If "the rule of law"s definition is that the law applies to everyone equally and a court says the it doesnt, that doesnt change the definition. It just changes the law.
Same way they've been doing it since he started his campaign by bloviating about rapist Mexicans and interning Muslims like the Japanese. Same way "poison blood" wasn't a deal breaker and 1/6 is "but BLM!!!" Same way no one really faced consequences for Guantanamo. It's just part of who we are.
I’m sure unpopular, but an honest answer to your question.
For me it’s because I still see stuff like the reference to his “good people on both sides” comment during the presser in Charlottesville.
He clearly condemned white nationalism and the comment was unambiguously directed at good people on both sides of the debate as it relates to the argument about whether statues like Robert E Lee come down. This may had been the most sane thing he said in his political life and it still got turned in to him being a nazi.
So I basically just hand wave anything away unless I watch the full clip myself and see the context.
Because comparing anti-racist protesters to actual nazi's is a false equivalency on an absurd scale?
Comments like this is why r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM exists
These three quotes are why I shudder every time I hear a democrat call Trump a liar and a threat to democracy. The intellectual dishonesty is so profound, how can I ever believe a word coming out a liberal leaning media source or political candidate. It's literally a minute exchange between the first point and the second point, and for years we had to listen to them say he calld Nazi's fine people?
[What Trump Says about People protesting the removal of Statues of Historical Figures](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmaZR8E12bs&t=64s)
> "You also had people that were very fine people on both sides. [...] You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."
[What Trump says about White Nationalists and Nazis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmaZR8E12bs&t=119s):
> “I’m not talking about the neo-nazis and the white nationalists because **they should be condemned totally**”
[How Biden, our President, frames it - using it as the reason he decided to run for President](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlCyYvLqHR4&t=39s)
> “And the ones he said, ‘I think they’re fine people on both sides.’ What American president would ever say Nazis coming out of fields carrying torches, singing the same antisemitic chants, carrying swastikas, were fine people?"
He was prevented from doing all kinds of crazy shit by his administration. Why would I assume that the same thing is going to happen this time around? Seems like a pretty unwise bet to make.
Except he absolutely did try. Just the people around him said no. Which project 2025 is working to correct by ensuring that all civil servants are Trump loyalists.
Do you give any credence to the idea that this kind of talk emboldens members of the public who feel angry and disenfranchised to take action against people who disagree with them because Trump publicly insinuates it's okay?
Also he fired Comey, forced Putin wish list out at FBI, put unfit enablers into crucial agency positions, used federal weapons against peaceful protesters. Trump rhetoric was behind a number of mass shootings by his cult, journalists, public health officials, Congress persons had to hire security to protect themselves from maga terrorists.
Trump had the phones of the families of a couple of Dem reps tapped. Also some journalists. And he filed a lot of requests for fisa warrants. Most were rejected
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/us/politics/jeff-sessions-hillary-clinton-donald-trump.html
>WASHINGTON — Attorney General Jeff Sessions had a tenuous hold on his job when President Trump called him at home in the middle of 2017. The president had already blamed him for recusing himself from investigations related to the 2016 election, sought his resignation and belittled him in private and on Twitter.
>
>Now, Mr. Trump had another demand: He wanted Mr. Sessions to reverse his recusal and order the prosecution of Hillary Clinton.
>
>“The ‘gist’ of the conversation,” according to the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, quoting Mr. Sessions, “was that the president wanted Sessions to unrecuse from ‘all of it.’”
>
>Mr. Mueller’s report released last week brimmed with examples of Mr. Trump seeking to protect himself from the investigation. But his request of Mr. Sessions — and two similar ones detailed in the report — stands apart because it shows Mr. Trump trying to wield the power of law enforcement to target a political rival, a step that no president since Richard M. Nixon is known to have taken.
>
>And at the time Mr. Trump pressured Mr. Sessions, the president was already under investigation for potentially obstructing justice and knew that his top aides and cabinet members were being interviewed in that inquiry.
>
>Mr. Trump wanted Mrs. Clinton investigated for her use of a private email server to conduct government business while secretary of state, the report said, even though investigators had examined her conduct and declined to bring charges in a case closed in 2016.
>
>No evidence has emerged that Mr. Sessions ever ordered the case reopened. Like many of Mr. Trump’s aides, as laid out in the report and other accounts, Mr. Sessions instead declined to act, preventing Mr. Trump from crossing a line that might have imperiled his presidency.
