“Unlikely Trump will ever be tried for the crimes he committed,” says ex-Judge J. Michael Luttig
It’s not a hard question, or at least it hasn’t been before: Does the United States have a king – one empowered to do as they please without even the pretext of being governed by a law higher than their own word – or does it have a president? Since Donald Trump began claiming he enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, two courts have issued rulings striking down this purported right, recognizing that one can have a democracy or a dictatorship, but not both.
“We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power – the recognition and implementation of election results,” states the unanimous opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, issued this past February, upholding a lower court’s take on the question. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and have their votes cast.”
You can’t well keep a republic if it’s effectively legal to overthrow it. But at oral arguments last week, conservative justices on the Supreme Court – which took up the case rather than cosign the February ruling – appeared desperate to make the simple appear complex. Justice Samuel Alito, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, argued that accountability was what would actually lead to lawlessness.
Illegitimate court, almost half were appointed by the accused and should not even be hearing this case. We are teetering on a dictatorship and this court is pulling the steering wheel even more that direction. I, for one, do not recognize any ruling from these corrupt judges.
Three were appointed, which is 1/3rd of the nine justices. However, to me the most relevant figure is that five of the nine were appointed by GOP presidents that got into office losing the popular vote (Roberts & Alito by GWB, and Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and ACB by Trump).
These justices, the majority of the court, do not and have never represented the US either by vote or ideology (even secondarily via the presidential/nominating vote), yet they are lifetime-appointed positions with unparalleled power over our lives and the continued existence of American democracy. They can choose to allow Trump to crown himself king, but they are already an effective monarchy.
Roberts has been concerned about the Court’s legitimacy the last decade. He should be - it isn’t legitimate.
Roberts doesn’t give a flying fuck about his Court’s legitimacy. He cares about the appearance of his Court’s legitimacy.
Yes, sorry, that’s the better way to put it.
To him, it’s the same thing, because if the Supreme Court loses the appearance of legitimacy, they themselves have no practical means to enforce their decisions.
Unless they have a dictator-president and ineffective congress.
It feels a lot like they’re getting for that possible outcome—so they have a sympathetic king when the time comes.
The Supreme Court is illegitimate because of what you said. By association, the presidency is also illegitimate. And since the Senate is undemocratic and Congress should have a couple thousand folks in it rather than 435, both of those are illegitimate.
Thankfully, they still have the monopoly of violence.
Congress should have a couple thousand folks in it rather than 435
This is exactly it. This is what hamstrings the will of the majority and lends relevance to these lunatics we’re having to endure.
Many revere our founders, and I’m quite sure if they could comment on this mess they’d say something like “There are how many millions of citizens? And you stopped adding representatives at 435? That’s the problem. Why?”
We outnumber them, by a bunch. And they know that. Well, the smart ones allowing “democracy” to prevail knew it, I don’t know about these crazies going for the power grab right now.
We lack organization, ability to plan as one. The conspiracy theorist in me says they know that as well, hence why they are attacking ways of obtaining information and organization.
It’s an absolute clown show not based on law but on bribes, influence, and political alignment.
Tale as old as time.
SCOTUS should not have taken the case. Full stop.
Take it, laugh at the arguments and vote 9-0, maybe. Just get it settled.
I knew this SCOTUS was a joke, but this is unbelievable even for them. I cannot fathom that I’ve lived to see the day that a former president’s lawyer argues that the sitting president ought to be able to perform political assassination and any number of justices, let alone a near, majority say “well that makes sense to me lol”.
This is just the natural development of unchecked conservatism, a plague long overdue for a cure.
Reforms don’t prevent end stage capitalism, they only delay it. It looks as though there isn’t enough willpower for another delay.
Early 20th century labor movements should not have negotiated with the 1% financial terrorists. It’s as though we made peace with Russia, only a small respite in the class war while the 1% grew stronger then ever before.
