politics
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
view the rest of the comments
The little guy getting an actual sentence out of it while cowardly judges refuse to toss trump in jail for worse.
I'd say they're both guilty of the exact same thing, they're just two halves of the same crime.
Without mooks like this, trump was essentially just a loud angry nuisance, at least as far as the election goes. He could rant about how much the election was stolen until his face went from orange to blue, but at the end of the day he couldn't have done anything about it.
And without people like trump to rile them up, most of these idiots probably would have just stayed home.
You need both halves of it for something like 1/6 to have taken place.
These judges are playing a long game that people like us are too ignorant to see.
Example; The judge's ruling in Colorado that kept him on the ballot? Found him factually guilty of insurrection.
No matter the verdict, this was going up the legal food chain. The next court has no choice but to accept that he's an insurrectionist. Feel me? That is now an established fact that an appellate court cannot disregard or change.
Fucking brilliant legal maneuvering.
So what? Everyone has known that Trump took part in an insurrection for years and it hasn't made a bit of difference. Unless you have a specific case in mind where that legal distinction is likely to make a difference then you're just debating the semantics of "nothing happened to him".
We already know history will not look favorably on Trump. Solidifying the words future historians will use to describe him doesn't make his election to a second term any less likely.
Actually no. The appellate hearings don't have to accept the lower court's findings and can ignore the opinion entirely to reach their own conclusions. Leaving him on the ballot creates a potential constitutional crisis. Consider the possibility that it doesn't reach the Supreme Court until Trump has been elected.
The best outcome is Trump is not the GOP nominee. Parties can set their own rules for primaries, but once he's on the ticket, you're talking about the courts disenfranchising a bunch of morons. And while we may all prefer that morons don't vote, the fact is that the legal system that protects their right to vote also protects everyone else's right to vote.
This was a justice splitting the baby to try to keep both sides from attacking politically and physically.