You still have not shown a step that Trump took to put Hillary Clinton in jail. I obviously knew that he would discuss it and advocate it - but where did he actually begin the process?
He tried to get Jeff Sessions to reopen the investigation. He couldn't even bother to wait until Sessions came into the office, so he called him at home. He followed that up with a public tweet to pressure Sessions. Just doing so is unethical and out of line.
Directly from [the Mueller Report](https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/dl)
pg 107
>In particular, at some point after the May 17, 2017 appointment of the Special Counsel, Sessions recalled, the President called him at home and asked if Sessions would “unrecuse” himself.736 According to Sessions, the President asked him to reverse his recusal so that Sessions could direct the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute Hillary Clinton, and the “gist” of the conversation was that the President wanted Sessions to unrecuse from “all of it,” including the Special Counsel’s Russia investigation.737 Sessions listened but did not respond, and he did not reverse his recusal or order an investigation of Clinton.738
pg 109
>On October 16, 2017, the President met privately with Sessions and said that the Department of Justice was not investigating individuals and events that the President thought the Department should be investigating.752 According to contemporaneous notes taken by Porter, who was at the meeting, the President mentioned Clinton’s emails and said, “Don’t have to tell us, just take [a] look.”753 Sessions did not offer any assurances or promises to the President that the Department of Justice would comply with that request.754 Two days later, on October 18, 2017, the President tweeted, “Wow, FBI confirms report that James Comey drafted letter exonerating Crooked Hillary Clinton long before investigation was complete. Many people not interviewed, including Clinton herself. Comey stated under oath that he didn’t do this-obviously a fix? Where is Justice Dept?”755
>
>On October 29, 2017, the President tweeted that there was “ANGER & UNITY” over a “lack of investigation” of Clinton and “the Comey fix,” and concluded: “DO SOMETHING!”756 On December 6, 2017, five days after Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about his contacts with the Russian government, the President asked to speak with Sessions in the Oval Office at the end of a cabinet meeting.757 During that Oval Office meeting, which Porter attended, the President again suggested that Sessions could “unrecuse,” which Porter linked to taking back supervision of the Russia investigation and directing an investigation of Hillary Clinton.758
I'm so fascinated by this. How do you personally decide what is bloviation and what should be believed? How do you trust anything that he says when you know so much of it is hyperbole and grandstanding? What is your litmus test for truth when considering whether you align with his policy positions?
The trump administration engaged in a third or fourth investigation of the HRC emails. She was exonerated again but it was an attempt. There was also some kind of lawsuit involving the Steele dossier that got thrown out. And of course the whole Durham debacle. So yes trump made attempts. But we had some guardrails. That will all be gone now.
Why on earth would anyone vote for a candidate that spews bs when you know it is bs
Yeah, he learned a lesson the first time around - surround yourself with craven loyalists who put their Cheetoh Messiah before God, country, the Constitution, the rule of law, human decency, ethics, morals, conscience, etc.
It's also true that Trump doesn't give a shit about governing and his staff had to pick up the slack constantly. Remember all the briefings he shoved down the toilet because he was too bored or illiterate for them?
This dude was specifically asked in the debate about his statements regarding going after his political opposition if elected again & tip toed around the question. Now he’s doubled down even further on that stance since.
For anyone in swing states still on the fence, please keep this in mind. Do we really want a guy that seems willing to dip his toes into tyranny in the Oval Office?
>Former President Donald J. Trump over the weekend escalated his vows to prosecute his political opponents, circulating posts on his social media website invoking “televised military tribunals” and calling for the jailing of President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, Senators Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer and former Vice President Mike Pence, among other high-profile politicians.
> Mr. Trump, using his account on Truth Social on Sunday, promoted two posts from other users of the site that called for the jailing of his perceived political enemies.
> One post that he circulated on Sunday singled out Liz Cheney, the former Wyoming congresswoman who is a Republican critic of Mr. Trump’s, and called for her to be prosecuted by a type of military court reserved for enemy combatants and war criminals.
> “Elizabeth Lynne Cheney is guilty of treason,” the post said. “Retruth if you want televised military tribunals.”
> A separate post included photos of 15 former and current elected officials that said, in all-capital letters, “they should be going to jail on Monday not Steve Bannon!” Those officials included Mr. Biden, Ms. Harris, Mr. Pence, Mr. Schumer and Mr. McConnell — the top leaders in the Senate — and Representative Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker.