If they rule in favour I guess Biden can save your democracy with an undemocratic act. SCOTUS should agree then, right?
He could, but he wouldn’t. We’d just sigh and cross our fingers and hope decorum will prevail (spoiler alert)
Sadly I believe you are correct
republicans would be happy with the appearance of democracy - just like russia. Theres multiple names on the box, but you know the votes aren’t counted. trump would conveniently win every time. Strangely just like putin does.
It’s not a new observation that the GOP and Russia are on the same page about a lot of things; what isn’t settled is what will be done about it
So the reason they want to hold the illusion of democracy is because we know what to do with kings. And their families.
Dealing with kings is a hard road to walk down. Not excited
Better now than later. Centralization will only gain momentum. I hope we can trip it before it steps through our leg.
Me, a layman: GEE I WONDER IF SWEARING TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION MEANS HE SHOULDN’T BE ABLE TO DESTROY IT.
In all caps.
Preserve, protect, defend. Didn’t say anything about upholding or abiding by so everything’s fine, what’s the big deal? 😵💫
If the Court decides that the President has unbound authority then why shouldn’t Joe Biden shoot Donald Trump with a gun? It’s not illegal when the President does it!
Biden could also argue that trump was a threat to America and its democracy.
He wouldn’t be wrong.
Or maybe Biden could just have Seal Team 6 take out several Supreme Court Justices?
Came here to say this. I wonder how Trollito would answer that very direct question?
For extra impact, have Seal Team 6 second the president’s lawyers/entourage whatever it’s called and deliver the question. In full gear.
Even if it’s not illegal, and even if Joe Biden was okay with it ethically, politically he’d be turning Trump into a martyr and giving the right a lot of propaganda with which to incite civil war.
My guess, based on messaging to their base, they’ve already planned for this.
Stop saying this. They’d forget about him in 6 months
If he loses the election, sure. If he ends up in prison, sure. If Biden kills him?
Nah, they’ll forget about him when Fox News and the rest of the oligarchs decide using him as a martyr is no longer useful for stirring up civil unrest and solidifying their own power.
Nah, they’ll forget about him when Fox News and the rest of the oligarchs decide using him as a martyr is no longer useful
I mean, if the Supreme Court ruled in Trump’s favor, Biden could have assassinated (or heavily implied he was considering assassinating) those oligarchs too. Just assign a seal team to follow Rupert Murdoch around. If Trump has already been assassinated, Murdoch will get the message real quick.
Unfortunately Murdoch isn’t alone in pushing it, not by far
You don’t understand the depth of need to worship something. Neither do I but I’m starting to understand.
What signaling, and who is “they,” and what is “this?”
They is the GOP. This is the context of the comment I was replying too, “What’s to stop Biden from shooting Trump?”
The signaling/messaging is the inciting of a civil war, calling Trump’s indictments a witch hunt, the doubt the SC is casting on Trump’s crimes, the 2020 election being ‘stolen’ etc. etc. etc.
Trump isn’t the end game. He’s the pawn of men who have been plotting this for decades. And the SC are just more pieces in the game.
The money behind the strategy isn’t attached to Trump. If Biden has him killed, they already have a contingency in place. Or they wouldn’t risk letting the SC open the door in the first place.
The last thing we need is people in power having their running mates murdered.
Tell that to conservatives. They insist upon it.
Just wait until the penny finally drops for him. Or was it a Pence?
At that point Biden should sent every Republican to Gitmo. Appoint new SCOTUS judges that go and make that previous ruling null. Then he can’t be charged because it wasn’t a crime when he did it. Maybe that’ll humble Republicans…hah yeah probably not.
The main issue isn’t necessarily the ethics of this.
It’s that the Republicans and the Democrats have different bases.
Biden doing this would likely alienate moderate democrats, with many in the house/senate voting to support any impeachment inquiry. The same is not true for any Republican today.
Their base has literally been “At least it’s not a democrat.”
