474
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 12 Jan 2024
474 points (97.0% liked)
politics
19072 readers
3801 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
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.
This idiot thinks he's in a courtroom drama.
Bootleg Hitler just practicing his speeches like real Hitler
deleted by creator
I'm not denying he's bootleg Hitler, but that's an odd simile to make. What politician doesn't practice their speeches?
It's not supposed to be a speech in a closing argument. Like, that's contempt of court territory!
There is a well known speech by hitler after his trial (IIRC for treason) which halve owed support for him because of his oration.
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.
If Trump is actually convicted, I wouldn't be surprised if the oligarchy that owns the SCOTUS decides to cut him loose completely. The SCOTUS can just decline to hear any appeals and leave him out with the laundry.
How do you still have optimism?
we're huffing the good copium.
I remember pointing out, that Trump was a millstone around the GOP, and they lost their chance to be rid of him with the second impeachment. If they had convicted him... he'd go away and they'd now be running somebody else against Biden. and probably win.
The problem with the SCOTUS avoiding responsibility on the issue is that it will up to each state to decide whether he should be on the ballet. Only blue states will abide by the constitution and keep him off. It won't make a difference to the outcome, but it will feed the magats accusations of a rigged election.
"I'm getting paid. Let the idiot lose."
If they think they're getting paid, I would argue that they're also idiots