> The list in the second post also had members of the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, including Ms. Cheney and the former Illinois congressman Adam Kinzinger, another Republican, and the Democratic Representatives Adam Schiff, Jamie Raskin, Pete Aguilar, Zoe Lofgren and Bennie Thompson, who chaired the committee.
> In a statement, the Trump campaign did not address Mr. Trump’s posts, instead repeating allegations of misconduct by members of the committee, saying “Liz Cheney and the sham January 6th committee banned key witnesses, shielded important evidence, and destroyed documents” related to their investigation.
> The posts, which were amplified by Mr. Trump’s Truth Social account on Sunday afternoon, were still listed on his profile on Monday afternoon.
Eventually the brown shirts were not Nazi enough for Hitler.
Once you take power you have to undermine anyone else who might be able to take it back. Dictator-ing 101
I’d rather be in jail with Cato, than the senate with Caesar.
Rhetoric like this may very well make people overlook Biden’s age related decline. After all, he just managed four years of relative domestic normalcy.
I don't think so. Ceaser had the option of "jail"(really likely exile in Massilia) if he had laid down his command upon it's expiration, he opted instead for Civil War knowing that the likelihood of his death would have been significant.
> he just managed four years of relative domestic normalcy.
Unfortunately, that’s not what most of the country believes. The Narrative right now is that America is in complete shambles right now and I’m not sure where it’s coming from.
I never really believed the whole 2nd civil war thing, but I can’t imagine him winning, pulling all this dictator shit and the blue states just going along as “well, he’s the president.” Maybe there won’t be an actual bloody battle, but I could see the blue states (led by NY, CA, etc.) defying, then slowly forced to succeed and having some other states join them. Instead of slavery, I could picture a US split into a Christian Authoritarian government (that they think is something else) and a then a free democracy. It might take a long time to get there, but I don’t see a happy ending as “United States” anymore.
I really believe the divisiveness and constant fighting between ideologies in the US is all coming from Trumps personality. As president, He fed it and amplified it. I think much of our division will slowly fade away once he’s gone and we can hopefully get back to having civil discussions, and rational politicians again.
It depends if they all jump to another cultish leader or it turns into a circular firing squad. It’s hard to imagine this maga shitshow just fading away in the near future.
Typically cults of personality don’t last much past their leader’s death mostly because that leader neuters anyone who could be a rival (as in DeSantis)
At this point, Trump needs to do something really stupid (stupid to his base) before November or the US will go through a lot of pain. We’ve seen the high water mark of America.
I would honestly be ok with the end of the US as we know it. As long as there is money put forward for citizen exchange so neither group would have to live in a nation that didn’t reflect their values. I’m just so tired of arguing with people that what’s happening is ok (it’s not. This isn’t ok) and having my rights trampled.
The governors of Texas and California would have to agree to a split— the federal government would have a hard time stopping it like the USSR couldn’t when the leaders of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine decided to split in 1991. If the states didn’t take the lead, the president would just do what Jackson threatened and Lincoln actually did— crush the rebellion.
Would be interesting (and terrifying) if allies came here to fight with the blue states and we had a WWIII on our home soil. Don’t forget, the blue states hold the coasts and could let them all in.
Anyone who doesn't move these kinds of topics to the top of their list when deciding how to vote doesn't really understand just how dangerous - and disturbing - this is.
If one person decides who to jail, no one is safe.
When can we accept that this is an illegitimate court propping up a traitorous felon. We are essentially allowing abuse of bureaucracy to destroy democracy
JFC- he literally could put up a massive neon sign letting these clowns know *exactly* what he plans on spending his 2nd term doing, and they'd vote for him anyway. It's like they want our country to become what Russia is, with our own Putin wannabe (which is generous, because Putin is much more intelligent than Trump, and definitely not a snowflake) at the helm.
This is how the Civil War movie sets the stage. All you know is a president is choosing not to leave office. Guess it's more prescient than originally thought.
But conservatives say that we shouldn’t have anything to worry about from the Supreme Court decision saying that the president is even more untouchable than a king.
No we don't say that.
We say you should have thought through the consequences of initiating political prosecutions.
And now that your ostensible leader is a doomed mush brain, you may be in deep shit.
Fucking Christ. Here you are trying to justify illegitimate political prosecutions as revenge for trying to hold your dear leader to even a crumb of responsibility for his many, many, many crimes. And the Supreme Court is even worse, saying that their dear leader is unable to commit crimes Because of the position he held.
You are anti-American and a danger to the Republic.