Idk the use of authoritarian power to suppress your enemies seems to get republicans off.
I imagine it would be like when a local sports team is suddenly good and they pretend they were fans all along. They’re in this for the spectacle, they just want to bray as loud as the people trying to talk.
Biden’s base is “at least he’s not Trump” so I’m not sure.
Removed by mod
Yeah how are they not making a bigger point of the fact that the guy who cried about the stolen 2020 election and got pelt killed trying to stop the certification… is now on trial for illegally influencing the 2016 election and WINNING the presidency.
You gotta love the brazen, balls-to-the-wall craziness of the “accountability leads to lawlessness” argument. Especially coming from the supposed religious party, it’s a stunning assertion, devoid of morality or even a sense of direction. It’s just another version of the stupid fucking “too big to fail” argument.
The argument is this: Yes, the people in charge have committed crimes, but they’re the top of the food chain now. If we take them out, there will be a power vacuum - the very chaos we are supposed to prevent! (no it’s fucking not, retards, THAT’s just the free market in action, you know, the thing you always masturbate about, you’re supposed to be protecting these enterprises from falling into criminal behaviour, incentivising correct behaviour, and generally FIXING SYSTEMS not making them worse)
Idiots. What use preserving a corrupt system? It’s just an admission that they’re paying you. “Why would I change it now that I’m in a position to benefit from it?” Here’s why: accepting money to hurt your own people is TREASON. Put that shit in your pipe and smoke it.
I agree with everything but don’t use the R word
Cowabunga it is then. I believe this is that part about the tree of liberty needing the blood of patriots or something.
If Biden has absolute immunity after a ruling to that effect, he would be within that authority to have the justices that voted for that rounded up and shot, then appoint a Supreme Court that will reverse it.
I would love to see it.
He won’t, though. Repubs have counted on Dems to abide by the spirit of the rules even while they obstruct and dismantle everything with zero regard for a functioning democracy. The Dems would all be desperately reaching across the aisle for a compromise up until they are executed in the afternoon on January 20th.
True, but could you imagine if he went completely off the rails after a ruling like that? Sets up a guillotine in front of Congress and starts marching Republicans out one after one.
I’d watch the fuck out of that on Pay-per-view.
Having a president executing all their political opponents is kinda the end of the country, though, right? I don’t know how it can come back from that.
We are pretty fucked either way if SCOTUS claims a president is immune. I’d just like Biden to take them down with the rest of the country if they do so.
Them having the power to do it is the end of the country. Biden not doing it won’t stop the Republican in X years from doing it. We’d already be screwed at that point, and poetic justice would just make us feel better until la Terreur comes for us, too.
Yeah I think we totally agree there.
pls pls pls
That would hurt his fundraising though.
Well that was a horrifying read first thing in the morning.
Reminds me of when that loser was president. Every morning there was some new horrifying thing to read about.
Now some want to see that shit show return.
Seriously, they should have argued that by the defense’s own argument, Biden could jail, torture, and/or kill SCOTUS judges, political rivals such as tRump, and effectively commit any crime, so long as he was president when it happened and watch how fast these fascists turn tail.
I don’t understand this country and really wish the boomers would find another hobby besides redoing all the shit the generation before them tried to stop and making everyone’s life worse to do it.
Just your average day in the conservative/fascist multiverse.
Why is this default lol
This illegitimate “supreme” court needs to be dismantled and rebuilt with normal justices. There is no place in a modern culture for conservatism or any other hate-based, oppressive ideology.
Conservatives should not be permitted to participate in government at any level. They seek only to control others and destroy progress. We should be speaking openly about the deadly dangers of conservatism and should exclude such toxic lifestyles from polite society.
Court expansion is the only straightforward way. Put the corrupt ones in minority.
Nope, shame them.
