude you don't get in any ballots till you're cleared of insurrection.

Why don't we rage and protest like the French ,why is it always so acceptable that those in power never face consequences...

[–] [email protected] 54 points 10 months ago (3 children)

The insurrection bit isn't even up for debate, he has been found to be an insurrectionist. It is only if we are going to follow what the constitution plainly spells out, or find that Presidents are above the law and start the reign of Kings of The Former United States of America.

[–] Maggoty 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ah yes but you see they didn't specifically write the word "President" in the Amendment, and SCOTUS ruled that the President isn't an "officer" of the United States in a completely unrelated case with unrelated sections of law. So now we have to wait and see if SCOTUS is going to put the President above the law or not. And they almost assuredly aren't going to do it before the Election. Which totally isn't because they're afraid of what happens if he still somehow wins after they rule against him...

This unhinged semi satirical rant brought to you by staying up way too late.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If the SCOTUS were to put President outside of the constitution like that, they have all but declared the office of President a King, and the 14th amendment has no barring on the office at that point anyways. And a King has no want for a "Supreme Court", and would dismantle them as one of the first acts in power. A King dislikes and fears oversight, so really the Court is deciding if they will continue on, or if they and the whole US experiment is over.

[–] Maggoty 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well, if we want to game theory this road (We shouldn't, being that tired is an altered mental state but I love wild hypotheticals), Kings absolutely use courts to help maintain their legitimacy. So do dictators. As an example one of the things in Venezuela was packing the high court so they couldn't protest the de-powering of the legislature. I do agree though if we ever get a fully immune president we're screwed. Previous presidents agreed with that and subjected themselves to oversight, and even in one case, a speeding ticket.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I was talking specifically the Supreme Court, as that would be the only court with more power than the President/King/Dictator. He would absolutely use all lower federal courts to bring the states in line, and prosecute anyone that threaten his power.

[–] Maggoty 1 points 10 months ago

Interesting fact, there's no Constitutional cap to the size of SCOTUS. If I were him I would find 10 people beholden to me financially and by blackmail. The court would then be 19 people.

[–] cmbabul 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

If it does come to that point I think we’ll have a double feature of insurgencies and Balkanization

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"You don't vote for King!"

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

In Russia you do, or at least you pretend that the people are getting a choice through voting.

[–] PedroMaldonado 94 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Over and over again with this piece of shit trump. When when WHEN will we have him gone from our lives?

[–] TropicalDingdong 39 points 10 months ago

Your best bet seems to be just keep feeding the guy cheeseburgers. Nothing else seems to stick.

[–] twistypencil 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think we need to stop clicking on links that are about the issues Trump crazy, it encourages stores to write more

[–] _bug0ut 16 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

A few Lemmy users ain't gonna cut it. This is one of those things where it won't go away until the subject of the stories goes away.

Counting down the days, personally... I just don't know how many days there are to count down.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Trump’s Plotting to Interfere in 2024 Election Causes Judge to Postpone Trump's March Trial on Charges of Plotting to Overturn 2020 election

FTFY

[–] negativenull 30 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The slow coup attempt continues

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

it’s more like a coop attempt. like a fox in a chicken coop. a delusionally-mixed metaphor, where the fox is in the chicken coop, but the fox is severely mentally ill and just screaming incoherently at the chickens who are all defensively trying to peck the fox to death, but it’s not working for some reason, despite the massive, gathering pool of blood… everyone is watching in horror, for hours now, powerless to either stop nor explain what they’re witnessing.

and it just keeps happening...

[–] RedditWanderer 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"coup" btw, from the french "hit".

[–] logi 1 points 10 months ago

Works with cooperative too. It is a delusional metaphor after all.

[–] BenLeMan 35 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Judge: "We'll deal with it after the election" - wink, wink.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

All Trump wants is to delay until the general election. If he can even get remotely close to the general or ideally past it, then he can claim he won and that he has "presidential immunity" again.

[–] Mirshe 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm wondering if his campaign even really cares about getting to the general before these cases start. If he can push it past March, he'll more than likely be the GOP candidate (barring a literal miracle), and then he can crow all about "oh the judges are just treating me horribly, you can't try a presidential candidate it's against the law etc etc etc" in front of his rallies, and on the debate stage, and in the courtroom.

[–] Riccosuave 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yeah, I think it is essentially over. He successfully ran out the clock already. By the time the Supreme Court hears the immunity appeal he will already be the nominee, and it is extremely unlikely they will haul him into court after that due to the optics of interfering with the election.

The scarier scenario is the Supreme Court silently waits to see if he wins, and then the conservative justices rule in his favor that he has absolute immunity if he does win. That would essentially be the end of democracy in this country.

[–] cabron_offsets 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] morphballganon 2 points 10 months ago

Judge Chutkan may be a coward, but this move is probably out of malice, not cowardice.

[–] Riccosuave 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Who's going to win:

  1. One fat, smelly, rapist, cult leader, and reality television has been.

(Or)

  1. Democracy, the rule of law, and the US judicial system.

At this point my money is on option #1.

[–] Nudding -3 points 10 months ago

As an outsider looking in, the choices are genocide and climate apocalypse VS genocide and climate apocalypse.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

law and order is bad, actually

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ah yes, I'd much rather live with roving bands of armed gangs

[–] Nudding 0 points 10 months ago

You know there's a gang that can literally take your money and items and make you prove your items are innocent?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


That case has long been seen as arguably the least legally perilous of the four indictments Trump faces, with the alleged misconduct less grave than accusations of mishandling classified documents or plotting to subvert a presidential election.

Trump, who faces four indictments and 91 felony counts, is looking to push his criminal cases back as he enjoys front-runner status in the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

The Washington case had been expected to take place first, but it has been delayed for weeks by Trump’s appeal on grounds that he is shielded from prosecution — a claim that has been vigorously disputed by Smith’s team.

The New York case involves steps Trump allegedly took to hide payments that were made on the Republican’s behalf to suppress damaging stories before his 2016 win over Democrat Hillary Clinton, namely logging them as legal expenses.

While a guilty verdict would give Trump another historic moniker as the first former president convicted of a crime, potentially complicating his campaign to return to the White House, there’s no guarantee of prison time.

Trump critics and rival campaign aides have long bemoaned that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s indictment was the first, believing that it helped blunt the political impact of more serious charges that followed because voters tuned out or grew confused by the myriad cases.


The original article contains 710 words, the summary contains 223 words. Saved 69%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Remember when Sans was like, Im just gonna keep taking my turn forever.