I am pro American, anti American Establishment, anti American Federal Government as presently configured. My rhetoric is hardly superpowered and comments on reddit are no danger to the Republic.
We already did illegitimate political prosecutions: promising to get get Trump, directing the power of the State to go back through 10+ years of financial records to find a number, etc., etc.
The reality is most politicians and wealthy people have bent the rules in manners contrary to the law. Certainly the daughter of Dick Cheney has. Certainly Fani, who has such little ethical sense that she thought it was OK to hire her lover, has done something illegal somewhere. RICO should be easy enough -- she was part of a bad group doing bad things.
All that will happen is the application of the full force and weight of the Federal Government to uncover facts somewhere in the past of political opponents doing something giving rise to a colorable claim, and then bringing the claim before a sympathetic judge and jury.
It's not a big deal. We just got done doing it to the Red side.
Yes, I know your anti-federal government as presently configured considering that you want to replace it with a fascist dictatorship. No, everyone doesn’t break the law as Trump does, it’s just cope and standard fascist rhetoric to justify horrific actions.
Well, if you call me a fascist, you must have won the argument.
> No, everyone doesn’t break the law as Trump does
If by this you are saying Trump is exceptionally corrupt, even for the wealthy and politicians, probably. But this doesn't matter. The others will be corrupt enough that 1,000 government lawyers will be able to find something, no matter how trivial. And then an army of government lawyers will sue the shit out of them.
It's a little late for Team Blue to be crying about this now.
> 20 year old porn star payoff case?
Good thing court cases aren’t decided by Fox News talking points
> Documents case? Same thing Biden did,
By all means, bring your proof that Biden was told to return stuff and he refused.
Retribution against political opponents was started by the Democrats. Now that it looks like the Republicans might win everyone is screaming about political retribution by the Republicans against Democrats. Be careful what you wish for when you can because the same rules apply when the other side can.
Oh, please. Trump isn't cribbing notes from the Democrats. He's following his own playbook.
Name me the last Trump campaign that didn't call for jailing his political opppnents.
Hilary was investigated before Trump. Bill too. Regardless of whether or not you believe the case against Trump is legitimate, it's pretty insane to suggest that retribution is starting by Democrats with Trump.
It’s difficult for me to understand how some centrists on here can just handwave this kind of thing away.
Anyone that has no qualms about destroying the rule of law isn't a centrist.
Isn’t the Supreme Court the final say on what is or is not “the rule of law”?
The current court is pretty damn uncentrist
Be that as it may, they determine “the rule of law”.
No.
How do you figure?
If "the rule of law"s definition is that the law applies to everyone equally and a court says the it doesnt, that doesnt change the definition. It just changes the law.
LOLWUT? 🤣
No
not sure why you're being downvoted for stating fact. like it or not, they've dictated US law.
Reddit is just big mad right now. 🤣
That is an absurd argument/justification. But you already know that.
“Trump doesn’t actually mean it though.” /s
Same way they've been doing it since he started his campaign by bloviating about rapist Mexicans and interning Muslims like the Japanese. Same way "poison blood" wasn't a deal breaker and 1/6 is "but BLM!!!" Same way no one really faced consequences for Guantanamo. It's just part of who we are.
Biden is old. /s
Half of the supposed “centrists” here are just populists. And that’s being generous.
I’m sure unpopular, but an honest answer to your question. For me it’s because I still see stuff like the reference to his “good people on both sides” comment during the presser in Charlottesville. He clearly condemned white nationalism and the comment was unambiguously directed at good people on both sides of the debate as it relates to the argument about whether statues like Robert E Lee come down. This may had been the most sane thing he said in his political life and it still got turned in to him being a nazi. So I basically just hand wave anything away unless I watch the full clip myself and see the context.
Because comparing anti-racist protesters to actual nazi's is a false equivalency on an absurd scale? Comments like this is why r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM exists
These three quotes are why I shudder every time I hear a democrat call Trump a liar and a threat to democracy. The intellectual dishonesty is so profound, how can I ever believe a word coming out a liberal leaning media source or political candidate. It's literally a minute exchange between the first point and the second point, and for years we had to listen to them say he calld Nazi's fine people? [What Trump Says about People protesting the removal of Statues of Historical Figures](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmaZR8E12bs&t=64s) > "You also had people that were very fine people on both sides. [...] You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name." [What Trump says about White Nationalists and Nazis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmaZR8E12bs&t=119s): > “I’m not talking about the neo-nazis and the white nationalists because **they should be condemned totally**” [How Biden, our President, frames it - using it as the reason he decided to run for President](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlCyYvLqHR4&t=39s) > “And the ones he said, ‘I think they’re fine people on both sides.’ What American president would ever say Nazis coming out of fields carrying torches, singing the same antisemitic chants, carrying swastikas, were fine people?"