Legit Biden needs to challenge it directly and have Trump’s daughter and her husband arrested and jailed on charges he must fully admit are false and politically motivated. Say the Saudi money was to pay for classified information or something, they would either have to rethink their choice or the precedent is set with a Democrat in office which would allow literal and complete political control of the government.
They aren’t going to make such a ruling until after the election, if Trump wins they might grant immunity but they’ll never make that ruling with Biden still in power. Biden wouldn’t get away with it, there’s nobody around that would support it (unlike GOP’s unconditional support for Trump). They also won’t have any problem striking down Biden’s actions and then later approving Trump’s (or just ignoring them)
Biden could do it now and it would be legal until ruled otherwise, the present court is myopic and it will bite them.
You underestimate how fast they would work to get it declared illegal
No, that’s literally my intention.
They can’t delay it that long, they have to issue a decision by the end of their current term, which ends when they go into summer recess in late June/early July. Granted, they could theoretically say “screw the rules” and not issue a decision until after the election, but that’s literally never been done, and if it did everyone would start ringing the alarm bells because it’s a crystal clear sign they’re corruptly abusing their power for Trump’s benefit. (Yes, I know they’re already doing this, but what they’re doing right now is blowing hard enough on a dog whistle to draw side-eye glances from passers by, while delaying a decision past the end of term would be like blowing a train whistle right next to your face.)
If they do decide to help Trump, the most likely path will be waiting until the last minute to issue a decision and then punting it back to the lower court for further review.
The outcome I’ve seen suggested is that they send it back to the lower court with minimal instructions, then waiting for the case to make it back to SCOTUS later
This is truly the only possible way. But, damn it would be nice to not have conservative pieces of shit anywhere near a position of authority over the normal people.
normal justices
I’ll believe one when I see one. The profession is simply drowning in Federal Society freaks and Ivy League snobs.
Conservatives should not be permitted to participate in government at any level.
They’ve got a plurality, at least in the economic strata that control all the material wealth. I don’t know how they stop participating in government while still retaining control of all this property.
. I don’t know how they stop participating in government while still retaining control of all this property.
Excellent point. Historically, an infestation of unchecked conservatism has never been cured peacefully.
ACAB; All Conservatives Are Bad
You do realize democrats are conservatives right?
Elaborate, please? How are Democrats Republicans, and if they aren’t, what is the difference? I genuinely don’t understand.
It sounds like the poster is looking at “conservative” by it’s more objective view. Conservative is often a brand more than a strict political position since it has connotations of fiscal austerity, calm and measured or more “traditional” in value than party X.
Conservatism outside the brand however has a political throughline that aggregates around a few specific ideas. Generally speaking what they are actually conserving (once you bust through the rhetoric that usually tries to disguise it) is the idea of heirachy and legitimizing pre-existing power structures that stack power vertically rather than scattering it horizontally.
Not all Democrats are highly “conservative” but those who aren’t don’t tend to do well internally inside the party long term. They do however like to trot them out when allowing for starry eyed dreaming hour because it’s good for their image. The main party throughline is kind of middle of the scale. It’s not to say they can’t be forced to be less conservative by circumstance since as long as they are more “Progressive” in ways that align with that branding pattern than their opposition then they are bound to need to back that image up from time to time to get to keep that spot in the minds of their audience as being “left of center” .
But “Progressive” just like “conservative” has shallow surface level brand connotations that have nothing to do with the political compass.
He didn’t say Dems are Republicans, he said they’re conservatives. Not the same thing. However, Republicans are conservatives too.
And yet, it wasn’t explained how Democrats are conservatives, whatever that means. I just hear Republicans are conservative, now this one rando is saying Dems are conservative, what does that even mean, anymore? What does democrat or republican mean if they are being accused of being the same? How are they the same?
Three US democratic party is fairly “conservative” relative to European social democracies. That’s all.
And what does that mean?
You won’t be getting universal healthcare, decent paid parental leave, comprehensive worker protections, or 4-8 weeks’ holiday pay per year for the foreseeable future.
