405
Donald Trump campaign stung by direct evidence revealed in court
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023
405 points (97.0% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2621 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I honestly don't think they will. Because if they rule that Trump couldn't commit any crimes while president, it also means that Biden can't. Which means Biden can do whatever the hell he wants. I don't think SCOTUS will go for that.
I would hope at least one justice would be smart enough to figure out that if presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for deeds while in office, the President could just kill a couple Supreme Court judges and install their own people.
Exactly. The person I'm talking to seems to think it's a foregone conclusion that Trump will win the presidency, which is why they would rule in his favor. I do not think they believe it's a foregone conclusion.
Or the VP could walk down the hall, shoot the president and then, as president, be immune from criminal prosecution. It's absurd on its face.
She could also do the same thing if presidents are allowed to pardon themselves.
Yeah but they know Biden won't do whatever he want in that way, and that Democrats will willingly hand over power to Trump if he legitimately wins (which he still could).
Then once that happens, no more elections.
I don't think they do know that, nor do they want to risk it. Especially if Trump doesn't win. And they know that's a possibility.
What, in the history of the modern Democratic party, suggests that they would do anything besides peacefully hand over power? Liberals love to brag about the "peaceful transition of power" of whatever the fuck, and talk about how they're able to pass the position onto the next person, even if they're from the other party (which can be admirable, sure).
But Obama showed us that liberals will willingly hand the reigns over the outright fascists, and still brag about how civilized and enlightened they are, while the GOP ruins peoples' lives left and right.
Biden won't do shit if Trump wins. He'll hand over power like liberals always do.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not even necessarily saying he shouldn't. I'm just saying that the GOP knows he won't.
You seem very fixated on Biden. You seem to think it's a foregone conclusion that Trump will win and there will never be a Democrat in office again because he will win. I guarantee you that SCOTUS is not assuming he will win and they are not assuming Biden will be the last Democrat ever in office or that a Democrat would never do things Republicans really didn't want to happen even though the Democrat had the legal right. Because those are not safe assumptions.
Biden will hand over power peacefully. The questions are whether he does that in 1 year, or 5 years, and who will receive the powers he currently wields.
Huh? Where did I suggest it was a foregone conclusion?
I think you're naive if you think the Democrats would ever do anything meaningful in that situation. If that were the case, something would have been done years ago. They will not do such obviously unethical things (even if the potential outcome is good). That's not how they have ever operated.
Also, what would they even do?
Where you made this all about Biden as if there would never be another Democrat in the presidency again.
Unlike you, I do not believe I can predict the future with that confidence. And I don't think SCOTUS believes they can either.
Take it down a notch, dude, you're coming in real hot and it's not clear to me why.
I never claimed I could predict the future. You really like putting words in my mouth.
This is what you said:
That is literally a prediction of the future. I did not put any words in your mouth.
As far as "coming in real hot," you are welcome to interpret what I say to you that way, but you would be incorrect.
What would Democrats do? You think they'll actually reform the Supreme Court? LOL. Even if they tried, it would never happen, and especially not before the election.
I'm genuinely curious what you think the Democrats would do to "take advantage" of the hypothetical SCOTUS decision on Trump? What are conservative justices worried Democrats might do?
Again, I do not claim to be able to predict the future. And neither do SCOTUS. Which is the point.
The implication here is that nobody ever makes plans because "they can't predict the future." That's silly.
No, the implication here is that they might not rule in favor of Trump because they know the future is uncertain and doing that would be risky. I'm not sure how I could have made that more clear. If you can claim that they will definitely rule in favor of Trump then you will have certainly demonstrated your belief in your powers of prognostication.
You know what was also risky?
Ruling against Roe. Ruling that a company can refuse service to a theoretical gay customer because they're gay. Ruling that affirmative action is unconstitutional. Ruling against Biden's student loan forgiveness.
I would also say things like blatantly flaunting your billionaire handlers is pretty risky as well, and literally nothing came of that.
This isn't exactly a risk-adverse SCOTUS.
So you're saying there is only one possible way they will rule? Again, I don't claim to predict the future.
I'm not predicting the future, Jesus Christ dude where have I ever claimed to know what they're going to do?? Right now, it could go either way. But you seem to have no interest in even entertaining the thought that they might rule in favor of Trump, and you're literally saying that there is no value in speculating. Fuck that.