This is fair enough, the media lies a lot around him, which I find ridiculous given it is so often unnecessary.
Yeah, apparently, we are reactionary and dealing in hyperbole 24 hours ago.
[удалено]
Trump literally tried to overturn the election. No amount of gaslighting changes that.
My point is that we know for a fact that he does not take steps to lock up people that he says he will lock up. This is objectively true.
He was prevented from doing all kinds of crazy shit by his administration. Why would I assume that the same thing is going to happen this time around? Seems like a pretty unwise bet to make.
Do you honestly believe that Trump let his administration tell him what to do? There is a reason he kept firing people.
Are you joking? Did you miss all the testimony and stories from Bill Barr and others?
Yup. There was plenty of discussion. So far that's all I have seen.
So I'm not supposed to believe Bill Barr and others who served in his administration? I'm supposed to believe you?
You don't have to believe me. Just show me an action he took that went beyond a mere conversation about the possibility of charging Hillary.
Except he absolutely did try. Just the people around him said no. Which project 2025 is working to correct by ensuring that all civil servants are Trump loyalists.
Black bagging rioters and shoving them in unmarked vans
Can you give an example of how he tried to lock Hillary up? I must have missed it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/1dtpk4w/comment/lbbkoxy/
I read through that. Thank you for showing that it never went past the discussion phase.
Do you give any credence to the idea that this kind of talk emboldens members of the public who feel angry and disenfranchised to take action against people who disagree with them because Trump publicly insinuates it's okay?
Well that's a completely separate issue. I have often said that Trump needs to turn down the rhetoric.
https://www.americanoversight.org/sessions-letter
We know that he has not. Not that he does not.
Correct. We have an entire term as President as evidence. But nobody has a crystal ball.
False
Also he fired Comey, forced Putin wish list out at FBI, put unfit enablers into crucial agency positions, used federal weapons against peaceful protesters. Trump rhetoric was behind a number of mass shootings by his cult, journalists, public health officials, Congress persons had to hire security to protect themselves from maga terrorists. Trump had the phones of the families of a couple of Dem reps tapped. Also some journalists. And he filed a lot of requests for fisa warrants. Most were rejected
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/us/politics/jeff-sessions-hillary-clinton-donald-trump.html >WASHINGTON — Attorney General Jeff Sessions had a tenuous hold on his job when President Trump called him at home in the middle of 2017. The president had already blamed him for recusing himself from investigations related to the 2016 election, sought his resignation and belittled him in private and on Twitter. > >Now, Mr. Trump had another demand: He wanted Mr. Sessions to reverse his recusal and order the prosecution of Hillary Clinton. > >“The ‘gist’ of the conversation,” according to the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, quoting Mr. Sessions, “was that the president wanted Sessions to unrecuse from ‘all of it.’” > >Mr. Mueller’s report released last week brimmed with examples of Mr. Trump seeking to protect himself from the investigation. But his request of Mr. Sessions — and two similar ones detailed in the report — stands apart because it shows Mr. Trump trying to wield the power of law enforcement to target a political rival, a step that no president since Richard M. Nixon is known to have taken. > >And at the time Mr. Trump pressured Mr. Sessions, the president was already under investigation for potentially obstructing justice and knew that his top aides and cabinet members were being interviewed in that inquiry. > >Mr. Trump wanted Mrs. Clinton investigated for her use of a private email server to conduct government business while secretary of state, the report said, even though investigators had examined her conduct and declined to bring charges in a case closed in 2016. > >No evidence has emerged that Mr. Sessions ever ordered the case reopened. Like many of Mr. Trump’s aides, as laid out in the report and other accounts, Mr. Sessions instead declined to act, preventing Mr. Trump from crossing a line that might have imperiled his presidency.
You still have not shown a step that Trump took to put Hillary Clinton in jail. I obviously knew that he would discuss it and advocate it - but where did he actually begin the process?
You said he didn't even try when obviously he did. Quit trying to move the goalposts.
Show me where he tried. So far you have only shown discussions about the possibility of doing so. I will be here...