Just to define the term: Conservative = right of center on the political spectrum.
That “rando” meant that Democrats, which are considered “left” in the US, are actually pretty far towards the right by most other countries’ standards. This is due to the Overton window shifting pretty far towards the right in the US in recent years.
Republicans are just even further towards the right.
In lay terms, without referring to graphics, what does that mean? ELI5, please? People keep saying left and right like it means something.
From Wikipedia:
Left-wing politics typically involve a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished
Also from Wikipedia:
Right-wing politics are considered the counterpart to left-wing politics, and the left–right political spectrum is one of the most widely accepted political spectrums.[16] The right includes social conservatives and fiscal conservatives[17][18][19] as well as right-libertarians. “Right” and “right-wing” have been variously used as compliments and pejoratives describing neoliberal, conservative, and fascist economic and social ideas.
Man, you’re in a politics community, left and right is like basic knowledge. I’m happy to educate, but did you even google it? If not, do that first and then I’ll be happy to help clear stuff up, but please put in at least a little bit of effort.
You can’t tell me that anything like a Conservative Democrat exists, much less that they control the leadership positions within the party. I won’t believe it.
I sure do.
Neoliberals are conservatives. They have just a bit more tact than Republican conservatives, but they are still conservatives by every developed international standard. The Dems have a couple progressive members, but the majority are neoliberals, unfortunately.
We don’t have a progressive party. We have a conservative party and a more conservative party.
With a more representative electoral system like Ranked Choice, more people would have been driven to the polls. More people voting equals more democratic votes.
How we vote is controlled at the state level, so why haven’t blue states passed electoral reform? Don’t the democrats want more votes? Why would the democratic party say no to these extra votes?
Is keeping 3rd parties from joining the table worth sacrificing the nation to the Republican’s nightmare?
Electoral reform won’t make blue states more blue. More people turning out doesn’t matter if they’re already voting for you, so you gain nothing. It would result in minor parties getting elected more often, which would weaken the power of the DNC. Obviously, the DNC doesn’t want that.
You are correct, the objective of ranked choice voting is not to empower the two existing parties. It is to create a system that it amenable to having more than two parties so of course the powers that be who benefit from that system don’t want that - which is why it needs to be pressed because the two major block parties increasingly obstructionist and diverging will eventually cause a civil war. Smaller parties allow for more nuanced takes requiring cross party concensus and break up the stratification. If the game of democracy ends the Dems will end up with their heads on a plate so whatever kickbacks they receive from the status quo won’t be worth jack.
The hypothesis behind ranked choice is that enough people would vote for a third sane option that we don’t have only choices between red and blue shitheads.
If you have a lot of people ranking like: Blue -> Red -> Con Man
And “moderates” ranking like: Red -> Con Man -> Blue
Presumably the number of people who prefer basic red over a con man would mean the con man cannot take office. Not even if a large group of Trumpanzees vote: Con Man -> Red -> Blue
Then, given that possibility, the assumption is that we would have viable third party candidates. If people could take third party candidates seriously, they are more likely to be incentivized to vote when they hate the favored top two.
IDK about the presidency because of EC bullshit, but I am pretty certain it would work like that for state and local elections.
You could definitely still use ranked choice voting in conjunction with the electoral college.
I’d still much rather get rid of the electoral college tho
It would result in minor parties getting elected more often, which would weaken the power of the DNC.
We already functionally have that fight in the primaries (both in the DNC and RNC brackets). And we do have a rump base of Tea Party Republicans who routinely sabotage the Republican majority in the House. We have an even smaller rump base of progressives in the Dem party who mostly just exist to get censured by the Ethics Committee for being too antiwar or pro-Palestinian.
3rd parties have their own primaries and don’t effect DNC or RNC primaries
Winning a primary as a member of a caucus in a major party gives you better odds of taking a seat than winning a primary in a 3rd party.