The ultimate conclusion of your thought process here is that it's never any use in speculating and making plans based on that speculation, unless you know for sure what the outcome is going to be. Do you not see how absurd that is? Of course I don't know what they are going to do, but I can speculate based on past/recent behaviors. I can even attach estimated probabilities to those outcomes (how accurate they may be is a different discussion).
This whole, "we don't know for sure how they will rule, so until then we will do nothing and will make plans for neither outcome," shit is silly. Nobody thinks like that in real life. Not successful politicians at least.
This is what politics is. People try to predict what the other side may or may not do given the current circumstances and then make plans (and backup plans, and backups of backup plans, etc.) to react once those decisions are made.
I'm pretty sure this all started because I speculated.
Also, you seem to be the one "coming in real hot" right now based on that first paragraph.
Also:
I never said anything about doing nothing, so I agree. That is silly. I'm just not sure why you're telling me it's silly.
OK, bud.
Anyway, there is a very real chance that they will rule in favor of Trump and it is important to plan for that possibility. I think the recent behavior of this specific court has shown time and time again that they simply Do. Not. Care.
I'm not sure why you even took issue with what I was saying in the first place other than to just pick a fight. I never claimed to know the future, that entire thing was just a strawman. Starting to wonder if any of this is good faith.
I'm afraid you have the order of things wrong. This started when you took issue with what I had said. I was not talking to you when you initially replied to me.
So if anything, this is a question you should be asking yourself.
That's not even fucking true dude, your first comment in this particular thread was a reply to mine taking issue with what I said.
How many sockpuppet accounts do you have at this point? I don't believe, for a moment, that there is anyone but you and I that cares enough about the comments this deep in an already meaningless argument to even bother reading, let alone upvoting/downvoting this far into this nonsense thread. I see you everywhere on this site, and now I think I have an idea as to why/how.
Good luck with all that, I guess. Everyone needs a hobby.
That is a lie.
And why on Earth do you think I have sockpuppet accounts?
Been some time since I've used lemmy on a web browser, but unless I'm mistaken, if you were logged into your FlyingSquid account when this screenshot was taken, the username would be highlighted in some way.
This literally looks like a screenshot of you using a sockpuppet account lol
Okay, well you are the expert here. It was definitely the sockpuppet accounts I must have. That couldn't possibly be another one of your lies.
You literally posted a screenshot where your comments are upvoted despite not being logged into that account... Again with this "lies" shit. It's real weird, dude. Why the fuck would I lie when I don't even know what this thread was even originally about at this point? I misremembered how it began, because it was a throwaway comment I made 4 fucking days ago.
It's funny, because I see your comments around and I often agree completely with what you're saying. I have found it very bizarre and bemusing that you've continued with this strangely antagonistic comment thread for so long.
Are you an LLM? Lol only half joking.
That's an interesting thing to say coming from the person who revived the thread after four days.
Is this your job?
And yeah I already told you. Nobody but you is downvoting comments this far deep in such a banal and pointless thread from several days ago, and my comments aren't at 0, they're lower than that.
I haven't downvoted anything. That is another lie.
K. Is this your job?
No more than lying is your job, but you seem to enjoy doing it anyway.
I do hope you get paid for this. Otherwise it's just kind of sad to be honest. I hope everything is ok with you in real life.
Pretending you care about me after those lies is a lot sadder.
"All those lies"
ie: misremembering the specifics of a pointless argument from 4 days ago that I don't even remember was about.
Fucking weirdo
Interesting how your 'misremembering' was done with such absolute certainty. Almost as if it was a lie.
You know, when you said this, not four days ago but today:
That sure sounds like a lie to me.
Also, I have not called you any names at all. Why are you reducing this to pointless namecalling?
Was this just one long, elaborate troll?
That only matters if Trump wins. He could, but I don't think he will. I think we will look back at this time with disbelief that we were so worried about him winning.
Lmao the mental imagery of Joe Biden getting Mission Impossible'd into Clarence Thomas' bedroom.
It actually probably doesn't mean that. In 2000, when the supreme court decided the election in George W. Bush's favor, their ruling included language saying the decision was not to be used as a precedent for any other SP decision. There's nothing stopping them from doing the same thing in this case.
Unless they realize a DNC candidate won't abuse the power in any meaningful way, making it solely a power wielded by conservatives. What's Biden gonna do? Shoot Trump with a 9 and claim immunity? In our dreams.
Note they did not adjudicate in favor of Trump when he challenged the election.