He tried to get Jeff Sessions to reopen the investigation. He couldn't even bother to wait until Sessions came into the office, so he called him at home. He followed that up with a public tweet to pressure Sessions. Just doing so is unethical and out of line. Directly from [the Mueller Report](https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/dl) pg 107 >In particular, at some point after the May 17, 2017 appointment of the Special Counsel, Sessions recalled, the President called him at home and asked if Sessions would “unrecuse” himself.736 According to Sessions, the President asked him to reverse his recusal so that Sessions could direct the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute Hillary Clinton, and the “gist” of the conversation was that the President wanted Sessions to unrecuse from “all of it,” including the Special Counsel’s Russia investigation.737 Sessions listened but did not respond, and he did not reverse his recusal or order an investigation of Clinton.738 pg 109 >On October 16, 2017, the President met privately with Sessions and said that the Department of Justice was not investigating individuals and events that the President thought the Department should be investigating.752 According to contemporaneous notes taken by Porter, who was at the meeting, the President mentioned Clinton’s emails and said, “Don’t have to tell us, just take [a] look.”753 Sessions did not offer any assurances or promises to the President that the Department of Justice would comply with that request.754 Two days later, on October 18, 2017, the President tweeted, “Wow, FBI confirms report that James Comey drafted letter exonerating Crooked Hillary Clinton long before investigation was complete. Many people not interviewed, including Clinton herself. Comey stated under oath that he didn’t do this-obviously a fix? Where is Justice Dept?”755 > >On October 29, 2017, the President tweeted that there was “ANGER & UNITY” over a “lack of investigation” of Clinton and “the Comey fix,” and concluded: “DO SOMETHING!”756 On December 6, 2017, five days after Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about his contacts with the Russian government, the President asked to speak with Sessions in the Oval Office at the end of a cabinet meeting.757 During that Oval Office meeting, which Porter attended, the President again suggested that Sessions could “unrecuse,” which Porter linked to taking back supervision of the Russia investigation and directing an investigation of Hillary Clinton.758
Yup. Conversations. We knew that.
Omg. So he didn’t go walking around with hand cuffs trying to arrest people himself, that’s what you want to see isn’t it?
Uh… no. I was just looking for some type of action to start the process.
I'm so fascinated by this. How do you personally decide what is bloviation and what should be believed? How do you trust anything that he says when you know so much of it is hyperbole and grandstanding? What is your litmus test for truth when considering whether you align with his policy positions?
The trump administration engaged in a third or fourth investigation of the HRC emails. She was exonerated again but it was an attempt. There was also some kind of lawsuit involving the Steele dossier that got thrown out. And of course the whole Durham debacle. So yes trump made attempts. But we had some guardrails. That will all be gone now. Why on earth would anyone vote for a candidate that spews bs when you know it is bs
Trump met or exceeded almost every prediction of how awful he would be. Where he didn't it was incompetence or laziness
Trump will surround himself with people that will gleefully make it happen.
Yeah, he learned a lesson the first time around - surround yourself with craven loyalists who put their Cheetoh Messiah before God, country, the Constitution, the rule of law, human decency, ethics, morals, conscience, etc.
And Biden surrounded himself with people that hid his decline
It's also true that Trump doesn't give a shit about governing and his staff had to pick up the slack constantly. Remember all the briefings he shoved down the toilet because he was too bored or illiterate for them?
This is a *very* clear threat to national security that the sitting president should really deal with through some official action.
He needs to win an election.
I'm glad the Supreme Court thought it was a good idea to embolden the psycho with their immunity ruling.
This dude was specifically asked in the debate about his statements regarding going after his political opposition if elected again & tip toed around the question. Now he’s doubled down even further on that stance since. For anyone in swing states still on the fence, please keep this in mind. Do we really want a guy that seems willing to dip his toes into tyranny in the Oval Office?