So people tend to endorse internal party caucuses, which then function as de facto third parties.
With a more representative electoral system like Ranked Choice, more people would have been driven to the polls.
Ranked Choice only matters when you’ve got a third position that successfully triangulates between the other two positions.
But when Democrats already do all the triangulation and Republicans simply push conspiracy theory to the farthest rightward fringe, and Republicans still win by large margins in big states, there’s no material benefit to ranked choice voting.
Is keeping 3rd parties from joining the table worth sacrificing the nation to the Republican’s nightmare?
Any 3rd party simply becomes the whipping boy of the other two parties. Ranked choice won’t change that. Republicans will still despise Libertarians and Democrats will still despise Greens.
And a private corporate news media that profits off fear and resentment won’t make these peripheral parties more appealing.
You have zero conception of how ranked choice voting works.
When one party is winning 50%+ of the vote by fielding increasingly far-right candidates to an audience of increasingly far right voters, the only thing Ranked Choice Voting accomplishes is to change the mechanism by which a new far-right candidate wins the seat.
So give it to us anyway and we’ll see if your predictions are true. Can’t hurt to find out.
if it’s not done correctly; it would guarantee that our current system is locked in forever
Ranked Choice only matters when you’ve got a third position that successfully triangulates between the other two positions.
Hold it!
Uhh…
What on earth are you talking about?
Guy A: 52% of the vote because Far-Right
Guy B: 48% of the vote because Moderate and we have this lingering progressive block dragged along for the ride.
Ranked Choice Guy: “If we can just convince 2% to go for Guy C and then Guy B and then Guy A, then Guy B will win!”
Guy C: Splits Guy B’s vote in the first round, but doesn’t win any of Guy A’s vote, because he’s not the Most Far Right Guy.
Guy A Still Wins.
Ranked Choice Accomplished Nothing.
This basically describes how things work now… It should be more like GuyA: 42% GuyB: 38% GuyC: 20%
So guyC gets cut and most of his votes go to guy B
Starting with guyA having 52% means he would have won outright
So guyC gets cut and most of his votes go to guy B
That holds when you have a 58% “moderate-left” swing.
It doesn’t hold when you’ve got a 52% “far-right” swing.
Starting with guyA having 52% means he would have won outright
Right. And that’s the problem Ranked Choice Voting can’t solve. When you have a poll of far right voters who control the election, you’re still going to get far-right candidates.
The question is why states like Florida and Texas and South Dakota and West Virginia are so chronically overwhelmed with far-right voters. And the answer we’ve seen - time and time again going back to the end of Reconstruction - is that states don’t want minority groups or young people or poor people to participate in elections. So they disenfranchise these groups, by hook or crook.
And absent a fix for this systematic disenfranchisement, you’re just shifting around deck chairs on the Titanic.
I see what you’re saying… Yes I agree, the election system itself needs to be corrected so everyone has equal opportunity to vote
deleted by creator
But when Democrats already do all the triangulation
They don’t. And politics isn’t so easily boiled down to a single axis - Democrats are focused on social issues that are easy to repeal. This will save the lives of minority groups right now, but allow billions to die from climate change.
Democrats are focused on social issues
What part of the Russia-Ukraine War, the Inflation Reduction Act, or the CHIPS Act strike you as “social issues”?
This will save the lives of minority groups right now, but allow billions to die from climate change.
Climate Change is and always has fundamentally been an economic issue. We’re not trying to keep the Earth from spiking ten degrees because we’re obsessed with the Spotted Owl. This shit is threatening trillions of dollars of accrued real estate and trillions more of agricultural output.
focused on social issues that are easy to repeal
I mean focused in the literal sense, and didn’t mean to imply exclusively. You did provide examples of things the Republicans can simply undo, rather than improving our representation in goverment.
Climate Change is and always has fundamentally been an economic issue.
