104

Donald Trump's Colorado ruling "worst decision" he could get: Attorney (www.newsweek.com)

submitted 11 months ago by CantaloupeLifestyle@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 54 points 11 months ago

Yeah on what planet could this possibly be the worst outcome?

The judge made up a completely bullshit reason to give him a pass.

[-] Krackalot@discuss.tchncs.de -4 points 11 months ago

Without persecution and martyrdom, they'll lose support. Trump has to be strong, but constantly under attack so that they can keep the mob foaming at the mouth and ready to attack anyone they want.

[-] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 28 points 11 months ago

If you don't punish people accoriding to the law because you "fear retaliation" means the law isn't really worth the ink that it's written with or the paper that it was written on. As well as showing there is no punishment for intimidating judges or for insurrection.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

my dude you've rationalized yourself into believing anyone with insane rabid fans should get to break the rules. This is a bad precedent to establish.

this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023

104 points (90.6% liked)

politics

19072 readers

3859 users here now

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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

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. 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.
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

• 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