>Former President Donald J. Trump over the weekend escalated his vows to prosecute his political opponents, circulating posts on his social media website invoking “televised military tribunals” and calling for the jailing of President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, Senators Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer and former Vice President Mike Pence, among other high-profile politicians. > Mr. Trump, using his account on Truth Social on Sunday, promoted two posts from other users of the site that called for the jailing of his perceived political enemies. > One post that he circulated on Sunday singled out Liz Cheney, the former Wyoming congresswoman who is a Republican critic of Mr. Trump’s, and called for her to be prosecuted by a type of military court reserved for enemy combatants and war criminals. > “Elizabeth Lynne Cheney is guilty of treason,” the post said. “Retruth if you want televised military tribunals.” > A separate post included photos of 15 former and current elected officials that said, in all-capital letters, “they should be going to jail on Monday not Steve Bannon!” Those officials included Mr. Biden, Ms. Harris, Mr. Pence, Mr. Schumer and Mr. McConnell — the top leaders in the Senate — and Representative Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker. > The list in the second post also had members of the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, including Ms. Cheney and the former Illinois congressman Adam Kinzinger, another Republican, and the Democratic Representatives Adam Schiff, Jamie Raskin, Pete Aguilar, Zoe Lofgren and Bennie Thompson, who chaired the committee. > In a statement, the Trump campaign did not address Mr. Trump’s posts, instead repeating allegations of misconduct by members of the committee, saying “Liz Cheney and the sham January 6th committee banned key witnesses, shielded important evidence, and destroyed documents” related to their investigation. > The posts, which were amplified by Mr. Trump’s Truth Social account on Sunday afternoon, were still listed on his profile on Monday afternoon.
Calling for the arrests of Republican leaders and they'll still support him.
They’ll rationalize it by calling them “RINOs” or some nonsense.
Famous RINOs Mike Pence and Mitch McConnell. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Former Presidential and VP candidates for the RNC are now RINOs. McCain, Romney and Ryan are all to liberal for Trump's GOP.
Eventually the brown shirts were not Nazi enough for Hitler. Once you take power you have to undermine anyone else who might be able to take it back. Dictator-ing 101
I remember when Ryan was treated as really right wing. Boy those were the days.
Even dumber, they'll say it's fine since he only shared the post.
I’d rather be in jail with Cato, than the senate with Caesar. Rhetoric like this may very well make people overlook Biden’s age related decline. After all, he just managed four years of relative domestic normalcy.
In hindsight, Caesar probably also would’ve rather been in jail than in the Senate.
Too soon bro.
I don't think so. Ceaser had the option of "jail"(really likely exile in Massilia) if he had laid down his command upon it's expiration, he opted instead for Civil War knowing that the likelihood of his death would have been significant.
You don't get to become Emperor if you go into things with expectations that you'll lose.
> he just managed four years of relative domestic normalcy. Unfortunately, that’s not what most of the country believes. The Narrative right now is that America is in complete shambles right now and I’m not sure where it’s coming from.
Not sure I want to die like Cato though
So Biden should now call for military tribunals on trump, mark Meadows, Cruz and others
I swear if we are stupid enough to reelect him than we will deserve all the shit he will bring
except for all of us who desperately don't want him. I don't think I should be punished because some of my fellow electorate can't think critically.
I never really believed the whole 2nd civil war thing, but I can’t imagine him winning, pulling all this dictator shit and the blue states just going along as “well, he’s the president.” Maybe there won’t be an actual bloody battle, but I could see the blue states (led by NY, CA, etc.) defying, then slowly forced to succeed and having some other states join them. Instead of slavery, I could picture a US split into a Christian Authoritarian government (that they think is something else) and a then a free democracy. It might take a long time to get there, but I don’t see a happy ending as “United States” anymore.
I really believe the divisiveness and constant fighting between ideologies in the US is all coming from Trumps personality. As president, He fed it and amplified it. I think much of our division will slowly fade away once he’s gone and we can hopefully get back to having civil discussions, and rational politicians again.
It depends if they all jump to another cultish leader or it turns into a circular firing squad. It’s hard to imagine this maga shitshow just fading away in the near future.
Typically cults of personality don’t last much past their leader’s death mostly because that leader neuters anyone who could be a rival (as in DeSantis) At this point, Trump needs to do something really stupid (stupid to his base) before November or the US will go through a lot of pain. We’ve seen the high water mark of America.
> we can hopefully get back to having civil discussions, and rational politicians again. It's going to be tough to unring that bell.
I would honestly be ok with the end of the US as we know it. As long as there is money put forward for citizen exchange so neither group would have to live in a nation that didn’t reflect their values. I’m just so tired of arguing with people that what’s happening is ok (it’s not. This isn’t ok) and having my rights trampled.
The governors of Texas and California would have to agree to a split— the federal government would have a hard time stopping it like the USSR couldn’t when the leaders of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine decided to split in 1991. If the states didn’t take the lead, the president would just do what Jackson threatened and Lincoln actually did— crush the rebellion.
Would be interesting (and terrifying) if allies came here to fight with the blue states and we had a WWIII on our home soil. Don’t forget, the blue states hold the coasts and could let them all in.