It’s fair to say that everything has at least some economic component. Climate change is a bit more than that because our lives have no value in their calculations. The trajectory we’re on now already maximizes the net present value of real estate.
Republicans and Democrats are working for the same corporate bosses. Third parties might actually want to represent the people.
Literally yes. It is Pepsi and Coke. They act like they’re not friends but they’d rather be the only soda on the block and make it harder for others.
On top of that Dems feel they should always be a shoe in for victory compared to these dunderheads.
You guys don’t get it yet? They all talk, they coordinated not to pass it then decided who can vote what to piss off the least amount of their constituents. That’s it, it’s all politics.
The fact that your supreme court is even willing to deal with the question of whether a president should have absolute immunity pretty much says it all.
True, but not hearing it would piss off the retarded half of the country. So they hear it, everyone panders to whoever they need, and here we are. This country is completely broken, both sides are garbage, it’s all a show so they can get away with whatever they want and feed us just enough to keep us from rising up in any productive way. We are just the herd, we don’t matter, we are a byproduct and we cultivate their money and lifestyle. They just can’t tell us that openly. Even “voting”, they will keep gerrymandering to keep it close. The dems will allow them to because dispite being widely more popular in the popular vote, they need the Villan of the Republicans to keep pushing things to the right to keep their game going. If they fought it, then someone would come along further to the left and the jig is up. Look what they did to Bernie, the only genuine candidate in my lifetime.
I don’t think very many people realize just how broken we are, and it is beyond any diplomatic way of fixing. We either ride the ship while it sinks or take the helm at this point. Capitalism+Citizens United+legal lobbiests/bribes+Insider trading allowed by congess members= you’re gonna have a bad time. And the only people that can change it is congress themselves, so they as a whole need to decide to cost themselves millions and millions of dollars. Never gonna happen peacefully. Nothing surprises me with the Supreme Court. Or any other politician. They are actually human garbage scum of the earth willing to lie, cheat, and steal. Willing to back a country that is blowing up children and hospitals so they can make some money from arms dealers. Fuck them all. They are a stain on the history of humanity.
/rant
I’m from Germany, but I see myself more as a European, because I don’t think much of national concepts, if only because of our past. Having said that, against the background of the past decades, it seems almost desirable to me that the situation in America now makes it obvious to everyone that the US system does not serve the American people. You have long been a role model for us: a successful democracy that promises its citizens prosperity and freedom. Many of my fellow citizens are only now realizing that this has never been the case, as the massive flaws in your system make it obvious that this is not a system for the people, but a system for the powerful. I sincerely hope that this realization can somewhat help humanity overcome greed and hubris to find a better way. But I have little hope, if only because even here in Germany I can see that fascism is on the rise again - although the Germans should know better; unfortunately, not even my people seem to have learned anything from our terrible past. It’s enough to make you cry. So long story short: I can understand your frustration very well.
You have long been a role model for us
Not gonna lie, this stings, because like most American kids I grew up believing the bullshit as well. The truth hurts.
Be better than us.
Reagan. Reagan and his trickle down economics was the start of the absurd funneling of the money to the top. It has been a snowball rolling downhill ever since.
This is why they feel they’ve already won. They can say shit it court like the president has the authority to kill political opponents. It’s a hail mary for them, but it doesn’t matter at this point. The highest court in the US is now listening and thinking about that question.
Has anyone asked Trump that he believes if Biden want to execute him and his allies RIGHT NOW, it would be totally ok and Biden should get full immunity as well?
Exactly. If they vote in any way that gives Trump the power he asks for, Biden could do all sorts of shit. Including arresting members of the supreme court.
They always carefully qualify it as long as it’s for official actions.
That way, they can say anything Trump (or whatever future republican president) does is justified official business but they can’t share details because it’s classified, but if a dem does it, it’s not official business and not justified.
They’re just setting up the gaslighting. Their playbook is so fucking obvious.
Moderates everywhere: “Come on, you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. That’s conspiracy talk.”
