this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
338 points (98.3% liked)

politics

18883 readers
4081 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 101 points 3 months ago

"He wants to know before he sentences someone what the typical sentence is," Aidala said, and would consider other factors, like Trump's age and lack of a criminal record, while also taking into account the lack of injury caused by the crime

Lack of injury?? He literally committed crimes to get elected, which he did. 340 million Americans had to suffer this dipshit being president for 4 years. A million of us died during his piss-poor response to COVID!

[–] JDPoZ@lemmy.world 54 points 3 months ago

My heart : "YES!!!!!"

My brain - which has seen what people like, for example, the Wal-Mart heiress who literally ran someone over that then died never spent a moment in jail... : "No."

[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 40 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Once again, Betteridge's law applies perfectly.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago

They had to fucking ask didn't they!?!

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 36 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I can not WAIT for CONVICTED FELON DONALD J TRUMP who was found GUILTY and ALL 34 COUNTS to pay a $5000 fine and pinky swear not to do this again! THAT will teach him!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] warm@kbin.earth 27 points 3 months ago (7 children)

Why can a felon run for president?

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 75 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Because if they couldn't, elected officials would just have their opponents brought up on weak technical charges just to get them disqualfied.

"Sir, you have been found guilty of jaywalking. As this is the third time you've been charged with this crime, that bumps it up to a felony under the ijustmadethisup act of 1793. The fine will be $50+ court costs. I also have to let you know that because you are a convicted felon, you are no longer allowed to run for office and have been removed from the ballot. Have a nice day."

Not quite that silly, but you get the idea.

[–] InternetUser2012@midwest.social 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Maybe draw the line at idk, 30 felonies? That should cover any political bs.

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You do realize Trump is kind of historic right? Imagine we went from Obama to Biden. Then, try to think of a single president who just went "I'm president so I can do what I want"

[–] InternetUser2012@midwest.social 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

He is very historic. The biggest loser, the most lies, the most felonies, the most impeachments..... the list can on for literally days.

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 months ago

Okay, okay. Let’s dispense with the silly insults.

Trump is historic because of his complete and utter disregard for the law - even Nixon knew when it was over. Trump has led about 30% of the populace to believe that election integrity was an issue - but only for the 2020 election. Beyond the general disregard for the common good that the Republicans previously celebrated, he has given them a direction for utter chaos.

Regardless of if you like him or not, he is historic and will be remembered. One can only imagine that Smith will be equally remembered

[–] big_slap@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

so it's up to us not to vote for people who have 34 felony charges, got it.

[–] EpeeGnome@lemm.ee 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Correction: 34 felony convictions.

[–] villainy@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago

34 felony convictions so far.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Well, we're fucked.

[–] warm@kbin.earth 5 points 3 months ago

Hah. Fair enough

[–] blackbelt352@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not quite that silly, but you get the idea.

You joke but this bullshit tactic has been historically used to suppress voter's rights for over a century. Charge someone with a bullshit felony and they lose their right to vote forever.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

While everyone is right about the reasoning, no one brought up the relevant historical example: Eugene Debs in the 1920 Election... which is unfortunate because it's a good one.

Euegen Debs was a socialist candidate who ran in the 1920 elections after being jailed by Wilson's Sedition Act of 1918 for opposing the US joining WW1 and the accompanying draft.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nova@lemm.ee 14 points 3 months ago

Because if you're able to invalidate your opponent's candidacy for president, it makes a fascist takeover that much easier. Just change the laws so that any political opposition can't run against you, and bam your party has indefinite control.

[–] trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If felons can't vote (they should be able to), they sure as shit shouldn't be able to run for office.

[–] joyjoy@lemm.ee 18 points 3 months ago (4 children)

If it makes you feel better, he can't vote for himself.

[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

This does make me feel better. Thank you.

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Wait, why not?

Edit: Oh, right. This isn't the Honorable Judge Cannon. These are state felonies presided by a judge who understands the government functions

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

He is a Floridian though, doesn't it take a "simple" meeting with DeSantis's hand picked committee to get his voting rights back?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Peer@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Because when voters feel the punishment was unjust, they can choose to ignore it. For example: Nelson Mandela.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] sanosuke001@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

So, let's say a political party is somehow at fault for charging and getting a verdict of an opponent. This would make it very easy to block anyone from running against the party in power if they so choose.

The founding fathers saw how much of an issue this would be so limited the reasons for blocking someone from running for office. I don't think hush money is a good reason (though, doing so to block info that would make him lose an election I think should be but that will be up to the court)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dharwin@kbin.social 24 points 3 months ago

Let’s see how endlessly antagonizing the sentencing judge works out for him.

[–] paf0@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Probably not, maybe house arrest? I'm curious to see if this has an effect on the other cases, if any. Can Jack Smith easily add a 2016 election interference count now that this is proven?

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago (3 children)

My prediction: he may or may not go to jail.

My other prediction: either outcome will not influence his Nazi cult.

My other prediction: we were wrong on how 2016-2023 was down right weird. 2024 has us holding it's double long island with no soda.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

No. But the hysteria from Ronald McDonald and his supporters is going to be lit.

Also: someone needs to meme that woman tRump supporter crying for him out in front of the court house. So tired of seeing that woman in the green jacket after Hillary "lost", supposedly being a stand-in for all liberals or something. Time to show how hysterical the right really is.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Two experts told NBC News that it's unlikely Trump will be imprisoned based on his age, lack of a criminal record and other factors — and an analysis of thousands of cases found that very few people charged with the same crime receive jail time.

During the trial, Judge Juan Merchan threatened to put Trump behind bars for violating his gag order, but it’s unclear if the former president will face similar consequences now.

Former federal prosecutor Chuck Rosenberg, an NBC News analyst, said it's unlikely that Merchan would sentence Trump, 77, to any jail time, given his age and his status as a first-time, nonviolent offender.

An analysis conducted by Norm Eisen, who worked for House Democrats during Trump’s first impeachment, found that roughly one in 10 people who have been convicted of falsifying business records are imprisoned, and those cases typically involved other crimes.

Kuby added that he believes "it is substantially likely Judge Merchan will sentence Trump to jail or prison time," despite the logistical and practical complications that locking up a person with Secret Service protection would entail.

It's also highly unlikely that comments that appeared to be aimed at sidestepping the gag order by Republican officials who attended the trial as Trump's guests will figure into the judge's reasoning, Kuby added.


The original article contains 842 words, the summary contains 216 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] capt_wolf@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago (4 children)

34 counts... If they don't sentence him, then what's the fucking point!? Anything less than jail time is just going to empower him. Lock his ass up!

[–] ghostface@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Agreed, that post made it seem like he was innocent up until now. The e jean carrol conviction should relieve him of his first timer status

[–] qantravon@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

That was a civil suit, not criminal.

[–] capt_wolf@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Amen, it should also relieve him of his non-violent offender status. The man was found guilty of rape. The only reason he didn't serve jail time for that was because it was past the statute of limitations.

[–] qantravon@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It was also a civil suit, not criminal.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Which means it was a finding of FACT. Ans those don't care about your feelings, apparently.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] uebquauntbez@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Nope. He'll go straight into White House and will 'remove' 50% of US ppl. Either the hard way. Or they leave the country fast enough. USA is going the chinese or russian way. One leader with enough power to rule and many supporters who make profits in this odd system. The rest will suffer from this system. India and Europe will be there soon too.

load more comments
view more: next ›