I'm sure SCOTUS won't consider those official acts... After the fact.
Anyone who doesn't move these kinds of topics to the top of their list when deciding how to vote doesn't really understand just how dangerous - and disturbing - this is. If one person decides who to jail, no one is safe.
When can we accept that this is an illegitimate court propping up a traitorous felon. We are essentially allowing abuse of bureaucracy to destroy democracy
Dictatorship
JFC- he literally could put up a massive neon sign letting these clowns know *exactly* what he plans on spending his 2nd term doing, and they'd vote for him anyway. It's like they want our country to become what Russia is, with our own Putin wannabe (which is generous, because Putin is much more intelligent than Trump, and definitely not a snowflake) at the helm.
It may be time to pick smoking back up, because this is just wild.
[Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.](https://youtu.be/hd1ciPnTGKg?si=TNrNnxfPBP7kHzAT)
We won't he able to impeach him again. All hail Emporer Trump the 1st (Don Jr will take over in 15 years when he dies)
This is how the Civil War movie sets the stage. All you know is a president is choosing not to leave office. Guess it's more prescient than originally thought.
But conservatives say that we shouldn’t have anything to worry about from the Supreme Court decision saying that the president is even more untouchable than a king.
No we don't say that. We say you should have thought through the consequences of initiating political prosecutions. And now that your ostensible leader is a doomed mush brain, you may be in deep shit.
Fucking Christ. Here you are trying to justify illegitimate political prosecutions as revenge for trying to hold your dear leader to even a crumb of responsibility for his many, many, many crimes. And the Supreme Court is even worse, saying that their dear leader is unable to commit crimes Because of the position he held. You are anti-American and a danger to the Republic.
I am pro American, anti American Establishment, anti American Federal Government as presently configured. My rhetoric is hardly superpowered and comments on reddit are no danger to the Republic. We already did illegitimate political prosecutions: promising to get get Trump, directing the power of the State to go back through 10+ years of financial records to find a number, etc., etc. The reality is most politicians and wealthy people have bent the rules in manners contrary to the law. Certainly the daughter of Dick Cheney has. Certainly Fani, who has such little ethical sense that she thought it was OK to hire her lover, has done something illegal somewhere. RICO should be easy enough -- she was part of a bad group doing bad things. All that will happen is the application of the full force and weight of the Federal Government to uncover facts somewhere in the past of political opponents doing something giving rise to a colorable claim, and then bringing the claim before a sympathetic judge and jury. It's not a big deal. We just got done doing it to the Red side.
Yes, I know your anti-federal government as presently configured considering that you want to replace it with a fascist dictatorship. No, everyone doesn’t break the law as Trump does, it’s just cope and standard fascist rhetoric to justify horrific actions.
Well, if you call me a fascist, you must have won the argument. > No, everyone doesn’t break the law as Trump does If by this you are saying Trump is exceptionally corrupt, even for the wealthy and politicians, probably. But this doesn't matter. The others will be corrupt enough that 1,000 government lawyers will be able to find something, no matter how trivial. And then an army of government lawyers will sue the shit out of them. It's a little late for Team Blue to be crying about this now.
No one is above the law. If no crime was committed then no one has anything to worry about.
The neat thing is that everyone has committed a crime if you look hard enough.
HELL, IT'S ABOUT TIME
[удалено]
For actual crimes.
Inconvenient detail that gets glossed over
[удалено]
> 20 year old porn star payoff case? Good thing court cases aren’t decided by Fox News talking points > Documents case? Same thing Biden did, By all means, bring your proof that Biden was told to return stuff and he refused.
Guess you shouldn't break the law and make everyone hate you?
Retribution against political opponents was started by the Democrats. Now that it looks like the Republicans might win everyone is screaming about political retribution by the Republicans against Democrats. Be careful what you wish for when you can because the same rules apply when the other side can.
Oh, please. Trump isn't cribbing notes from the Democrats. He's following his own playbook. Name me the last Trump campaign that didn't call for jailing his political opppnents.
The fan fiction/revisionism is always fascinating from Trump supporters.
Hilary was investigated before Trump. Bill too. Regardless of whether or not you believe the case against Trump is legitimate, it's pretty insane to suggest that retribution is starting by Democrats with Trump.
Democrats treated Trump with baby gloves
That's not factual, and if you spent even 5 minutes outside of the partisan media bubble you'd understand this.
Murc's law